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

[X-Maniac]

The SM movies are the comicbook. The movie is what the comicbook is.

Action.
Persoanl Drama.
Fun.
Fantasy.

Duh.

I really don't understand what some people expected. It is what it is supposed to be. The SM films are the only comicbook movies not trying to be something their not. Every other comicbook movie is trying so hard to distance itself from its source material, they are creating their own so-called "movieverse". What the hell is the movieverse anyway? Last I check these films don't have any kind of long history or depth to even qualify for their own universe.

The X-men comics are popular because they tell fantastical stories--superhero stories, blended in with social commentary and personal drama. Duh, you know, Marvels specialty for the past 100 years and more.

Action.
social Commentary.
Personal Drama.
Fun.
Fantasy/Scifi.

The problem with many on these boards and others like it are that the comicbook versions of the X-men (of which the movies are supposed to be based, duh.) apparently, aren't good enough for some people, even the supposed fans. They want their own personal X-men rather than the one fans have been reading about for years upon years and expecting to hit the big screen fully realized and not half-assed.

They want a realistic comicbook movie where the majority of the fantastical element is all but thrown out the window. They want a comicbook movie that only focuses on 1/4 of what the X-men is about.

"To hell with the comicbook and it's fans. Give me what I want and that's all I care about. Makes complete sense to me. The rest be damned. I could care less if it's not the comicbook as a whole, I got what I wanted f**k off!"

"Give me my character". "Give me my story." "Focus on the part of the X-men that I care about."

What the hell happened to the X-men as a whole? Whenever I've read an X-men comic I've always viewed them and enjoyed them as a whole. Never for one particular character or another. Yes, of course I had my favorites, but I never allowed that to overwhelm my appreciation of the X-men as a whole.

sigh........




To the people who tend to have a larger hand in making these types of films; yes we know you tend to take a peek at boards such as these from time to time. On the off chance that this particular board and this particular topic crosses your viewing pleasure, do us fans a favor. Please, if your going to adapt material that so many fans care about, please take the time and money to do it right rather than half assed. Please, I implore you. So much heartache and endless discussion and debate could've been silenced had you simply made the X-men films the fans have been waiting for. The comicbook plain and simple.

If you're going to ***** and moan about costs, then guess what? You shouldn't be doing these types of films in the first place. Comicbook movies tend to be synonymous with expensive sfx. Duh. I mean, WTF.

As I've heard so many say on these boards and others. As I've heard it said amongst friends and fans. If your not going to do it right, just don't do it at all.

The SM films got it right. The X-films only got 1/4 of it right.

Do what's right Marvel......right the wrong. Give the X-men a film rendition that measures up to it's pencil, paper and pen roots.

Absolutely!

Spider-Man has shown that major reinterpretations and directors having their own 'visions' aren't necessary.

 

[Majik1387]

The SM movies are the comicbook. The movie is what the comicbook is.

Action.
Persoanl Drama.
Fun.
Fantasy.

Duh.

I really don't understand what some people expected. It is what it is supposed to be. The SM films are the only comicbook movies not trying to be something their not. Every other comicbook movie is trying so hard to distance itself from its source material, they are creating their own so-called "movieverse". What the hell is the movieverse anyway? Last I check these films don't have any kind of long history or depth to even qualify for their own universe.

The X-men comics are popular because they tell fantastical stories--superhero stories, blended in with social commentary and personal drama. Duh, you know, Marvels specialty for the past 100 years and more.

Action.
social Commentary.
Personal Drama.
Fun.
Fantasy/Scifi.

The problem with many on these boards and others like it are that the comicbook versions of the X-men (of which the movies are supposed to be based, duh.) apparently, aren't good enough for some people, even the supposed fans. They want their own personal X-men rather than the one fans have been reading about for years upon years and expecting to hit the big screen fully realized and not half-assed.

They want a realistic comicbook movie where the majority of the fantastical element is all but thrown out the window. They want a comicbook movie that only focuses on 1/4 of what the X-men is about.

"To hell with the comicbook and it's fans. Give me what I want and that's all I care about. Makes complete sense to me. The rest be damned. I could care less if it's not the comicbook as a whole, I got what I wanted f**k off!"

"Give me my character". "Give me my story." "Focus on the part of the X-men that I care about."

What the hell happened to the X-men as a whole? Whenever I've read an X-men comic I've always viewed them and enjoyed them as a whole. Never for one particular character or another. Yes, of course I had my favorites, but I never allowed that to overwhelm my appreciation of the X-men as a whole.

sigh........




To the people who tend to have a larger hand in making these types of films; yes we know you tend to take a peek at boards such as these from time to time. On the off chance that this particular board and this particular topic crosses your viewing pleasure, do us fans a favor. Please, if your going to adapt material that so many fans care about, please take the time and money to do it right rather than half assed. Please, I implore you. So much heartache and endless discussion and debate could've been silenced had you simply made the X-men films the fans have been waiting for. The comicbook plain and simple.

If you're going to ***** and moan about costs, then guess what? You shouldn't be doing these types of films in the first place. Comicbook movies tend to be synonymous with expensive sfx. Duh. I mean, WTF.

As I've heard so many say on these boards and others. As I've heard it said amongst friends and fans. If your not going to do it right, just don't do it at all.

The SM films got it right. The X-films only got 1/4 of it right.

Do what's right Marvel......right the wrong. Give the X-men a film rendition that measures up to it's pencil, paper and pen roots.

I usually try avoiding to read long post like this cuz they end up being a whole bunch oof hot air about two sentences; This isn't one of those kind of posts. I agree entirely though.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

Absolutely!

Spider-Man has shown that major reinterpretations and directors having their own 'visions' aren't necessary.

X1 and X2 have both shown that a director's vision can create something truely unique and wonderful.

 

[X-Maniac]

double post demon struck on this slow-as-hell site, which keeps logging me out every few minutes... Get a new server for God's sake!

 

[X-Maniac]

X1 and X2 have both shown that a director's vision can create something truely unique and wonderful.

I'm getting tired of directors' 'visions'.

Sam Raimi didn't seem to get self-absorbed in major reinterpretations.

Bryan Singer might be a good storyteller, but these weren't entirely X-Men (or Superman) stories he was telling. He was veering off at a tangent, as he has with Superman. To take iconic characters and completely remould them, or ignore them, or make them something they never were, is very risky.

I enjoy all three movies, but they are very much 'elseworld' stories, much like Smallville is to Superman.

 

[Seen]

I'm getting tired of directors' 'visions'.

Sam Raimi didn't seem to get self-absorbed in major reinterpretations.

Bryan Singer might be a good storyteller, but these weren't entirely X-Men (or Superman) stories he was telling. He was veering off at a tangent, as he has with Superman. To take iconic characters and completely remould them, or ignore them, or make them something they never were, is very risky.

I enjoy all three movies, but they are very much 'elseworld' stories, much like Smallville is to Superman.

Ahem.

"The adaptation process for comics is different from that of novels. Many successful comic book series last for several decades and have featured several variations of the characters in that time. Films based on such series usually try to capture the back story and “spirit” of the character instead of adapting a particular storyline. Occasionally aspects of the characters and their origins are simplified or modernized."

And...

"Change in adaptation is essential and practically unavoidable, mandated both by the constraints of time and medium, but how much is always a balance. Some film theorists have argued that a director should be entirely unconcerned with the source, as a novel is a novel, while a film is a film, and the two works of art must be seen as separate entities. Since a transcription of a novel into film is impossible, even holding up a goal of "accuracy" is absurd. Others argue that what a film adaptation does is change to fit (literally, adapt), and the film must be accurate to either the effect (aesthetics) of a novel or the theme of the novel or the message of the novel and that the film maker must introduce changes where necessary to fit the demands of time and to maximize faithfulness along one of these axes."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_adaptation#Comic_book_adaptation

 

[X-Maniac]

Ahem.

"The adaptation process for comics is different from that of novels. Many successful comic book series last for several decades and have featured several variations of the characters in that time. Films based on such series usually try to capture the back story and “spirit” of the character instead of adapting a particular storyline. Occasionally aspects of the characters and their origins are simplified or modernized."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_adaptation#Comic_book_adaptation

Be very wary of wikipedia. That's not always fact.

So, if that definition were true, what are people moaning about with the movies we got? The comics feature mental blocks in Phoenix on four occasions, Wolverine is involved with stabbing or attempting to stab Phoenix on three occasions, Xavier dies several times...

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

I don't think it's just the fact that Phoenix had mental blocks, that Wolverine stabs Phoenix...it's the way they handled it...it's the poor storytelling...that's how I see it.

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't think it's just the fact that Phoenix had mental blocks, that Wolverine stabs Phoenix...it's the way they handled it...it's the poor storytelling...that's how I see it.

I don't think it's that. The original story -- what we know, especially storyboards of Phoenix's destruction --- looks very good, and in line with the previous movies in which Wolverine was very dominant, Rogue fairly uncertain, etc. As with the cutting of Sentinels and other stuff in X2, we had stuff cut from X3.

The true culprit here is the editing, some of the directing, and Fox.

None of the movies is true to the comics. X1 and X2 focused more on themes, X3 focused more on taking elements of the comicbooks.

I love all three movies, but they are all elseworld versions. X3 took the most risks and it was the least sensitive (and most daring, most shocking) with the characters --- probably due to the demands of Fox.

We now should get an X4 that continues on from X3 and develops/corrects it. Or a total reboot - someone like Peter Jackson or the Wachowskis who are far more focused on the material and less on their own egotistical 'visions'.

I've had enough of freaking directors' 'visions'. The original material has enough 'vision' in it.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

I understand your impatience with directors' visions, I can see your points. But for me that still doesn't mute the fact that Singer created a whole new universe in the footsteps of Days of Future Past, Age of Apocalypse, Ultimate X-Men, House of M and so on.

 

[X-Maniac]

I understand your impatience with directors' visions, I can see your points. But for me that still doesn't mute the fact that Singer created a whole new universe in the footsteps of Days of Future Past, Age of Apocalypse, Ultimate X-Men, House of M and so on.

Yes, perhaps so... and to see Bryan return would be good, since he established this movieworld alternate/elseworld universe. I really don't think X3 did that terrible a job with continuing things and amping them up to a more spectacular level as would befit a climax to the events simmering in the prior two movies. I have no real idea what Brett Ratner's true input with this movie was, except some impatient camera editing in some early parts of the movie and some poor editing.

I'd probably still prefer Wachowskis or Peter Jackson. Bryan left me very worried with the SR movie, as did his writers. It was too much 'vision', too much unchecked ego and too much of inexperienced writers going off in their own merry and misguided fantasy.

Marvel needs much greater control over the storylines and character portrayals. (As does DC it seems).

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

I have yet to see Superman Returns, then I'll be able to give a better opinion on what Bryan actually does with comic films.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

Marvel needs much greater control over the storylines and character portrayals. (As does DC it seems).

Not to go off topic, but did you like Batman Begins?

 

[thegameq]

I've had enough of freaking directors' 'visions'. The original material has enough 'vision' in it.

Truly.

The worst part is that the all the things that make the X-men comics so wildly successful are there waiting to be bought to the big screen. Yes, plus or minus a few changes.

Everything that makes the SM comicbook so popular has been bought to the big screen; Peter Parkers personal drama and the conflict being SM has with his personal life. Period.

It's not Einsteinian. It doesn't need to be.

 

[X-Maniac]

Not to go off topic, but did you like Batman Begins?

I did like it, yes. Some people i know who were Batman fans didn't as their reference point was the previous movies or the 60s TV series. And some who weren't fans of Batman found themselves liking it.

But it's less enjoyable watching it at home (as are Spider-Man, Hellboy etc) as there are fewer surprises and it's easy to be impatient through the long, slow build-up if you've see it slowly unfolding before. I like movies with lots going on to keep your interest (partly why the X-Men appeal, as multi-character movies tend to have plenty going on and they switch between characters and entwine them in the main story).

Batman excels in focusing entirely on making the superhero something believable, an organic extension of a person's personality.

Bryan Singer tends to create believable worlds in which there happen to be superheroes, which is a different approach. With Bryan one gets the feeling the world/infrastructure comes first, then the people are fitted around it which means they have to altered, toned down, emotionally changed.

With Raimi/Nolan's heroes (Spider-Man and Batman) the hero comes first and the world is built around them.

 

[Seen]

I did like it, yes. Some people i know who were Batman fans didn't as their reference point was the previous movies or the 60s TV series. And some who weren't fans of Batman found themselves liking it.

But it's less enjoyable watching it at home (as are Spider-Man, Hellboy etc) as there are fewer surprises and it's easy to be impatient through the long, slow build-up if you've see it slowly unfolding before. I like movies with lots going on to keep your interest (partly why the X-Men appeal, as multi-character movies tend to have plenty going on and they switch between characters and entwine them in the main story).

Batman excels in focusing entirely on making the superhero something believable, an organic extension of a person's personality.

Bryan Singer tends to create believable worlds in which there happen to be superheroes, which is a different approach. With Bryan one gets the feeling the world/infrastructure comes first, then the people are fitted around it which means they have to altered, toned down, emotionally changed.

With Raimi/Nolan's heroes (Spider-Man and Batman) the hero comes first and the world is built around them.

I agree with you here. Well said.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The SM movies are the comicbook. The movie is what the comicbook is.

Action.
Persoanl Drama.
Fun.
Fantasy.

Duh.

I really don't understand what some people expected. It is what it is supposed to be. The SM films are the only comicbook movies not trying to be something their not. Every other comicbook movie is trying so hard to distance itself from its source material, they are creating their own so-called "movieverse". What the hell is the movieverse anyway? Last I check these films don't have any kind of long history or depth to even qualify for their own universe.

The X-men comics are popular because they tell fantastical stories--superhero stories, blended in with social commentary and personal drama. Duh, you know, Marvels specialty for the past 100 years and more.

Action.
social Commentary.
Personal Drama.
Fun.
Fantasy/Scifi.

The problem with many on these boards and others like it are that the comicbook versions of the X-men (of which the movies are supposed to be based, duh.) apparently, aren't good enough for some people, even the supposed fans. They want their own personal X-men rather than the one fans have been reading about for years upon years and expecting to hit the big screen fully realized and not half-assed.

They want a realistic comicbook movie where the majority of the fantastical element is all but thrown out the window. They want a comicbook movie that only focuses on 1/4 of what the X-men is about.

"To hell with the comicbook and it's fans. Give me what I want and that's all I care about. Makes complete sense to me. The rest be damned. I could care less if it's not the comicbook as a whole, I got what I wanted f**k off!"

"Give me my character". "Give me my story." "Focus on the part of the X-men that I care about."

What the hell happened to the X-men as a whole? Whenever I've read an X-men comic I've always viewed them and enjoyed them as a whole. Never for one particular character or another. Yes, of course I had my favorites, but I never allowed that to overwhelm my appreciation of the X-men as a whole.

sigh........




To the people who tend to have a larger hand in making these types of films; yes we know you tend to take a peek at boards such as these from time to time. On the off chance that this particular board and this particular topic crosses your viewing pleasure, do us fans a favor. Please, if your going to adapt material that so many fans care about, please take the time and money to do it right rather than half assed. Please, I implore you. So much heartache and endless discussion and debate could've been silenced had you simply made the X-men films the fans have been waiting for. The comicbook plain and simple.

If you're going to ***** and moan about costs, then guess what? You shouldn't be doing these types of films in the first place. Comicbook movies tend to be synonymous with expensive sfx. Duh. I mean, WTF.

As I've heard so many say on these boards and others. As I've heard it said amongst friends and fans. If your not going to do it right, just don't do it at all.

The SM films got it right. The X-films only got 1/4 of it right.

Do what's right Marvel......right the wrong. Give the X-men a film rendition that measures up to it's pencil, paper and pen roots.

Needless to say, I don't agree with you.

I think you're too black and white. I don't think it has anything to do with the source material not being good enough, but rather the films being something that is a serious take on the source material.

I love the comics. But, the fact of the matter is, they are comics. They aren't epic pieces of literature. They are comic books. They are bright, and colorful. But they aren't high scale pieces of world literature.

Personally, I am more a fan of the concepts and ideas of the comics, rather than how they are neccesarily executed. All of the retconning, all of the way out there stuff... it gets way too wacky and conveluted.

I have seen a couple comic book runs that, despite having powerful and epic storylines in concept, just were executed poorly and didn't capture my interest the way they should have.

With this, Bryan Singer took the concepts and ideas and made them important. He made them as epic and emotional as they were on paper. But, he took out all the needless, convoluted crap.

At the same time, there was a sacrifice of some of the comic book fun, and fantasy. And that's where Brett Ratner's style comes into play.

Despite the fact that it didn't quite capture the depth of it's predecessors, X-Men: The Last Stand feels ripped right off the page of a comic book.

I always have (and always will) defend the way Singer handled the X-Men. In my opinion, what he did was the ultimate sign of respect; he took a comic book, and turned it into something epic, something powerful, something with depth.

X-Men: The Last Stand, to me, showed that you could keep that realistic, serious tone, and have fun with it. This film has all the action and fun of a comic book, while maintaining a serious, and real essence, that can be taken seriously.

As a comic book fan, as an X-Men fan, I can't always take the comic book seriously. It gets just way too out of hand for my tastes, sometimes, and I can't bring myself to always enjoy it.

However, the sense that these characters are something special, real people, the sense that this is something to be taken seriously, not just some campy, fun, comic book movie with over the top dialogue and action, is the ultimate sign of respect. It's how a comic book should be handled.

We all have our interpretations of the source material. It's not a matter of it being good enough, or not, it's how we take it in. I for one, find X-Men to be a grittier, darker, more serious universe, and a Spiderman-esque take on it simply wouldn't work. Raimi's formula works for Spiderman, because it doesn't have the same depth as X-Men, and Spiderman by nature is a much more lighthearted universe than X-Men.

For X-Men, I simply put wouldn't want to see it adapted straight from the comic book pages, where it's a bunch of big bright colors, and over the top action pieces, and convoluted story arcs that make everyone everyone else's brother's cousin's mother's uncle's adopted mother who's dad is a demon from Hell...

What the X-Men universe is about would get lost in all of that.

For a comic book, that is fine. Because, by nature, comic books are much brighter, much more colorful, and the retconning and convolution is easily acceptable.

But in an adaptation, I want to see all of the things that I love about the source material brought to life. And simply put, the things that I love about the source material aren't bright colorful costumes, space wars, and everyone being everyone's brother's uncle's cousin's nephew's adopted mother who's father is a demon from Hell.

 

[britrogue]

So, are we gettin an X4 or not? At work and haven't got time to read through all the pages.

 

[AssMan]

Despite the fact that it didn't quite capture the depth of it's predecessors, X-Men: The Last Stand feels ripped right off the page of a comic book.

That is your opinoin & not everyone elses

 

[LastSunrise1981]

That is your opinoin & not everyone elses

It's his opinion and it's a wrong fact as well. Ratner, Penn, and Kinberg were not faithful to the source material at all. They used the comics as references obviously but they used pictures from the comics, not the actual theme and emotional importance that made them epic, powerful, intelligent, and realistic.

This is why most X3 supporters will continue to get rushed and politically motivated films. They basically just accept it because it's the X-Men, they accept it because it managed to be released despite the rushed schedule. To me it seems they could careless if the film sucked or not, in the end, they got to see the X-Men brought to life again and that's good enough.

Which is fine and their own right, but they forget that people actually want great films. They want to see films that leave some kind of lasting impression and not some half-assed mediocre closer to a trilogy.

I said it once and I'll say it again, X3 supporters probably would still love it even if Uwe Boll directed it.

To me X1/X2 is and feels like an X-Men comic book. When I read the comics and watched the animated series it's how I always imagined the emotion, the characters, the themes, and the realistic issues that the mutants deal with in terms of acceptance and fighting the good fight.

X3 is one of those mindless action films that cater more to non-fans and the fanboys who want more action instead of great storytelling.

 

[Maze]

I disagree

X3 feel like the comics in the mid nineties after the Jim Lee run t:

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I disagree

X3 feel like the comics in the mid nineties after the Jim Lee run t:

That's fine. To me it didn't feel like the comics since the action was mindless and didn't help develop the plot at all. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[X-Maniac]

It's his opinion and it's a wrong fact as well. Ratner, Penn, and Kinberg were not faithful to the source material at all. They used the comics as references obviously but they used pictures from the comics, not the actual theme and emotional importance that made them epic, powerful, intelligent, and realistic.

This is why most X3 supporters will continue to get rushed and politically motivated films. They basically just accept it because it's the X-Men, they accept it because it managed to be released despite the rushed schedule. To me it seems they could careless if the film sucked or not, in the end, they got to see the X-Men brought to life again and that's good enough.

Which is fine and their own right, but they forget that people actually want great films. They want to see films that leave some kind of lasting impression and not some half-assed mediocre closer to a trilogy.

I said it once and I'll say it again, X3 supporters probably would still love it even if Uwe Boll directed it.

To me X1/X2 is and feels like an X-Men comic book. When I read the comics and watched the animated series it's how I always imagined the emotion, the characters, the themes, and the realistic issues that the mutants deal with in terms of acceptance and fighting the good fight.

X3 is one of those mindless action films that cater more to non-fans and the fanboys who want more action instead of great storytelling.

None of the X-movies has truly been faithful. Only at certain times.

With Bryan's movies, the Wolverine origin flashbacks felt totally spot-on; Nightcrawler felt fairly accurate; the X-mansion seemed accurate too. Other things were hugely reinterpreted. Storm was nothing like Storm, neither was Sabretooth, Rogue, Cyclops... They had only a small resemblance to the original characters. Bryan created his personal X-world and forced the characters into it. Fox helped make things less accurate with their own demands (which continued into X3).

In X3, they took a lot of comicbook references and ideas - the 'class 1-5' mutant classification system, the Morlocks/Marauders and District X where the meeting took place, the Planet X bridge-moving storyline, the mental blocks, the idea of Wolverine stabbing Phoenix, etc. Other things failed. We got the barest hint of Phoenix's cosmic powers, despite that having the potential to make the movie truly epic. To see those storyboards of her parting the waters of the bay, or destroying SF, is very disheartening.

I spoke to a guy in a comic shop today. I know you hate me mentioning friends or other people, you always seem to suspect I am inventing them. This guy enjoyed the movie as a piece of entertainment, but he didn't really like it. He wanted a more cosmic Phoenix, he didn't like the deaths, but oddly he did like the Xavier scene at the very end!!!

There's no doubt in my mind that X3 could have been better, and that more thought and 'craft' should have been applied to it, but what is wrong with the movie is not plastic needles or bridge spans. Even using the Phoenix and cure storylines felt fine, as they are both about control and suppression of powers. But the execution of those storylines was far from perfect. I doubt though that Bryan would have given us a cosmic Phoenix parting waters or destroying SF, so you wouldn't have got 'epic' but you would have got more substance in places, which would be welcomed.

 

[Storm22]

I said it once and I'll say it again, X3 supporters probably would still love it even if Uwe Boll directed it.

Another fine example of a condescending post from a self proclaimed "model poster"!!

 

[thegameq]

Needless to say, I don't agree with you.

I think you're too black and white. I don't think it has anything to do with the source material not being good enough, but rather the films being something that is a serious take on the source material.

I love the comics. But, the fact of the matter is, they are comics. They aren't epic pieces of literature. They are comic books. They are bright, and colorful. But they aren't high scale pieces of world literature.

Personally, I am more a fan of the concepts and ideas of the comics, rather than how they are neccesarily executed. All of the retconning, all of the way out there stuff... it gets way too wacky and conveluted.

I have seen a couple comic book runs that, despite having powerful and epic storylines in concept, just were executed poorly and didn't capture my interest the way they should have.

With this, Bryan Singer took the concepts and ideas and made them important. He made them as epic and emotional as they were on paper. But, he took out all the needless, convoluted crap.

At the same time, there was a sacrifice of some of the comic book fun, and fantasy. And that's where Brett Ratner's style comes into play.

Despite the fact that it didn't quite capture the depth of it's predecessors, X-Men: The Last Stand feels ripped right off the page of a comic book.

I always have (and always will) defend the way Singer handled the X-Men. In my opinion, what he did was the ultimate sign of respect; he took a comic book, and turned it into something epic, something powerful, something with depth.

X-Men: The Last Stand, to me, showed that you could keep that realistic, serious tone, and have fun with it. This film has all the action and fun of a comic book, while maintaining a serious, and real essence, that can be taken seriously.

As a comic book fan, as an X-Men fan, I can't always take the comic book seriously. It gets just way too out of hand for my tastes, sometimes, and I can't bring myself to always enjoy it.

However, the sense that these characters are something special, real people, the sense that this is something to be taken seriously, not just some campy, fun, comic book movie with over the top dialogue and action, is the ultimate sign of respect. It's how a comic book should be handled.

We all have our interpretations of the source material. It's not a matter of it being good enough, or not, it's how we take it in. I for one, find X-Men to be a grittier, darker, more serious universe, and a Spiderman-esque take on it simply wouldn't work. Raimi's formula works for Spiderman, because it doesn't have the same depth as X-Men, and Spiderman by nature is a much more lighthearted universe than X-Men.

For X-Men, I simply put wouldn't want to see it adapted straight from the comic book pages, where it's a bunch of big bright colors, and over the top action pieces, and convoluted story arcs that make everyone everyone else's brother's cousin's mother's uncle's adopted mother who's dad is a demon from Hell...

What the X-Men universe is about would get lost in all of that.

For a comic book, that is fine. Because, by nature, comic books are much brighter, much more colorful, and the retconning and convolution is easily acceptable.

But in an adaptation, I want to see all of the things that I love about the source material brought to life. And simply put, the things that I love about the source material aren't bright colorful costumes, space wars, and everyone being everyone's brother's uncle's cousin's nephew's adopted mother who's father is a demon from Hell.

And you are more than entitled to what you want and like Nell. But, I believe your still missing the point. The version of X-men you prefer is not X-men as a whole, thus isn't the comicbook. Which is (surprise!) what most fans reasonably expected after years and years of waiting for sfx (technology) to catchup to the human imagination.

You're version basically excludes the people who want to see the comicbook, not some director's personal desire. And Nell, we both are sophisticated and savvy enough to know that an X-men movie that more closely resembles the comics doesn't have to be campy.

Fans have been waiting years for these films and expecting the comicbook. The same with Spider-man ( I shudder to think what kind of Spider-man film we would have gotten if the realistic approach had been taken), fans are more than entitled, and reasonably so, to expect and want to see the version they have been reading all these years.

Then there's the vision argument....

Raimi's vision works because it is the comicbook. That representation of Spider-man works because it closely resembles the comicbook. It's a no-brainer. Singer's version of X-men does not resemble the comicbook. It does to you because he interpreted the X-men the way you seem to interpret them.

But then what about yourself and the people who feel as you do, you say? Why should your version be excluded? Again you are entitled to like what you want, and no one can tell you what to like or dislike. But the simple fact is, Singer's X-films are not the X-men. so much of this debate and others would minimally exist if the X-men where done closer to the comic because there simply would have been less to ***** about. Any moaning and groaning would be somewhat moot because, it is the comicbook afterall, what did you expect and want ?!!?? Your own personal version? Just as with Spider-man; it's the comicbook, what did you expect your own personal version of Spider-man?

What did fans expect? The X-men as close as can reasonably be to the comicbook. That's all. No great shame in that. It's extremely reasonable don't you think?

As for your comments about the comics....I don't really understand how you could be a serious collector of comics and say those things. But that's just me. Comicsbooks are what they are to most, escapism and an artform.

I'm into the art or craft of comics. The art or craft of film making or animation. Ditto videogames. Not so much the technical aspect as much as the creation and execution. I dig and respect the work and effort, the vision that goes into such artforms. I despise the lack of appreciation some tend to show towards them, but it is of course ignorant to believe everyone will feel as I do. That doesn't stop me however from trying to make them see or understand. Take note that i'm not trying to change your mind.

It's an artform, escapism, plain and simple. Unless intended as otherwise, to be taken just as serious as any other attempt to weave a tale, be it on paper with words and pictures, celluloid or 1s and 0s (polygons if the gamers prefer). Yet to be told or recreated with the same respect and fervor of it's creator(s).