Fox Journalist Fired Over Wolverine Review

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Calling WO better than TDK alone should be grounds for dismissal.

I like Wolverine better than The Dark Knight.

What of it?

 

[BMM]

^ I bet that's because it was miles easier for you to understand, right? t:

 

[Theweepeople]

I like Wolverine better than The Dark Knight.

What of it?

My prediction about you came true a little sooner than expected. Another prediction I've made is Wolverine will eventually be added to my list of bad comic films I've seen in recent years.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

^ I bet that's because it was miles easier for you to understand, right? t:

Nope, I understood The Dark Knight just fine.

Simply put, I like the characters and the stories of X-Men much better than the characters and stories of Batman. I do (and always have) felt that X-Men has so much more depth, and more to offer, than any other superhero / comic book universe out there.

And all of the films (all 4 of them, including X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) I feel have brilliantly captured those characters and their stories.

Sure, ALL of the movies have some faults to them, whether they be in the film making department (X2's climax drags a bit too much, and X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine just give the basics of the story without delving into the details), or the comic book accuracy department (some changes were either necessary or so minor that they didn't alter WHO the character was: Lady Deathstrike and Juggernaut portrayed as mutants, Jean Grey as a doctor, the original X-Men consisting of Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, and Storm, William Stryker as a Colonel - Some changes were a bit more severe: Killing Cyclops, killing Xavier, curing Rogue, Wolverine becoming a leader, Storm and Iceman acting nothing like their comic book counterparts, Lady Deathstrike being mind controlled), but overall I think these films were a great representation of the characters, the world they live in, and the stories that they take part in.

Batman, I just don't have the same love for the character. I like the character, but NO movie to this point (not from Burton, especially not from Shumacher, and not even from Nolan) has really captured the things that I love about Batman. In all honesty, my favorite version of Batman still remains the 90's animated cartoon. I thought that it was the perfect mix of comic cheesyness, and serious, brooding darkness. I really got a feel for both sides.

I've been disappointed with the new Batman films since Batman Begins. While I enjoy the movies, I really don't feel like I'm watching a Batman movie. That doesn't feel like Bruce Wayne to me, that doesn't feel like Batman to me. They are just, to me, some good movies that are called Batman.

Even Ledger to me was just a brilliantly portrayed psychotic madman who happened to be called The Joker.

Perhaps I don't read enough Batman comics, or I don't read the right ones, but the Batman comics that I DID read (the admitedly few that I did read) weren't like these movies.

 

[BMM]

Nope, I understood The Dark Knight just fine.

Haha. I know. I was just poking fun at Friedman's "review."

 

[pyromaniac]

Nope, I understood The Dark Knight just fine.

Simply put, I like the characters and the stories of X-Men much better than the characters and stories of Batman. I do (and always have) felt that X-Men has so much more depth, and more to offer, than any other superhero / comic book universe out there.

And all of the films (all 4 of them, including X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) I feel have brilliantly captured those characters and their stories.

Sure, ALL of the movies have some faults to them, whether they be in the film making department (X2's climax drags a bit too much, and X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine just give the basics of the story without delving into the details), or the comic book accuracy department (some changes were either necessary or so minor that they didn't alter WHO the character was: Lady Deathstrike and Juggernaut portrayed as mutants, Jean Grey as a doctor, the original X-Men consisting of Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, and Storm, William Stryker as a Colonel - Some changes were a bit more severe: Killing Cyclops, killing Xavier, curing Rogue, Wolverine becoming a leader, Storm and Iceman acting nothing like their comic book counterparts, Lady Deathstrike being mind controlled), but overall I think these films were a great representation of the characters, the world they live in, and the stories that they take part in.

Batman, I just don't have the same love for the character. I like the character, but NO movie to this point (not from Burton, especially not from Shumacher, and not even from Nolan) has really captured the things that I love about Batman. In all honesty, my favorite version of Batman still remains the 90's animated cartoon. I thought that it was the perfect mix of comic cheesyness, and serious, brooding darkness. I really got a feel for both sides.

I've been disappointed with the new Batman films since Batman Begins. While I enjoy the movies, I really don't feel like I'm watching a Batman movie. That doesn't feel like Bruce Wayne to me, that doesn't feel like Batman to me. They are just, to me, some good movies that are called Batman.

Even Ledger to me was just a brilliantly portrayed psychotic madman who happened to be called The Joker.

Perhaps I don't read enough Batman comics, or I don't read the right ones, but the Batman comics that I DID read (the admitedly few that I did read) weren't like these movies.

So are you saying you felt Batman was Batman In Name Only? Is that really the entire basis of your liking Xmen more than Batman? Let's separate the mediums. Would you call the Batman films as good films, not as good films based on the comic material? Or is it simply because the Xmen characters resonated more with you than with Batman? If that were the case, that's good, but it doesn't seem to credit the intent that the Batman films were made, let alone the characters involved. If you saw Ledger playing a Joker character, 1). that's a bit like oversimplifcation and 2). there are various interpretations within the comics, from the goofy to the menacing kind. So it isn't like Batman couldn't feel like Batman to you, because that sounds like a rigid way to go about it. I didn't read the comics or watched the movies extensively as you might have but I watched Batman and loved it because of the filmic reasons, not because of adherence to or lack of source material. I loved the first two movies because they were well done. When I first saw X3 in the cinema, I enjoyed it but I felt a bit later on that that there was something missing. Even my partner, who's only seen the first two films, and liked them more, agreed. It's just not as substantial as the first two, and I'm not saying that because of the changes made. It's just not well done filmically, or with the same amount of substance nor filmmaking style as in Nolan's. That's all.


How do you feel about the cinematic portrayal of the Xmen characters then?

 

[TNC9852002]

Roger Friedman has officially been fired:

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/04/roger-friedman.html

I guess this one will stick this time.

 

[CelticPredator]

Ugh. He shouldnt have been fired.

 

[TNC9852002]

Ugh. He shouldnt have been fired.

Like I said before, he shouldn't have necessarily been fired, but I think he's done enough to where FOX would definitely be within their right to do so. He just went too far and really made himself and the company look really bad.

Also like I said, he also stands the possibility of being charged with some kind of fine too. Maybe even some jail time if they want to press charges.

 

[CelticPredator]

Its just a movie. I'll never get the crazy ness people go through because of a downloaded movie. They have enough money.

And its Fox, so I hope they go bankrupt.

 

[TNC9852002]

That's really low, CP.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

So are you saying you felt Batman was Batman In Name Only? Is that really the entire basis of your liking Xmen more than Batman? Let's separate the mediums. Would you call the Batman films as good films, not as good films based on the comic material? Or is it simply because the Xmen characters resonated more with you than with Batman? If that were the case, that's good, but it doesn't seem to credit the intent that the Batman films were made, let alone the characters involved. If you saw Ledger playing a Joker character, 1). that's a bit like oversimplifcation and 2). there are various interpretations within the comics, from the goofy to the menacing kind. So it isn't like Batman couldn't feel like Batman to you, because that sounds like a rigid way to go about it. I didn't read the comics or watched the movies extensively as you might have but I watched Batman and loved it because of the filmic reasons, not because of adherence to or lack of source material. I loved the first two movies because they were well done. When I first saw X3 in the cinema, I enjoyed it but I felt a bit later on that that there was something missing. Even my partner, who's only seen the first two films, and liked them more, agreed. It's just not as substantial as the first two, and I'm not saying that because of the changes made. It's just not well done filmically, or with the same amount of substance nor filmmaking style as in Nolan's. That's all.


How do you feel about the cinematic portrayal of the Xmen characters then?

To answer your question, I feel that both Nolan Batman films are well CRAFTED films, but well crafted =/= enjoyment. For instance, The Beatles are amazingly talented, and made a huge impact on music in general, not just Rock-N-Roll. I HATE their music. I find it to be rather obnoxious. But their talent is pretty undeniable.

To make the comparison with movies, again, I think that Se7en and Tombstone are both really well crafted films, from the writing, to the directing and acting, but for whatever the reasons may be, I just cannot get into those films and I do not enjoy them.

When it comes to X-Men: The Last Stand, I would say that it is definitely the least well made of the trilogy. I would say that Nolan's Batman films are better crafted films. But I don't feel that they tell as good of a story, and I don't feel their characters are as rich. I also don't feel that X3 is as poorly a made film as it's made out to be.

There are definitely some careless flaws, and I don't think it went as far as it could have in certain areas, but I have seen some truly poorly crafted films, and this, to me, is not one of them.

Yea, in a way I'd say that the Batman films are Batman in name only. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would disagree, and that's fine. But to the Batman that I know, through the comics I have read, and the cartoons I have seen, these Nolan films aren't Batman. And that is a deterrent for me. It's one of the reasons why I consider the films to be over-rated. I just don't get that same enjoyment out of it.

As far as how I feel the X-Men characters were done cinematically, I'd say rather brilliantly. I see complaints about the characters day in and day out on these forums, and sometimes it makes me wonder if people actually read the comics, or if they just look at them and see that Rogue isn't flying around punching holes in Sentinels while wearing bright green and yellow spandex.

Because if they did read the comics, I feel that they should know that Rogue's "emo" portrayal is actually rather accurate to the character pre-Jim Lee. And I can go on forever about how I think the characters were accurately portrayed in the films.

I even feel the same way about Wolverine, and I can get into that in about 4 weeks or so.

In the end, it really comes down to which stories I'd rather hear / read / watch, and what characters I'd rather get to know. X-Men has proven time and time again, whether it be in comics, cartoons, movies, or video games, that it's the X-Men and their stories that I want to experience. There's just so much depth there, depth that I don't feel I get much else in fictional universes.

Don't get me wrong, there are obviously tons upon tons of great works of fiction out there. There's literally countless amounts of great movies out there, and surprisingly, the X-Men films aren't even my favorites (which I believe is a testament to where the films didn't succeed), there is lots of great literature out there, I love Lord of the Rings, I am a fan of Shakespeare. Even video games in recent years have been able to create great stories and characters. But none of them are able to capture me the way X-Men does.

 

[3 Dev Adam]

That's really low, CP.

No. It's Fox. It used to be a great studio. Not anymore.

 

[pyromaniac]

To answer your question, I feel that both Nolan Batman films are well CRAFTED films, but well crafted =/= enjoyment. For instance, The Beatles are amazingly talented, and made a huge impact on music in general, not just Rock-N-Roll. I HATE their music. I find it to be rather obnoxious. But their talent is pretty undeniable.

To make the comparison with movies, again, I think that Se7en and Tombstone are both really well crafted films, from the writing, to the directing and acting, but for whatever the reasons may be, I just cannot get into those films and I do not enjoy them.

Sure, that's true. People rate Citizen Kane highly but there will be others who find it not to their cup of tea, providing they give a good reason(s).

When it comes to X-Men: The Last Stand, I would say that it is definitely the least well made of the trilogy. I would say that Nolan's Batman films are better crafted films. But I don't feel that they tell as good of a story, and I don't feel their characters are as rich. I also don't feel that X3 is as poorly a made film as it's made out to be.

Why do you say they don't tell as good of a story and that the characters aren't as rich? And in comparison to what?

There are definitely some careless flaws, and I don't think it went as far as it could have in certain areas, but I have seen some truly poorly crafted films, and this, to me, is not one of them.

It's funny you mentioned that because upon rewatching X3 on television, I could appreciate that the script was actually well made, because it was bookended on nearly all points in terms of thematic setup and payoff, so kudos to them. Some of the lines I thought clever and yes, it does round off of the first two films nicely, but not wholly. But there is a certain inconsistency in that it could have benefited from more depth, rather than just the actual meat. Cinematically, it may work (save for the ADD element that Ratner thought we were somehow endowed with), but you can SENSE that most of these characters are just itching to be further developed beyond what we saw, and not just as a plot device. For instance Angel, who comes to mind served the story purposes while fulfilling the mandatory character trajectory, is untapped potential pertaining to his relationships with the Xmen school, other than just walking in and saying 'I was told this was a safe place to come to'. You sense he needed actual interaction with, let's say Iceman or Colossus to get further into his head, of who he is. What we got was satisfactory, but I think this was just an example of something 'missing' with the film. Then again, you could say the same of the first two films, but probably not as keenly felt there. Perhaps subtlety is part of that missing content. Singer was great with subtlety, but it was a directorial choice by Ratner so that couldn't be helped. For me, what makes Xmen works is the subtlety in the metaphor and characterisation they have, but then again I don't know why I'd say that when the comics are often anything but.

But there is another reason, a sentiment which I share, why X3 is not as well received. I know for a fact that some of my family and mates, who fit in the casual moviegoing category, felt they got less for their buck during their viewing of the film. They felt, while it had some good parts, something overall was missing. The comic fanbase of course have different reasons, but it wouldn't be solely because of pre-determined attitudes towards Fox. At that point, the 'damage' that Fox is perceived to have done wasn't as extensive as it is now, because of X3.

i understand Cyke, for instance, had limited screentime because of politics and issues with his schedule. Still, I find it strange Cyke does not warrant a mention when Professor X does during the funeral scene. But that's just a nitpick, not because Cyke has been almost shafted so far and not well utilised, but because it doesn't make sense. If X3 was used to refer to the first two films, which means there is importance to Cyke as a leader and as a presence in school, then the general audience would have to ask of it the same question.

Yea, in a way I'd say that the Batman films are Batman in name only. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would disagree, and that's fine. But to the Batman that I know, through the comics I have read, and the cartoons I have seen, these Nolan films aren't Batman. And that is a deterrent for me. It's one of the reasons why I consider the films to be over-rated. I just don't get that same enjoyment out of it.

Can you explain what defines Batman to you? Could your idea of Batman fit into a story that Nolan presented or would he have altered the narrative a little differently?

As for over-rated, I always thought that was a neologism that's long worn out its welcome, and is often used as an anti-populist statement when a film comes out and everyone raves about it and you watch and you think, what is the big deal? But I get your gist, just probably not the best wording in my opinion.

As far as how I feel the X-Men characters were done cinematically, I'd say rather brilliantly. I see complaints about the characters day in and day out on these forums, and sometimes it makes me wonder if people actually read the comics, or if they just look at them and see that Rogue isn't flying around punching holes in Sentinels while wearing bright green and yellow spandex.

Because if they did read the comics, I feel that they should know that Rogue's "emo" portrayal is actually rather accurate to the character pre-Jim Lee. And I can go on forever about how I think the characters were accurately portrayed in the films.

For however accurate they may be, I wonder if they were portrayed in short bursts or at long stretches. Because Rogue, though portrayed cinematically to have a natural evolution over the course of the trilogy, is probably another example of untapped potential. She starts out being 'emo' and though that is shedded in the next two films, any of the more dominant traits of her personality that we are all familiar with, don't seem to be present, ie her sassy nature. Instead, the story dictates she still grapples with her powers, which she still perceives to be a detriment because she longs to touch. I can't disagree with you: the evolution she took worked rather well, it's probably that I feel she came up 'short' compared to what she could have been. Just a little bit further... And by that, there are limited opportunities to film an Xmen property. Her story was satisfactorily told, within the context of cinematic narrative. But if you're going to have X4, that will take a long time, and people really want to see the sassy, flying Rogue on screen, finally. Other than that, in previous context, the fact many other characters were spot on or that I have little problems with, seem to outweigh the negatives.

So, you're right: X3 is just not as bad as people claim and it is indeed entertaining to watch and there were a lot of high expectations but that's to be expected by everyone when you adapt from a work with an inbuilt fanbase that loves said work. On the other hand, cinematically it just doesn't make for a totally enjoyable experience in retrospect, substantially and in terms of that 'missing' criteria, as casual moviegoing people I know will attest.

I even feel the same way about Wolverine, and I can get into that in about 4 weeks or so.

In the end, it really comes down to which stories I'd rather hear / read / watch, and what characters I'd rather get to know. X-Men has proven time and time again, whether it be in comics, cartoons, movies, or video games, that it's the X-Men and their stories that I want to experience. There's just so much depth there, depth that I don't feel I get much else in fictional universes.

Don't get me wrong, there are obviously tons upon tons of great works of fiction out there. There's literally countless amounts of great movies out there, and surprisingly, the X-Men films aren't even my favorites (which I believe is a testament to where the films didn't succeed), there is lots of great literature out there, I love Lord of the Rings, I am a fan of Shakespeare. Even video games in recent years have been able to create great stories and characters. But none of them are able to capture me the way X-Men does.

Well even Hugh Jackman agreed he got a little too 'soft' in X3, so I don't know about said accuracy.

But to round off, emotional resonance, a plethora of divergent and interesting characters etc, eh. Yeah I can agree with you on that one.

 

[CelticPredator]

That's really low, CP.

Erm...no. No, I dont think so.

 

[danoyse]

Erm...no. No, I dont think so.

Yeah, it was.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Why do you say they don't tell as good of a story and that the characters aren't as rich? And in comparison to what?

In comparison to X-Men. Compared to a lot of other things, Nolan's Batman, and Batman in general, is a rather amazing character, with a pretty dark backstory, and some pretty intriguing antagonists.

Compared to X-Men, I don't feel that there is as much to offer.

When it comes to the X-Men, there are a few things that I like:

-I like that they are born mutants, and I really enjoy the civil rights aspect of the film, and the political undertones, as well as the concept of fighting to protect those that hate and fear you, and want to harm you. I think that offers more to the story than fictions like Spiderman or Superman or something where the heroes are just fighting for the good of everyone else, and everybody gets along hunky dory. I think there's more conflict in fighting to save someone that hates and despises you.

-I like the plethora of characters. While Batman, Spiderman, Hulk, Superman, etc... are just one guy, with X-Men you get to know and love a whole bunch of people. I have a friend who prefers the single heroes, because he thinks tons of mutants throughout the world takes away from what's special about the X-Men characters, but I disagree. I love the range of characters, and how they interact with each other. Certain characters have special bonds or connections to other characters, leaving you with so many sub plots and relationships within. Comic book wise, you have Scott and Jean, and the conflicts that arise with Logan or Emma Frost from without. Gambit has his romance with Rogue, and he also looks towards Storm as a sister figure to help guide him through life. Iceman and Beast have a special friendship together, there's Colossus and Kitty Pryde, or one of my favorites the unique dynamic between Xavier and Magneto - enemies, yet friends. The list goes on and on with these relationships. Due to the lack of characters in number, it is impossible for fictions like Batman to have all of these subplots. Sure, Wayne has relationships with people, and he does have different interactions with certain villians over others, but it's simply impossible for the Batman fiction to have all of this going on.

It's funny you mentioned that because upon rewatching X3 on television, I could appreciate that the script was actually well made, because it was bookended on nearly all points in terms of thematic setup and payoff, so kudos to them. Some of the lines I thought clever and yes, it does round off of the first two films nicely, but not wholly. But there is a certain inconsistency in that it could have benefited from more depth, rather than just the actual meat. Cinematically, it may work (save for the ADD element that Ratner thought we were somehow endowed with), but you can SENSE that most of these characters are just itching to be further developed beyond what we saw, and not just as a plot device. For instance Angel, who comes to mind served the story purposes while fulfilling the mandatory character trajectory, is untapped potential pertaining to his relationships with the Xmen school, other than just walking in and saying 'I was told this was a safe place to come to'. You sense he needed actual interaction with, let's say Iceman or Colossus to get further into his head, of who he is. What we got was satisfactory, but I think this was just an example of something 'missing' with the film. Then again, you could say the same of the first two films, but probably not as keenly felt there. Perhaps subtlety is part of that missing content. Singer was great with subtlety, but it was a directorial choice by Ratner so that couldn't be helped. For me, what makes Xmen works is the subtlety in the metaphor and characterisation they have, but then again I don't know why I'd say that when the comics are often anything but.

Your point here is one I completely agree with. One of my biggest issues with the film is that they go into the very bare minimum of explanation, but don't further develop the details. Angel could have actually had a significant role to play. Jean could have been loads more emotional.

They went into some development, I.E. Magneto, Beast, Wolverine - but they lacked it in other characters that would have helped to flesh out the film better.

But there is another reason, a sentiment which I share, why X3 is not as well received. I know for a fact that some of my family and mates, who fit in the casual moviegoing category, felt they got less for their buck during their viewing of the film. They felt, while it had some good parts, something overall was missing. The comic fanbase of course have different reasons, but it wouldn't be solely because of pre-determined attitudes towards Fox. At that point, the 'damage' that Fox is perceived to have done wasn't as extensive as it is now, because of X3.

I think that "something missing" is the overall depth mentioned by both of us in my last point.

i understand Cyke, for instance, had limited screentime because of politics and issues with his schedule. Still, I find it strange Cyke does not warrant a mention when Professor X does during the funeral scene. But that's just a nitpick, not because Cyke has been almost shafted so far and not well utilised, but because it doesn't make sense. If X3 was used to refer to the first two films, which means there is importance to Cyke as a leader and as a presence in school, then the general audience would have to ask of it the same question.

I get that, but I still feel that Cyclops WAS a major factor, even if it's not blatant, in your face, via a mention at the funeral.

Jean killed Cyclops, and that was something that the human part of her (what was left of it) struggled with. It was the entire reason for her wanting Logan to kill her in the infirmary. It was the entire reason why she became passive to the Phoenix, allowing it to take over, because the emotion behind her actions was so painful to her, and so powerful, that the Phoenix was able to take control once again. Killing Scott was the horrible pain that she suffered with, why she wanted to die, and why she told Logan "Save me", and have him kill her on Alcatraz.

Sure, I'm just as upset about Cyclops' death as anyone, and I even let it ruin the film for me early on. But after I watched the film more, I realized that Cyclops was still the catalyst for everything Phoenix in the film, and if you actually watch it, it is Cyclops and Jean's love for him that ultimately saves her and brings back her humanity long enough to die, not Logan. Logan does the deed, but it's Cyclops that triggers it all. I can accept that. It's accurate to the heart of the story in a very sick and twisted kind of way.

Can you explain what defines Batman to you? Could your idea of Batman fit into a story that Nolan presented or would he have altered the narrative a little differently?

It probably would have altered the narrative slightly, but not drastically.

I will state that I do like the Nolan Batman films. I do think they are the best representation of Batman that we have gotten on film - but then again that's not hard when the previous representations were the Burton and Shumacher films.

To explain my "vision" of Batman, again I bring back up the 90's animated series. To me, Batman is a mixtured of Burton's camp, and Nolan's darkness and broodingness. Burton was WAY too campy and cheesy, and didn't seem to even attempt to capture the darkness that is Batman's story (even the attempts at darkness were rather campy), and Nolan's movies went way too far in the other direction, making it more like I'm watching a horror movie than a comic book movie.

His whole ninja training bit in Batman Begins, I didn't like that. It might be in some comics I guess, I don't know, but I don't like it. It was almost like some Star Wars stuff where he's training to be a Jedi.

I think the villians in the films (Scarecrow, Joker) were the best things about the film. They were the only things that to me had any kind of hint that I was watching a comic book film. Outside of that, I felt like I was watching a really serious crime drama with a horror story plot.

For however accurate they may be, I wonder if they were portrayed in short bursts or at long stretches. Because Rogue, though portrayed cinematically to have a natural evolution over the course of the trilogy, is probably another example of untapped potential. She starts out being 'emo' and though that is shedded in the next two films, any of the more dominant traits of her personality that we are all familiar with, don't seem to be present, ie her sassy nature. Instead, the story dictates she still grapples with her powers, which she still perceives to be a detriment because she longs to touch. I can't disagree with you: the evolution she took worked rather well, it's probably that I feel she came up 'short' compared to what she could have been. Just a little bit further... And by that, there are limited opportunities to film an Xmen property. Her story was satisfactorily told, within the context of cinematic narrative. But if you're going to have X4, that will take a long time, and people really want to see the sassy, flying Rogue on screen, finally. Other than that, in previous context, the fact many other characters were spot on or that I have little problems with, seem to outweigh the negatives.

Well this goes back to what I like about the characters, and what really draws me in. Look, we're talking about comic book, sci-fi, fantasy characters here. I love that they have amazing powers and can do such fantastical things. But ALL of these characters have special powers, or gadgets that allow them to do amazing things.

To me, it's the heart of these characters (X-Men) that sets them apart from the rest.

I like Rogue so much better when she's struggling with her powers, not when she's flying through mountains and throwing tanks. I think it's so much more interesting to me to see her struggling with her powers. It makes her an actual character. It also makes these X-Men characters not necessarily god-like - their powers are just as much a curse upon them as they are a blessing. So when I never see Rogue flying around throwing things in a movie, I don't feel like I've lost anything.

And because I think it adds to my point on what I like from these characters and stuff:

I won't call it my favorite comic book story of all time or anything, because it's really not (in fact, I liked the Batman and Spiderman movies better than this, as well as the first Blade and the Tom Jane Punisher), but I walked out of the Watchmen theater probably about a month ago hit pretty hard by what I had just seen. The story overall was fine, it had it's ups, it had it's downs, and throughout the entire movie I was thinking to myself "this is a cool movie - better than it is boring, but not AMAZING"

Well that was until I reached the ending. The ending to that film hit me rather hard, and resonated with me rather strongly. I rather enjoyed that the film didn't exactly end on a high note - it wasn't the good guys winning, or losing. It was a HUGE shade of grey, one where it wasn't the right or wrong action, it was just the necessary one. It was a huge moral dillema, and I appreciated the fact that the story actually went there, and wasn't your cliche` happy ending. That movie got a lot of points in my book because of that. I still wouldn't call the film amazing, but I'd say it was pretty damned good.

 

[katie_girl09]

I've been disappointed with the new Batman films since Batman Begins. While I enjoy the movies, I really don't feel like I'm watching a Batman movie. That doesn't feel like Bruce Wayne to me, that doesn't feel like Batman to me. They are just, to me, some good movies that are called Batman.

Even Ledger to me was just a brilliantly portrayed psychotic madman who happened to be called The Joker.

I think that you've hit the nail on the head as to why I'm not quite as keen as others on the new Batman movies.

 

[CelticPredator]

Yeah, it was.

Fox deserves no money from anyone. They are a cancer.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

No, they are a movie studio, and a business.

 

[TNC9852002]

No. It's Fox. It used to be a great studio. Not anymore.

I loved Taken and Marley & Me.

and maybe it means very little, but FOX Searchlight has helped bring us some heavy hitters recently (The Wrestler/Slumdog Millionaire). I'm looking forward to 500 Days of Summer.

Rumblings over with the news media is that FOX and Rothman are aware of their rut among their 20th Century releases and they care as much about that as we do and they ARE trying to fix it now (i.e., additional Wolverine reshoots, restarting Fantastic Four..etc).

 

[CelticPredator]

So is Universal and WB....but they dont put out half as much crap as Fox does. and they actually want to make GOOD movies. Oh yes....they want to make money as well.....but they know that Good films = Money.

 

[TheVileOne]

Fox didn't produce Taken.

 

[pyromaniac]

In comparison to X-Men. Compared to a lot of other things, Nolan's Batman, and Batman in general, is a rather amazing character, with a pretty dark backstory, and some pretty intriguing antagonists.

Compared to X-Men, I don't feel that there is as much to offer.

When it comes to the X-Men, there are a few things that I like:

-I like that they are born mutants, and I really enjoy the civil rights aspect of the film, and the political undertones, as well as the concept of fighting to protect those that hate and fear you, and want to harm you. I think that offers more to the story than fictions like Spiderman or Superman or something where the heroes are just fighting for the good of everyone else, and everybody gets along hunky dory. I think there's more conflict in fighting to save someone that hates and despises you.

-I like the plethora of characters. While Batman, Spiderman, Hulk, Superman, etc... are just one guy, with X-Men you get to know and love a whole bunch of people. I have a friend who prefers the single heroes, because he thinks tons of mutants throughout the world takes away from what's special about the X-Men characters, but I disagree. I love the range of characters, and how they interact with each other. Certain characters have special bonds or connections to other characters, leaving you with so many sub plots and relationships within. Comic book wise, you have Scott and Jean, and the conflicts that arise with Logan or Emma Frost from without. Gambit has his romance with Rogue, and he also looks towards Storm as a sister figure to help guide him through life. Iceman and Beast have a special friendship together, there's Colossus and Kitty Pryde, or one of my favorites the unique dynamic between Xavier and Magneto - enemies, yet friends. The list goes on and on with these relationships. Due to the lack of characters in number, it is impossible for fictions like Batman to have all of these subplots. Sure, Wayne has relationships with people, and he does have different interactions with certain villians over others, but it's simply impossible for the Batman fiction to have all of this going on.

Agreed about the Xmen character and their interactions. It makes much of the humour and drama. I've been watching a great anime called Bleach, and there is a similarity in how all the diverse and unique characters interact with each other in all sort of comic ways, and I just love it. But I was referring to the cinematic counterparts, story wise.

I get that, but I still feel that Cyclops WAS a major factor, even if it's not blatant, in your face, via a mention at the funeral.

Jean killed Cyclops, and that was something that the human part of her (what was left of it) struggled with. It was the entire reason for her wanting Logan to kill her in the infirmary. It was the entire reason why she became passive to the Phoenix, allowing it to take over, because the emotion behind her actions was so painful to her, and so powerful, that the Phoenix was able to take control once again. Killing Scott was the horrible pain that she suffered with, why she wanted to die, and why she told Logan "Save me", and have him kill her on Alcatraz.

Sure, I'm just as upset about Cyclops' death as anyone, and I even let it ruin the film for me early on. But after I watched the film more, I realized that Cyclops was still the catalyst for everything Phoenix in the film, and if you actually watch it, it is Cyclops and Jean's love for him that ultimately saves her and brings back her humanity long enough to die, not Logan. Logan does the deed, but it's Cyclops that triggers it all. I can accept that. It's accurate to the heart of the story in a very sick and twisted kind of way.

Yes it's funny how Cyke's death really drives Jean beyond the edge, and it does work well for the story. It couldn't be helped that Marsden was unable to return, but you know it would have boosted the story a lot more if he appeared in the final fight. What we got, is good enough though at least.

If there's an injustice, it's Logan acting out in Cyclops' steed and I thought it felt a little forced.

To explain my "vision" of Batman, again I bring back up the 90's animated series. To me, Batman is a mixtured of Burton's camp, and Nolan's darkness and broodingness. Burton was WAY too campy and cheesy, and didn't seem to even attempt to capture the darkness that is Batman's story (even the attempts at darkness were rather campy), and Nolan's movies went way too far in the other direction, making it more like I'm watching a horror movie than a comic book movie.

His whole ninja training bit in Batman Begins, I didn't like that. It might be in some comics I guess, I don't know, but I don't like it. It was almost like some Star Wars stuff where he's training to be a Jedi.

I think the villians in the films (Scarecrow, Joker) were the best things about the film. They were the only things that to me had any kind of hint that I was watching a comic book film. Outside of that, I felt like I was watching a really serious crime drama with a horror story plot.

Hmm. The horror elements, that really belong in Batman Begins more than in TDK, and even then they weren't really. If they were, they were mainly from the criminals' pov, which I thought worked well, and in context of themes of symbolic and literal fear, because the crims needed to feel fear, be intimidated that they're no longer running the whole show.

Is it probably a bad thing that the ninja segments reminded you of the Jedi training?

I like Rogue so much better when she's struggling with her powers, not when she's flying through mountains and throwing tanks. I think it's so much more interesting to me to see her struggling with her powers. It makes her an actual character. It also makes these X-Men characters not necessarily god-like - their powers are just as much a curse upon them as they are a blessing. So when I never see Rogue flying around throwing things in a movie, I don't feel like I've lost anything.

I don't feel I have either and although it works well for her character in terms of her evolution, we have seen her struggle over the same issues for the three films now, even as they have been repackaged by the circumstances in whatever film it happens to be.

I won't call it my favorite comic book story of all time or anything, because it's really not (in fact, I liked the Batman and Spiderman movies better than this, as well as the first Blade and the Tom Jane Punisher), but I walked out of the Watchmen theater probably about a month ago hit pretty hard by what I had just seen. The story overall was fine, it had it's ups, it had it's downs, and throughout the entire movie I was thinking to myself "this is a cool movie - better than it is boring, but not AMAZING"

Well that was until I reached the ending. The ending to that film hit me rather hard, and resonated with me rather strongly. I rather enjoyed that the film didn't exactly end on a high note - it wasn't the good guys winning, or losing. It was a HUGE shade of grey, one where it wasn't the right or wrong action, it was just the necessary one. It was a huge moral dillema, and I appreciated the fact that the story actually went there, and wasn't your cliche` happy ending. That movie got a lot of points in my book because of that. I still wouldn't call the film amazing, but I'd say it was pretty damned good.

Ooh. I thought you said you weren't going to see Watchmen because of what you'd heard. You even used it in an argument. Watchmen is one of those films that need to be appreciated over time, similar to Blade Runner because they share a similar trajectory. The only thing that works against it is that there probably is little emotional investment to hook you in fully. But I'm more forgiving because of the source material, which is just amazing because it draws you in and it makes you understand their motives, the nuances in the world created and much more. It's just a thinking superhero concoction. TDK ended in a gray area much in the same way too.

 

[3 Dev Adam]

I loved Taken and Marley & Me.

and maybe it means very little, but FOX Searchlight has helped bring us some heavy hitters recently (The Wrestler/Slumdog Millionaire). I'm looking forward to 500 Days of Summer.

There are things Fox produces, and things Fox only DISTRIBUTES. In this case we have Slumdog, Taken, Donnie Darko. Marley is more a Regency/Sunswept than a Fox 2000 production.