Fox and Marvel at Disagreement about the X-Men Franchise!

[The Guard]

Because those topics aren't explored, Guard.

What topic isn't explored? Because The Cure certainly is. We see it discussed by the X-Men, other mutants, Magneto, The President, Warren Worthington, his son, and Rogue has her own arc about it. Is it explored DEEPLY, or to most people's satisfaction, no. But it is explored. Each progressive scene shows (or tells, or both) us something about the cure and how it and its concept relates to those who are different, and those who want them to assimilate.

The emotions and feelings of different mutants regarding the cure isn't explored, it's briefly touched on.

Ok. So what? We never saw Wolverine's feelings about bigotry and intolerance explored in X-MEN or X2, except for him choosing to fight for Xavier's cause despite the fact that people hate and fear mutants because he wanted to take care of Rogue. It's the same kind of scenario here. There simply isn't TIME to explore every character's point of view on the cure. Nor is it neccessary to have seven different "Lessons" about the cure emerge. As it is, the movie asks us to think for ourselves about the morality and repurcussions of such an approach.
I could care less if every single character's viewpoint on the cure is EXPLORED in depth (Really, what HAS been satisfactorally explored in this franchise?), I care that it's quite simply there onscreen, and that it being there should makes us think about the cure ourselves in relation to each character. What do you call multiple scenes showing different viewpoints on the cure? Again, the filmmakers expect you to think about the cure yourself. They didn't want to force morality down anyone's throat, despite the obvious allusions to the cure as forced assimilation. As you yourself said...an issue like "the cure" is simply not black and white.

Nightcrawler's "so can faith" line plays out later in the film. It was an important line, and showed it's imporance later in the film when Storm said "I have faith".

That line barely played out. Thematically, what happened between Nightcrawler and Storm with that line doesn't even make sense. It's just call and response dialogue so she can convince him to do something. The resolution between Nightcrawler and Storm is somewhat pointless, and amounts to no more to me than a nice moment between them. Storm's line is "I have faith in you". Hey, that's great. Except that at no point in the movie is anything regarding Storm not having faith set up. Ever. Just that she's angry about how she's been treated, and is riding that anger to survive. What is set up is her being ANGRY, and using that to survive. So where's that resolved? Oh. It isn't. Hell, the end "faith" scene is more about Nightcrawler having faith in himself than anything about her (which is thin, at best, with his "I could wind up inside a wall" stuff). It's a simple "call and response" piece of dialogue. What would have been relevant is if Storm found something other than anger to live for at the end of the movie, and recognized that. She didn't exactly find "faith" on any level, because it's never shown that she doesn't trust Nigthcrawler, or have faith in him, or in others.

Magneto's actions in X-Men weren't explored as deeply, because it wasn't as contriversial. It was black and white. It is Magneto does this, and people die.

In X-MEN, why Magneto does what he does was clearly shown and told to us. It's hardly as simple as "Magneto does this, people die". And frankly, why Storm feels the way she does about the cure was told to us. So why can't it be "Certain mutants believe this, and that's what they believe"?

The topic of the cure isn't so black and white.

What's that have to do with whether the movie explores Storm personal POV on it or not? The movie shows AND tells us that the cure isn't black and white, in several ways. There's even a sequence that speaks to that between Beast and Storm. And Rogue's role in the movie only further brings this idea forward.

The most depth of that arc comes from Magneto, who throughout the film is building his army against it.

What do those scenes even have to do with anything? If anything, those sequences only show that some mutants don't like being forced to assimilate, and become suspicious and vigilant when it seems that's what others want for them. They don't really say anything about the concept of the cure itself.

We see some protestors in the background, yes, and it's a nice touch. But it's just that, the background.

Those protestors are there for a reason. Much like the "We hate mutant' protestors in X-MEN showed us the general social attitude toward mutation, the protestors on both sides of the cure serve to show us that beliefs about the cure are divisive and varied. In essence, these sequences remind us that things aren't so black and white.

We don't truly get into the psyche of why mutants are against it.

Try using your common sense. Why would someone who is different be offended that someone else wants them to change who they are just to fit in? This is why Storm's dialogue is so important. The writers use Storm to speak for essentially all mutants who are against the cure.
Being asked to "cure yourself" of something that is not inherently wrong or harmful to anyone is unfair. It's not fair to be labeled "diseased" just because you're different. It's not fair to be expected to assimilate, to change who you are to suit someone else's ideals, just because you are different. And there it is. And the film SPELLS IT OUT. It's not something that's hard to see. Storm flat out SAYS it. "No. They can't cure us. Since when did we become a disease?" There's nothing wrong with us. With any of us."
On the same note, where did we ever get into anyone's psyche over the real issues in X-MEN or X2, except for Magneto? Where do we see, for instance, why Jean, Storm and Cyclops fight for Xavier's cause? We didn't. The film expects you to think about these issues and draw conclusions in context of the themes.

Magneto hates it, because he sees it as an act of extermination against his people, the act of extermination that he's been predicting since X-Men.

Magneto hates the cure because he sees it as a mechanic to removing what he is, what he is proudest of (his differences), and THEN as a possible act of extermination. In fact, while he uses the threat of extermination to stir others to fight the cure, you'll notice it never comes up again. What does come up is Magneto's fear over being cured.

Storm says a couple lines on the issue.

A couple lines that speak VOLUMES about how some mutants likely feel about the cure.

The movie was hyped up as this big contriversial thing, the script was so great because it tackled the issue of giving up who you were to fit in, or embrace who you were. This topic was never explored.

Then why exactly is Angel's scene about giving up who he is to fit in or embracing who he is? Why are Rogue's scenes about Rogue considering giving up who she is to fit in, or embrace who she is? Was it explored as well as it could have been, with point by point assessment from the characters, and a satisfying resolution? No, but it was framed.

ONE freaking scene of Angel jumping out of a window does not make exploration of a topic. Why did Angel choose to reject the cure? Why, when he was cutting off his wings as a child to fit in, did he decide now to embrace his mutation? We don't know. We just know that he made that choice.

I don't know why Angel made that decision, but we can make logical guesses that make perfect sense. Angel is only a PART of the thematic. And in Angel's case, it was as simple as "Don't let other people tell you how to think. Maybe being different isn't bad just because others say so". Hence the last lines of that sequence being "It's what we all want", and then "No. It's what you want." It's not rocket science. People seem to think we need to have a scene where Angel goes "Well, my dad hates my wings, but I'm starting to see some value to them". I hardly think that's neccessary, given what the film SHOWS us.

Why does Storm think that there's nothing wrong with mutants? We don't know, we're just told that she does.

Because she's learned to embrace her gifts. To embrace being different.

For a film that was supposed to touch on these subjects, it didn't.

Sure it touched on them. It just didn't explore them deeply.

It didn't explore these issues and give the audience something to think about. The cure was seen as a bad thing throughout the whole film. Except for Rogue, who wants to sex her boyfriend.

Do audiences now need to see a light on the screen that says "Hey audiences, we just had a character make a really good point, so now, take some time to think about this in the larger context of the world you live in"? If you didn't find the impetus to think about the cure and the various intersections with society, being different, etc, during the film, that's your issue.
And Rogue is not shown to want sex with her boyfriend. Do we see Bobby and Kitty getting it on and Rogue jealous of that? No. We see Bobby and Kitty TOUCHING. And Rogue is only shown to want to TOUCH people. It's right there in the dialogue. "A handshake. A hug. A kiss." There is NOTHING wrong with wanting those things (or sex, for that matter, really). Especially if you're Rogue. Yes, she hints that Bobby might want sex (physicality), but the moment is clearly more about her being upset about the fact that she can't touch him, and upset at the way things are going because she can't. And she SAYS as much. "What's wrong is that I can't touch my boyfriend without killing him".

I've said it time and again; it's there, but there is no depth to it.

I never said there was a ton of depth to the cure or its exploration. You implied earlier that we never saw how mutants felt about it, period, and I found that ridiculous. The issues with the cure are right there in the film. Honestly, if you have to be told why characters symbolizing different people feel rejected, or are angry, or afraid, or any of that...or need it spelled out, then just how the hell do you understand X-MEN and X2 to begin with?

When Singer implemented something, he didn't just tell us, he showed us.

Really? Where do we ever see why Storm is afraid, or angry?

Ratner didn't use subltly, it was either blatant in your face, or not there at all. And he didn't develop anything. He didn't explore anything. It was a simple explanation, to get the explanation out there, and then it was done with.

What was explored so deeply in X-MEN and X2, aside from Magneto's motivations?

With Singer, when he told us something, he also took it deeper, and showed us, truly exploring.

So tell me then...since you can do this "They didn't explore the results of one line" thing. Why didn't Singer explore an entire scene that had meaning...why is Storm afraid of humans in X-MEN, and angry at them in X2?

In X-Men: The Last Stand, we're told.

You're told and shown a lot of things.

\We're told that Jean has a dual personality. We don't see it. She's Phoenix through the entire film. Except for a scene in the infirmary, we don't get a sense that Jean is still Jean.

Jean is clearly still Jean when she rises and sees Scott. There is not a single line in X3 that says "Jean has a dual personality". There's a line about Phoenix struggling tobe free...which we see, and then Phoenix breaks free. While a dual personality, or disassociative identity disorder, may be the basis for the writers idea of Phoenix, that is not how it's played in the film. Phoenix is played as a repressed part of Jean's mind who takes over. She is not meant to go "back and forth" in the film. (In reality, dual personalities can last a long time without switching on or off).

We're told that Storm doesn't like the cure. But we don't get into any exploration of that issue. We're told in one conversation that she's against it. But there's no further explanation or building of that character point.

Right, but the issue is not that STORM DOESN'T LIKE THE CURE. It's that MUTANTS DON'T LIKE THE CURE. And that IS explored. There's a community action meeting. There's Magneto's stuff. And there's Angel. You're acting like every line of dialogue someone says has to "pay off" somehow, or be the payoff to something else.
Again, it's not only meant to be Storm's character point. It's meant to convey how some mutants might feel about the cure, without having eighteen mutants tell us "there's nothing wrong with me, why are they forcing me to assimilate?".

On the flip, we're shown Beast's conflicted feelings towards the matter, but it is not anything that's explored. He stands up to the President, resigning for the President's actions of weaponizing the cure, but his own personal issues with the cure are never explored. We're shown once. Again, that development becomes ignored.[/wuote]
His personal issues with the cure don't NEED to be explored (Unless you're incapable of interpreting a performance). We're SHOWN them. Do you want a scene where he's holding the cure needle in one hand, and fighting himself out loud on whether or not to take it? Beast's issues with the cure are raised in the beginning, and we see that he's tempted, but that he doesn't go for it.
And understand, I'm not pretending Beast's development in X3 is anything stellar. It's not. But none of the development in these films has really been.

"There's something you're not telling us" - Storm to Xavier. Once it's said, it's ignored for the remainder of the film.

He's clearly referring to Dark Phoenix or The Cure. Either has impact in the film. So it clearly pays off.

We're told or shown once, and then once it's done, it's not touched upon again, forgotten in favor of the next development.

It's not forgotten. It's either referring the The Cure or Dark Phoenix. Both of those things end up causing waves in the X-Men's lives, and making things "worse before they get better".

Singer didn't ignore the issues he touched upon. Everything he established was not just forgotten in favor of the next development. It was something that was explored. Yes, some things were more explored than others, but not everything needs extreme analysis.

Aha? Not everything needs extreme analysis, you say?

In X-Men: The Last Stand, things weren't explored. They were established, and then forgotten about.

You repeat yourself a lot. Again, if this is a flaw, it's a flaw X-MEN and X2 shared with X3 in places.

But it's so minimal. It's simple.

What wouldn't be simple? You apparently want to see point to point development of themes and topics. Which even X-MEN and X2 did not have. I'm not sure there would have been room for that much in X3, even had it been 20-30 minutes longer.

 

[BMM]

Jean is clearly still Jean when she rises and sees Scott. There is not a single line in X3 that says "Jean has a dual personality". There's a line about Phoenix struggling tobe free...which we see, and then Phoenix breaks free. While a dual personality, or disassociative identity disorder, may be the basis for the writers idea of Phoenix, that is not how it's played in the film. Phoenix is played as a repressed part of Jean's mind who takes over. She is not meant to go "back and forth" in the film. (In reality, dual personalities can last a long time without switching on or off).

Professor Xavier: When she was a girl, I created a series of psychic barriers to isolate her powers from her conscious mind, and as a result, Jean developed a dual personality.

 

[no1phoenixfan]

BMM, Nell2thaIzzay and for sunrise who got my attention.

This post is now edited.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

BMM even though i agree mostly with you pointing out that we didn't get to see Jean's/Phoenix persona's changing back and forth too often.
Jean's persona did comeout for a couple of moments when Logan went after Jean. The Jean logical persona came out even if it was for a few moments.. while Magneto whenever he said in the end of his speech we will use this poison against them.. that's when Jean had a quick expression almost like she was troubled of what he said, and that she was thinking but then she got distracted by Logan whenever she spotted him in the crowd. Then her persona changed back to phoenix when Magneto used his powers on Logan's adamantium.

What we're saying is there wasn't enough of that. All Jean did was stand around for the rest of the film and did nothing, except look like a mute ready to explode at any moment.

It's definitely not how I viewed the Phoenix saga after reading it.

 

[no1phoenixfan]

What we're saying is there wasn't enough of that. All Jean did was stand around for the rest of the film and did nothing, except look like a mute ready to explode at any moment.

It's definitely not how I viewed the Phoenix saga after reading it.

My bad sunrise.

I apologise BMM for misunderstanding, just please ignore my earlier post.

I agree with you sunrise that it did bother me as well, that whoever was responsible at fox, they didn't give her character more to do, and didn't give her hardly enough lines, instead we got her standing around a lot, or just walking with Magneto and the brotherhood not doing or saying anything.

 

[no1phoenixfan]

Sorry double post.

 

[BMM]

No worries no1phoenixfan. Besides, The Guard is quoting Nell2ThaIzzay; not me. I was just pointing out that there is a line in the movie which refers to Jean as having a dual personality. I do agree though that not enough of Jean’s internal conflict is presented. Luckily, I have an understanding of the mythos to know what’s going on, although I can’t necessarily say the same for moviegoers who don’t already have a pre-existing knowledge of the source material.

 

[no1phoenixfan]

No worries no1phoenixfan. Besides, The Guard is quoting Nell2ThaIzzay; not me. I was just pointing out that there is a line in the movie which refers to Jean as having a dual personality. I do agree though that not enough of Jean’s internal conflict is presented. Luckily, I have an understanding of the mythos to know what’s going on, although I can’t necessarily say the same for moviegoers who don’t already have a pre-existing knowledge of the source material.

I understand, i'm going to edit that post for you, and for Nell2ThaIzzay.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

What topic isn't explored? Because The Cure certainly is. We see it discussed by the X-Men, other mutants, Magneto, The President, Warren Worthington, his son, and Rogue has her own arc about it. Is it explored DEEPLY, or to most people's satisfaction, no. But it is explored. Each progressive scene shows (or tells, or both) us something about the cure and how it and its concept relates to those who are different, and those who want them to assimilate.

It's not explored DEEPLY, which is exactly my point about the film not having DEPTH.

Deep, Depth.......

Ok. So what? We never saw Wolverine's feelings about bigotry and intolerance explored in X-MEN or X2

Difference: Wolverine's views on bigotry and intolerance weren't established as character traits in X-Men and X2. Storm's views on the cure WERE established as a character trait in X-Men: The Last Stand, except nothing was given to us on that subject except for one brief conversation in which she has about 3 or 4 anti-cure lines.

, except for him choosing to fight for Xavier's cause despite the fact that people hate and fear mutants because he wanted to take care of Rogue.

That was the character arc that was established in the film, so his bigotry and intolerance views aren't important.

Storm's anti-cure view was established, and therefore is important to the film.

It's the same kind of scenario here. There simply isn't TIME to explore every character's point of view on the cure. Nor is it neccessary to have seven different "Lessons" about the cure emerge. As it is, the movie asks us to think for ourselves about the morality and repurcussions of such an approach.

So there simply isn't enough time to explore character arcs that you've gone out of your way to establish in the film?

Then... maybe you should either A. Add more time or B. Not establish those character arcs.

And here we come to the biggest complaint about X-Men: The Last Stand... many different character arcs were established, but never developed or fleshed out, and were sacrificed to the back burner, because there "wasn't enough time".

Angel wasn't fleshed out AT ALL, yet the creative team went through great pains to establish his character arc in the OPENING SEQUENCE... yet didn't find his arc important enough to actually follow up on.

Storm's anti-cure sentiments were important enough to establish, but not important enough to follow up on.

Phoenix's motivations were important enough to establish, but not important enough to follow up on.

The only character who was truly fleshed out was Magneto. He's the only one who really had his goals and character arcs established, and fully fleshed out. Everyone else had the bare bones minimum just to establish it, but nothing was ever fleshed out.

For some people, it ruined the film. For me, it didn't ruin it, however, it lacked a certain quality that Singer's films had. Films, novels, plays, stories in general, are better when the arcs and plot points you establish are actually fleshed out. It gives more meaning to the story you are telling. When you don't flesh out your plot points and character arcs, the story becomes more generic.

I think that X-Men: The Last Stand had plenty of other qualities to make up for this error, and in the end, be a very good movie, as good as the other films (As good as X2 in it's own way, and better than X-Men.) However, the lack of these storytelling pieces kept this movie from being as good as I felt it would have been had it actually had the proper fleshing out of plot points and character arcs.

I could care less if every single character's viewpoint on the cure is EXPLORED in depth (Really, what HAS been satisfactorally explored in this franchise?), I care that it's quite simply there onscreen, and that it being there should makes us think about the cure ourselves in relation to each character. What do you call multiple scenes showing different viewpoints on the cure? Again, the filmmakers expect you to think about the cure yourself. They didn't want to force morality down anyone's throat, despite the obvious allusions to the cure as forced assimilation. As you yourself said...an issue like "the cure" is simply not black and white.

I don't want morals preached down my throat, either.

But when a particular character arc or plot point is established, I want to see it fleshed out, and expanded upon. I don't want to just see it there, and have it ignored throughout the rest of the film.

What HAS been satisfactory in the exploration of topics?

The ideals between Xavier and Magneto. Magneto's motivations for his extremist actions. Nightcrawler's faith. Stryker's hatred of mutants. Pyro's disobedience of authority, and his attraction to having his own ego stroked. Mystique's pride of her mutation. Iceman's responsibility and devotion to Rogue. Rogue's depression over her "disability".

These are all things that were constantly touched upon in the film. They weren't plot points that were established, and then forgotten about. Nightcrawler's faith was a part of his character. It's what made him a character, not just an actor in blue body paint. Storm's opinion of the cure wasn't part of her character, she was just an actress in a white wig.

That line barely played out. Thematically, what happened between Nightcrawler and Storm with that line doesn't even make sense. It's just call and response dialogue so she can convince him to do something. The resolution between Nightcrawler and Storm is somewhat pointless, and amounts to no more to me than a nice moment between them. Storm's line is "I have faith in you". Hey, that's great. Except that at no point in the movie is anything regarding Storm not having faith set up. Ever. Just that she's angry about how she's been treated, and is riding that anger to survive. What is set up is her being ANGRY, and using that to survive. So where's that resolved? Oh. It isn't. Hell, the end "faith" scene is more about Nightcrawler having faith in himself than anything about her (which is thin, at best, with his "I could wind up inside a wall" stuff). It's a simple "call and response" piece of dialogue. What would have been relevant is if Storm found something other than anger to live for at the end of the movie, and recognized that. She didn't exactly find "faith" on any level, because it's never shown that she doesn't trust Nigthcrawler, or have faith in him, or in others.

The difference is that the entire faith angle was Nightcrawler's character. It's what was established when we first met the character, and it wasn't something that was just thrown out the window after they "got that out of the way"...

That's exactly what X-Men: The Last Stand did. Storm's opinion of the cure? She hates it. Okay, we've gotten that out of the way, NEXT!

Nightcrawler's faith is a part of his character, something that makes him a character throughout the entire film. Storm's "I have faith" reflects that, because that's how she can connect to him; through his faith.

In X-MEN, why Magneto does what he does was clearly shown and told to us. It's hardly as simple as "Magneto does this, people die". And frankly, why Storm feels the way she does about the cure was told to us. So why can't it be "Certain mutants believe this, and that's what they believe"?

Because it's a character trait that was forgotten after it was "out of the way", and Storm retracted back to her 2-dimensional self.

This was something that could have defined her as a character, but it wasn't there, and it played absolutley no factor what so ever in what was the dominate plot of the film, the cure.

I don't know about you, but when a character expresses an opinion about something that will be the dominate plotline of the story, I expect that opinion to actually play a factor for that character in the story. When Romeo & Juliet died, they weren't just merely 2 emo teenagers who killed themselves... no, there were rectifications to their families, whose fued was the cause of their children's deaths.

But in X-Men: The Last Stand, Storm's opinion of the cure is quickly forgotten about, and is a total non-factor.

What's that have to do with whether the movie explores Storm personal POV on it or not? The movie shows AND tells us that the cure isn't black and white, in several ways. There's even a sequence that speaks to that between Beast and Storm. And Rogue's role in the movie only further brings this idea forward.

BECAUSE STORM'S POINT OF VIEW WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AS A PLOT POINT FOR HER CHARACTER! BUT INSTEAD OF THAT PLOT POINT ACTUALLY PLAYING A ROLE IN HER CHARACTER, IT IS FORGOTTEN ABOUT AND PUSHED ASIDE!

What do those scenes even have to do with anything? If anything, those sequences only show that some mutants don't like being forced to assimilate, and become suspicious and vigilant when it seems that's what others want for them. They don't really say anything about the concept of the cure itself.

It says exactly what it needs to say, which is Magneto's view on the cure. Magneto views the cure as a stepping stone towards extermination of his kind. It's the backbone of his entire character arc. And to give credit to the film makers, it is one character arc that was actually developed. His entire arc is based on his view of the cure, it's his entire motivation.

Storm doesn't need the whole film devoted to her opinion, but when that arc is established, to see it actually play a role in the film, and her character, would be nice.

Those protestors are there for a reason. Much like the "We hate mutant' protestors in X-MEN showed us the general social attitude toward mutation, the protestors on both sides of the cure serve to show us that beliefs about the cure are divisive and varied. In essence, these sequences remind us that things aren't so black and white.

The point isn't that it wasn't a nice touch. It was. But it's a background touch. And that's pretty much what the "opinion" of the cure was, was the background. You can't use background demonstrators to show the public opinion of the cure. But that's what they did.

We got insight on the cure from 2 characters; Magneto and Rogue. Everyone else who had an opinion, their opinion was shoved to the background with the protestors. Beast, Storm, Angel, all who had very brilliant scenes regarding the cure (Beast with Leech, Storm discussing the cure with Beast, Wolverine, and Xavier, and Angel's "breaking free" sequence), to ESTABLISH THEIR CHARACTER'S PLOT POINTS FOR THE DOMINATE PLOT, ended up having no character what so ever with regards to the dominate plot of the story. They all had their established character traits ignored, simply because they got that out of the way, and it was time to move on.

Try using your common sense. Why would someone who is different be offended that someone else wants them to change who they are just to fit in? This is why Storm's dialogue is so important. The writers use Storm to speak for essentially all mutants who are against the cure.

You're right. That dialogue is important.

The problem is, we never learn why someone would be offended over that.

You just asked the question the film was trying to answer, but the film never answered it.

Storm was offended. Okay, the question comes; why is Storm offended?

BUT, the filmmakers "got that out of the way", so there was no more attention given to it. It was time for Storm to do some more spinning.

Being asked to "cure yourself" of something that is not inherently wrong or harmful to anyone is unfair. It's not fair to be labeled "diseased" just because you're different. It's not fair to be expected to assimilate, to change who you are to suit someone else's ideals, just because you are different. And there it is. And the film SPELLS IT OUT. It's not something that's hard to see. Storm flat out SAYS it. "No. They can't cure us. Since when did we become a disease?" There's nothing wrong with us. With any of us."

Character trait that relates to the dominate plot that was never again touched upon. No character given to the character.

On the same note, where did we ever get into anyone's psyche over the real issues in X-MEN or X2, except for Magneto? Where do we see, for instance, why Jean, Storm and Cyclops fight for Xavier's cause? We didn't. The film expects you to think about these issues and draw conclusions in context of the themes.

Those aren't even issues the movie tries to tackle though.

X-Men isn't about why they fight for Xavier, it's about them fighting for Xavier. Would knowing why they fight for Xavier help the film? Yes. But being as it wasn't an established plot point that was forgotten about, it doesn't hurt.

BUT, the character's opinions of the cure were plot points that were established. And the fact that they were then forgotten about does hurt the film.

Magneto hates the cure because he sees it as a mechanic to removing what he is, what he is proudest of (his differences), and THEN as a possible act of extermination. In fact, while he uses the threat of extermination to stir others to fight the cure, you'll notice it never comes up again. What does come up is Magneto's fear over being cured.

Yea, actually it does come up a couple times.

He mentions it in the church. THEN it comes up again when the cure is actually turned into a weapon.

BAM! Established plot point, and said established plot point plays a role in the film.

Magneto then uses the weaponization of the cure as his motivation to gather the army...

A couple lines that speak VOLUMES about how some mutants likely feel about the cure.

How they feel about the cure being totally forgotten, and playing a total non-factor, in a film about the cure that they feel so passionatley about.......

Then why exactly is Angel's scene about giving up who he is to fit in or embracing who he is? Why are Rogue's scenes about Rogue considering giving up who she is to fit in, or embrace who she is? Was it explored as well as it could have been, with point by point assessment from the characters, and a satisfying resolution? No, but it was framed.

Yet, we have absolutley no clue as to why Angel wants to embrace who he is...

In our very first glimpse of Angel, he's a small boy trying to cut off his wings to fit in. The next time we see Angel, he's going to get cured of his mutation. And then all of a sudden he decides to break free and escape the cure.

That's a pretty drastic plot twist, one that requires some kind of actual development. One that was given no development what so ever. One where you're left to figure out for yourself what happened.

It's one thing to have to think and put things together yourself. It's another when the filmmakers just forget to tell you what you need to think about and put together.

At some point, the story has to have some structure of it's own, and TELL you what is going on.

I don't know why Angel made that decision, but we can make logical guesses that make perfect sense. Angel is only a PART of the thematic. And in Angel's case, it was as simple as "Don't let other people tell you how to think. Maybe being different isn't bad just because others say so". Hence the last lines of that sequence being "It's what we all want", and then "No. It's what you want." It's not rocket science. People seem to think we need to have a scene where Angel goes "Well, my dad hates my wings, but I'm starting to see some value to them". I hardly think that's neccessary, given what the film SHOWS us.

But it IS!

He was mutilating himself the very first time we saw him! Now, he's all happy go lucky about his wings?!

YES, I can put 2 and 2 together and figure out what's going on, IN SPITE of what the movie FORGOT to show us, not because they showed us something in some mind blowingly symbolic way.

It was lazy, they didn't develop an arc that should have been developed.

Because she's learned to embrace her gifts. To embrace being different.

Then why wasn't that a character arc of hers throughout the film?

Sure it touched on them. It just didn't explore them deeply.

And we go back to my original claim of "no depth"...

So you agree with me...

Then why do you feel the need to argue with me and prove me wrong if you agree with me that there is no depth to this movie?

I'm not even going to finish the rest of this.

This is ridiculous, and I've already repeated myself about 9 times in this post alone.

 

[X-Maniac]

But can we expect depth in a franchise with so many characters.

We've never really found out how Storm and Cyclops came to be at the school, we only found out how and why Jean got there in X3.

In X2, we don't know why Storm is angry, why she has given up on pity. We have to assume Nightcrawler needs faith because of his freakish appearance - and yet despite his religion and need for faith, he chose to be a circus acrobat flaunting his freakishness. Presumably, the circus offered an environment where 'freaks' were more accepted (as in the carnival freakshow), so was it just faith that was helping him --- he was seeking an environment where he could feel safe and accepted, where he could blend in among the bizarre, colourful and unconventional. Which is what Xavier's students were doing at that school, and yet he was surprised about that. And we don't know how a Munich acrobat ended up sleeping on the altar of a Boston church. Did Storm really show that much character growth when she said 'I have faith' - was it that she had suddenly found faith, or that she was giving Nighcrawler faith, affirming the faith that he needed. She said 'I have faith in you', she didn't say 'I have found faith in myself.'

There isn't really much depth to anyone throughout the movies. Only Magneto stands out as a fully rounded character whose motivations are crystal clear and shown to us on screen.

Pyro changes dramatically between X1 and X2. We don't know his background, we don't really know why he is so bitter and why he becomes such a psycho. Is jealousy of Bobby Drake's family (who aren't that nice a family as it turns out, certainly nothing to be jealous about) enough to drive him to Magneto's brotherhood?

Why are Sabretooth, Toad and Mystique with the Brotherhood? We have one line from Mystique in X1 ('It's because of people like you that i was afraid to go to school') that establishes some characterisation and motivation.

Why is Jason - the master of manipulation - so easily manipulated by his father? Why didn't Xavier try harder to help someone so powerful? A master illusionist like that could have been a fantastic addition to the X-Men.

In my view, there is no more depth in the first two movies. There are just fewer characters, and therefore the illusion that they are better serviced. But they aren't. The henchmen are just henchmen, the main characters are often just 'there' in what is a theme-driven movie not a character-driven movie.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Storm's reasons for being angry not being explored is a flaw with X-Men and X2. It's part of the major flaw of Storm's adaptation in the films. Not only is she out of character, but we don't even know why the changes were made.

The X-Men's cause for fighting for Xavier, and the Brotherhood's cause for fighting for Magneto, aren't plot points that were covered by the film. They weren't part of the story. So therefore, they didn't need to be covered.

Jean's "origins" were vital, because her backstory was part of the story that was being told in X-Men: The Last Stand. The reasons why Callisto and the Morlocks would fight with Magneto is part of the story of The Last Stand, and something that is covered. Considering the fact that Magneto also recruited Multiple Man and Juggernaut for his cause, their motives should have been touched upon as well. Instead, we're left with 2 mutants, who have never met Magneto before, and would have no clue as to what his fight was for, blindly joining his cause for God knows what reason. Yet another example of the lack of depth, and the lazy way out approach taken by this creative team.

How exactly did Pyro change between X-Men and X2? Pyro was merely a 1 scene cameo in X-Men, he wasn't even a character! So how exactly did he change as a character between the 2 films? Let alone dramatically...

If you can't see any more depth in X-Men and X2 than in X-Men: The Last Stand, then I don't know if you're giving X-Men: The Last Stand too much credit, or X-Men and X2 not enough. Either way, I feel that you may not have the greatest concept of what goes into good character development if you actually feel that X-Men: The Last Stand was on the same level as the previous 2.

Argue what you will about how it did or didn't impact the film for you, but I am absolutley baffled as to how you can sit there and say that X-Men: The Last Stand had just as much depth and character development as X-Men and X2.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

Is it weird for me to say, a big difference I feel between X1/X2 and X3 are the creative drives behind the films? I feel that unlike X1/X2, the creative forces behind X3 had other things in mind besides the story and characters...like money. Don't get me wrong, most films nowadays are created soley for that purpose, money. However, to me, X3 felt so much different than X1 and X2 because of the reasons behind them. The characters, whether they were fleshed out or not, in X1/X2 were handled with such grace and delicacy, the stories, felt real and ran with a purpose. The people behind the first two films really cared for this world. That's how I feel and see the biggest differences in the films. If that makes any sense.

 

[Mother_Askani]

What I thought was missing was the "gray area" that makes X-Men stories interesting. The characters' feelings on the cure were well established, but there wasn't anything done to make them question them.

In Whedon and Cassaday's cure storyline, there are mutants shown who need the cure. They can't lead normal lives and some who are dangerous. For example: the little girl who inadvertently kills people in her dreams, the ghost kid begging for a body, the weird guy with his face in the middle of his body. Even Hank is de-evolving into an animal.

Rogue being able to touch people or Hank sheading on the furniture aren't convincing arguments for the cure. There needed to be something that makes characters question their stand on the issue.

I realize there isn't enough time in a movie to establish this, but it didn't even seem like Ratner wanted to. And that's something that could have added that kind of depth that was missing.

 

[Angry Sentinel]

there's only NOT enough time because they had a clusterf**k of elements introduced by Singer that they DECIDED to wrap up in ONE movie. Had the storyline been given it's own run, we may have gotten something meaningful... but money and politics dictated differently.

 

[The Guard]

Professor Xavier: When she was a girl, I created a series of psychic barriers to isolate her powers from her conscious mind, and as a result, Jean developed a dual personality.

My mistake.

Luckily, I have an understanding of the mythos to know what’s going on, although I can’t necessarily say the same for moviegoers who don’t already have a pre-existing knowledge of the source material.

But does the average moviegoer really care how the film relates to the comics? All the average moviegoer needs to know is that Jean succumbed to another force within her and became Dark Phoenix.

It's not explored DEEPLY, which is exactly my point about the film not having DEPTH.

Deep, Depth.......

Nothing has really been explored DEEPLY in this franchise. Does that mean that none of the films have depth?

Difference: Wolverine's views on bigotry and intolerance weren't established as character traits in X-Men and X2. Storm's views on the cure WERE established as a character trait in X-Men: The Last Stand, except nothing was given to us on that subject except for one brief conversation in which she has about 3 or 4 anti-cure lines.

Which clearly shows you her POV on the cure. She's anti-cure. Put that together with what you know about Storm from X-MEN and X2, none of which, btw, was expanded upon in any way, shape or form.

That was the character arc that was established in the film, so his bigotry and intolerance views aren't important.

That's not an arc. That's a point of view. An arc is something like...Rogue deciding to investigate curing herself, or Wolverine going from loner to leader. Storm's "arc" in X3 is to take over as a leader and to continue Xavier's school. To grow as a person, as a warrior, and as a mentor. There's never anything set up for Storm that resembles an arc about the cure.

Storm's anti-cure view was established, and therefore is important to the film.

Yes, it's important, but it doesn't mean it has to be explored.

So there simply isn't enough time to explore character arcs that you've gone out of your way to establish in the film?

It's not an arc. It's simply part of her character.

Then... maybe you should either A. Add more time or B. Not establish those character arcs.

Except that it's not an arc. You just apparently WANTED it to be one. Now, had Rogue responded to that...and had say, a scene with someone where she took issue with Storm telling her that...THEN it becomes an arc. As such, it's not.

And here we come to the biggest complaint about X-Men: The Last Stand... many different character arcs were established, but never developed or fleshed out, and were sacrificed to the back burner, because there "wasn't enough time".

Angel wasn't fleshed out AT ALL, yet the creative team went through great pains to establish his character arc in the OPENING SEQUENCE... yet didn't find his arc important enough to actually follow up on.

Question. How come it's ok for Storm's arc in X2 to last all of two scenes, but not ok for Angel's (a teritary character) to?

See, this is where you continue not to get the approach of this film. Angel's presence in the beginning of X3 is meant to show you the genesis of the idea of assimilation in the film. NOT only to speak to Angel as a character, or to establish him as an incredibly important one. Angel in the opening represents all the young people who have faced such scenarios of intolerance, and provides us for a basis to begin thinking about assimilation before the writers introduce the concept of "curing" people.
And yes, Angel wasn't really fleshed out at all. That's a weakness the X-Men films all share, not fleshing out some of the characters much. I'll be damned if I'll condemn X3 for it but excuse X-MEN and X2 for it. Would I have liked to have seen more of Angel in X3? Yes, but I would have liked to have seen more character from Pyro, more of Scott and Jean in X-MEN and X2, etc, etc, etc.

Storm's anti-cure sentiments were important enough to establish, but not important enough to follow up on.

What's the follow up going to be? Storm suddenly changing her mind? Storm struggling with whether or not to defend innocent people from Magneto because she doesn't agree with their actions re: the cure? Both of those options suck.

Phoenix's motivations were important enough to establish, but not important enough to follow up on.

What are you talking about? Phoenix's motivations were found all the way through the movie. She craved power, and she feared control. It's right there in almost every scene she's in, especially the important ones.

The only character who was truly fleshed out was Magneto. He's the only one who really had his goals and character arcs established, and fully fleshed out. Everyone else had the bare bones minimum just to establish it, but nothing was ever fleshed out. For some people, it ruined the film. For me, it didn't ruin it, however, it lacked a certain quality that Singer's films had.

I wouldn't even say Magneto was completely fleshed out, though we did see him descend deeper into his own bigotry and intolerance. But are we going to pretend Singer's films fleshed everyone out, now? Or even most characters?

Films, novels, plays, stories in general, are better when the arcs and plot points you establish are actually fleshed out. It gives more meaning to the story you are telling. When you don't flesh out your plot points and character arcs, the story becomes more generic.

Why are you even telling me this? I'm not stupid. I know how writing works.

I think that X-Men: The Last Stand had plenty of other qualities to make up for this error, and in the end, be a very good movie, as good as the other films (As good as X2 in it's own way, and better than X-Men.) However, the lack of these storytelling pieces kept this movie from being as good as I felt it would have been had it actually had the proper fleshing out of plot points and character arcs.

Ok...what does this have to do with our initial issues? I never said X3 fleshed everyone out as well as it could have.
I don't want morals preached down my throat, either.

But when a particular character arc or plot point is established, I want to see it fleshed out, and expanded upon. I don't want to just see it there, and have it ignored throughout the rest of the film.

But it's not a plot point or an arc...it's just a line of dialogue that reveals something about a character, in relation to the cure as a concept in the context of the film. I.E, it's a way to get opposing viewpoints about the cure onscreen so the audience starts thinking about it.

What HAS been satisfactory in the exploration of topics?

The ideals between Xavier and Magneto.

How has the exploration of this really been all that satisfactory? All we know in three films from X-MEN, X2 and X3 is that Xavier respects mankind, and believes that someone has to defend humans from the likes of Magneto, and believes in the responsible use of power. We don't even know Xavier's motivations, because where in the film has Xavier's message of peace and coexistience ever been preached?

Magneto's motivations for his extremist actions. Nightcrawler's faith. Stryker's hatred of mutants. Pyro's disobedience of authority, and his attraction to having his own ego stroked. Mystique's pride of her mutation. Iceman's responsibility and devotion to Rogue. Rogue's depression over her "disability".

These are all things that were constantly touched upon in the film. They weren't plot points that were established, and then forgotten about. Nightcrawler's faith was a part of his character. It's what made him a character, not just an actor in blue body paint. Storm's opinion of the cure wasn't part of her character, she was just an actress in a white wig.

Storm is proud of being a mutant, and takes issue with those who would condemn her for being different. It's been obvious since X2. However, that is not the main point to her character in the film, therefore, it's not explored. Her arc, the things that are part of her character in X3 to be a teacher and a mentor, and to continue Xavier's dream, to take on more responsibility. And she does.

The difference is that the entire faith angle was Nightcrawler's character. It's what was established when we first met the character, and it wasn't something that was just thrown out the window after they "got that out of the way"...

But we aren't first meeting Storm in X3. We're only seeing her POV in context of who she has been as a character in the last two films.

That's exactly what X-Men: The Last Stand did. Storm's opinion of the cure? She hates it. Okay, we've gotten that out of the way, NEXT!

What the hell else do you want to see? Can you really not see WHY she hates that and apply that logic to the cure in larger context of how it relates to mutants faced with such an issue?

Nightcrawler's faith is a part of his character, something that makes him a character throughout the entire film. Storm's "I have faith" reflects that, because that's how she can connect to him; through his faith.

It was a cheap piece of call and response dialogue. She never connected to him through his faith before that scene. In fact, she rejected doing so, with her "Sometimes anger can help you survive". She never really learns to have "faith" (whatever that means).

Because it's a character trait that was forgotten after it was "out of the way", and Storm retracted back to her 2-dimensional self.

Oh? Her delivery of Xavier's eulogy was 2-dimensional? Her speech to Logan, where for the first time we see someone confronting Logan about his feelings over Jean, and his responsibility to the team, was 2-dimensional? Storm taking over the school after she's said Xavier's dream needs to be continued is 2-dimensional?
I don't think so. In a lot of ways, that's more dimension that we saw from Storm in the previous 2 films.

This was something that could have defined her as a character, but it wasn't there, and it played absolutley no factor what so ever in what was the dominate plot of the film, the cure.

The point of the cure existing in the movie is to create conflict, and to make the audience think. Storm's lines do both things. They create conflict for Rogue, and they provide a POV that is symbolic of how a lot of mutants likely feel about the cure.

I don't know about you, but when a character expresses an opinion about something that will be the dominate plotline of the story, I expect that opinion to actually play a factor for that character in the story. When Romeo & Juliet died, they weren't just merely 2 emo teenagers who killed themselves... no, there were rectifications to their families, whose fued was the cause of their children's deaths.

Uh, you're comparing things that have no need to be compared again.

But in X-Men: The Last Stand, Storm's opinion of the cure is quickly forgotten about, and is a total non-factor.

Then it must be a non-factor, other than the larger issues it raised. I'm surprised it's taken you so long to figure that out.

Storm doesn't need the whole film devoted to her opinion, but when that arc is established, to see it actually play a role in the film, and her character, would be nice.

Maybe, but hardly neccessary. How would you want to see Storm’s beliefs on the cure “resolved”? More preaching about how it’s wrong? Coming to terms that other people will have to decide whether to assimilate or not for themselves? The latter is how I’d do it, but it’s hardly a neccessary plot point or character point.
In fact, I’d rather her remain steadfast on the cure, and I’d have included a scene between Storm and Rogue to that effect, which works twofold: Further develops Storm as a mentor figure before she takes over for Xavier, and forces Rogue to realize that her decision will not be accepted by everyone, or supported, even by those she considers authoritative.

The point isn't that it wasn't a nice touch. It was. But it's a background touch. And that's pretty much what the "opinion" of the cure was, was the background. You can't use background demonstrators to show the public opinion of the cure. But that's what they did.

Exactly how else do you show "public perception of the cure" in a film where screentime is an issue? They showed multiple protests, news reporters, AND supporting characters with differing views on it. How better to show it? Show every person that composes the "public” giving their personal opinion on the cure? The main point of this element of the film is...public opinion on the cure is SPLIT. Those scenes indicate that efficiently, as does the rest of the film, really. We see more of hot mutants feel, because we’re looking at the cure from mutant points of view most of the time.

 

[The Guard]

We got insight on the cure from 2 characters; Magneto and Rogue.

No, we got insight and development with resolution from two characters. We got insight from Magneto, Rogue, Storm, Wolverine, Angel, Warren Worthington, Phoenix, and “public” mutants and humans alike.

Everyone else who had an opinion, their opinion was shoved to the background with the protestors.

How so? Unless you forget about a character’s “brilliant” scenes, and are unable to think about them in the context of the movie.

Beast, Storm, Angel, all who had very brilliant scenes regarding the cure (Beast with Leech, Storm discussing the cure with Beast, Wolverine, and Xavier, and Angel's "breaking free" sequence), to ESTABLISH THEIR CHARACTER'S PLOT POINTS FOR THE DOMINATE PLOT, ended up having no character what so ever with regards to the dominate plot of the story.

What about Beast’s scene where he rejects those who are forcing the cure on others...and goes back to the X-Men, and later realizes that sometimes...it’s neccessary to do what you have to to stop someone? I’d say that’s a character point. And then Angel goes to the X-Mansion, clearly seeking others who will accept him.

They all had their established character traits ignored, simply because they got that out of the way, and it was time to move on.

Not coming back to something is not “ignoring” it. The point still exists in the movie.

You're right. That dialogue is important. The problem is, we never learn why someone would be offended over that.

Again. Use your brain. Do you really need a movie to TELL you why someone would be offended over others believing there was something wrong with who they are? This is like needing X-MEN to TELL you why Wolverine is attracted to Jean Grey in X-MEN.

You just asked the question the film was trying to answer, but the film never answered it.

The film shouldn’t HAVE to answer it. It’s a THINKING POINT. You’re supposed to THINK about it. If the film hands you all the answers, you end up with something preachy and boring.

Storm was offended. Okay, the question comes; why is Storm offended?

Are you kidding me?

“You can’t CURE being a mutant. There’s nothing wrong with us”
She’s angry that others want others to change or assimilate just for being themselves. Can you really not figure that out?

Character trait that relates to the dominate plot that was never again touched upon. No character given to the character.

The dialogue IS character given to the character. You’re so hung up and structure and resolution that you can’t even see that?

Those aren't even issues the movie tries to tackle though.

Neither is Storm’s views on The Cure X3’s main issue. The issue the movie poses is “Is the Cure good or bad/right or wrong/neccessary or uneccessary? And the film uses characters to show how it can be both, and how the interplay works, in a form of social commentary.

X-Men isn't about why they fight for Xavier, it's about them fighting for Xavier. Would knowing why they fight for Xavier help the film? Yes. But being as it wasn't an established plot point that was forgotten about, it doesn't hurt.

I see. By the same token, X3 isn't about why Storm feels the cure is wrong. Storm’s beliefs on the cure isn’t about why she feels that way, it’s about that she feels that way. Would knowing why she feels that way help the film? Maybe if people are too stupid to figure it out on their own. But being as it wasn’t an established plot point to begin with, it doesn’t hurt.

BUT, the character's opinions of the cure were plot points that were established. And the fact that they were then forgotten about does hurt the film.

That is not a plot point. The Cure’s announcement is a plot point. Rogue deciding she might want to take the cure is a plot point. Wolverine leaving and returning, those are plot points. Storm taking offense is not really that important a plot point.

Yea, actually it does come up a couple times.

He mentions it in the church. THEN it comes up again when the cure is actually turned into a weapon.

Where does Magneto mention extermination again after the cure is turned into a weapon?

BAM! Established plot point, and said established plot point plays a role in the film.

How is it an established plot point when there’s nothing about extermination in the film after that? It’s how Magneto FEELS, but it’s never returned to.

Magneto then uses the weaponization of the cure as his motivation to gather the army...

Yes. The scene in the church is Magneto playing on mutant fears to get them to side with him. Later, he uses their anger against the cure to keep them on his side, and motivated. However, there’s no actual extermination going on. And Magneto’s beliefs about extermination are never returned to, as far as I can remember. Only his beliefs that humans want to cure the mutants.

Yet, we have absolutley no clue as to why Angel wants to embrace who he is...

In our very first glimpse of Angel, he's a small boy trying to cut off his wings to fit in. The next time we see Angel, he's going to get cured of his mutation. And then all of a sudden he decides to break free and escape the cure.

That's a pretty drastic plot twist, one that requires some kind of actual development. One that was given no development what so ever. One where you're left to figure out for yourself what happened.

It's one thing to have to think and put things together yourself. It's another when the filmmakers just forget to tell you what you need to think about and put together.

They used Angel metaphorically, so naturally, to them, they weren’t going to give him a “developmental” character scene. Angel’s scenes serve to deliver part of the message of the film. “Decide for yourself”. I don’t think it’s that they forgot to show the scenes, I think the writers just assumed most people were smart enough to figure out what was going on metaphorically. A mistake on their part, obviously.

At some point, the story has to have some structure of it's own, and TELL you what is going on.

Why can’t it show you? Like it does.

He was mutilating himself the very first time we saw him! Now, he's all happy go lucky about his wings?!

Where is he happy-go-lucky, exactly?

YES, I can put 2 and 2 together and figure out what's going on, IN SPITE of what the movie FORGOT to show us, not because they showed us something in some mind blowingly symbolic way.

It was lazy, they didn't develop an arc that should have been developed.

What do you want to see? A scene where someone tells Angel to embrace his wings? That he’s a beautiful snowflake? Although, I can see Beast having a role here, meeting Warren, Rao and Angel, talking to him, etc.

And we go back to my original claim of "no depth"...

“No” is a pretty specific word. It tends to mean “none”. I’ll go
with “little depth”. But I won’t accept “No”.

So you agree with me...

Then why do you feel the need to argue with me and prove me wrong if you agree with me that there is no depth to this movie?

Because I don’t agree with you that there is no depth to the movie. I agree that there is less depth than there could have been, and that some things require thinking about to see as deep. But again, “no” is a specific word that means “absence of”.

I'm not even going to finish the rest of this.

Lazy ass.

But can we expect depth in a franchise with so many characters.

There it is.

We've never really found out how Storm and Cyclops came to be at the school, we only found out how and why Jean got there in X3. In X2, we don't know why Storm is angry, why she has given up on pity. We have to assume Nightcrawler needs faith because of his freakish appearance - and yet despite his religion and need for faith, he chose to be a circus acrobat flaunting his freakishness. Presumably, the circus offered an environment where 'freaks' were more accepted (as in the carnival freakshow), so was it just faith that was helping him --- he was seeking an environment where he could feel safe and accepted, where he could blend in among the bizarre, colourful and unconventional. Which is what Xavier's students were doing at that school, and yet he was surprised about that. And we don't know how a Munich acrobat ended up sleeping on the altar of a Boston church. Did Storm really show that much character growth when she said 'I have faith' - was it that she had suddenly found faith, or that she was giving Nighcrawler faith, affirming the faith that he needed. She said 'I have faith in you', she didn't say 'I have found faith in myself.

There isn't really much depth to anyone throughout the movies. Only Magneto stands out as a fully rounded character whose motivations are crystal clear and shown to us on screen.

Exactly.

In my view, there is no more depth in the first two movies. There are just fewer characters, and therefore the illusion that they are better serviced. But they aren't. The henchmen are just henchmen, the main characters are often just 'there' in what is a theme-driven movie not a character-driven movie.

Exactly. And that’s the point I’ve been trying to make. These are theme-driven movies. Not neccessarily character-driven ones.

 

[Horhey]

So much nitpicking.

 

[fabman]

I'd like to see an X4... I really enjoyed Brett Ratner's "The Last Stand". It was a very good movie.

 

[Goddessreicho]

LOl I just posted this in the same thread in the sequel forum but it's just too awesome to leave there. People have begun to add to it. It's so great, I'm seriously thinking about giving it it's own thread!

Screw changing the cast. Everybody blew chunks at some point. New direction and a BRAND NEW WRITING STAFF would fix alot of the problems. Case in point. Worse lines in the trilogy.
4. Storm: Do you know what happens when...(Thanks J. Whedon for that one.)
3. Wolverine: Hold this line!
2. Scott: Jean, how?
Jean: I dunno. [SHRUG!] {talk about a mood killer }

And the worse line that ever came out of a cast member's mouth...





1. Cyke: Storm, fry 'em. {No wonder why the man died. He's had a death wish since the first movie. Yeah, that's right, I went there.}

Getting rid of crap like that will fix alot of the problems with the cast.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

I don't know, the whole..."You...don't want to be here." line almost gave me whiplash from me snapping my head back and wrinkling by brow thinking ..."WHAT?!? Where did that come from?"

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't know, the whole..."You...don't want to be here." line almost gave me whiplash from me snapping my head back and wrinkling by brow thinking ..."WHAT?!? Where did that come from?"

Hehe... Well, it was supposed to signify the fact that they didn't want to go back there -- the place where Jean died, where Xavier nearly killed the whole world, where Wolverine faced his terrible 'creator and the horrible room where he was experimented on..

But it was not delivered in the best way... it sounded a bit random, when in fact it was very significant!

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

I understood it's significance...but man oh man, yikes...just...yikes.

 

[Goddessreicho]

Bad direction, terribly underwritten line, and a strange delivery strike Storm again.

It doesn't beat the death shrug from Jean. I swear the audience I was with was quiet with anticipation, then came that. I've never in all my life heard an audience laugh in sync.

Ooooh how could I forget! Xavier's: "telekinetic cocoon." I think at that point the crowd refused to take anything seriously.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Hehe... Well, it was supposed to signify the fact that they didn't want to go back there -- the place where Jean died, where Xavier nearly killed the whole world, where Wolverine faced his terrible 'creator and the horrible room where he was experimented on..

But it was not delivered in the best way... it sounded a bit random, when in fact it was very significant!

Hahaha, you will defend the stupidest crap. Even Kinberg and Penn didn't know the significance of the line according to the commentaries. Then again Penn and Kinberg are not the smartest humans in the world.

They make Dubya look like Einstein.

 

[Spade]

A tidbit for those who defend this film in that it is an adaption of the Dark Phoenix- Penn clearly states he was showing both the Phoenix and Dark Phoenix in the commentary, yet still has no clue which is which during any given part in the film.

A little something to think about, when the screenplay writer himself has no idea who the character is at any given moment without help...