Hard to beileve this use to fit....

[TheBlueMcCoy82]

Why would he? It would still be inconsistent.

And why exactly would it be inconsistent?

 

[liamoversion2]

Yes, one of them said it was just a cameo, but it became clear that people were obsessing over it as a detail that could not be ignored... Bryan did mention it, and Simon later mentioned the experimentation as well, so that does cover the idea that he somehow became blue later. Which I am fine with. If others aren't, then that's up to them.

I just see it as another blatant continuity error... something that glares and begs to be fixed... a few short flashback scenes would have handled it...

However, they just don't care enough about making a film with integrity nor do they have any respect for the people who love the first two movies to do them justice.

Bottom line is there is absolutely no explanation provided as to how the transition occured from X2 to X3.

Defend it all you want but there's no getting around that unless you get a direct explanation from the writers and I can pretty guarantee that it still won't make sense because they'll just be defending an error.

 

[berzerko89]

i was expecting him to transform in this movie, sighs! cuz there is no continuity in his character in x2. but beast was great!

 

[TNC9852002]

Well, remember, he's probably been Secretary for some time,...He most likely hasn't been back at the mansion since his transformation, so I would imagine now with all of that extra fur, that the uniform that he used to wear fits alot more tighter..

Here's the exact line: "I can't believe this once fit me.."

-TNC

 

[Matt]

The problem here is that you've completely made up your own assumptions on here without any proof. There's no scene set up to assume that this Beast was an X-Men in human form. You can make your speculations all you want but it isn't any more fact than anyone else's theories. Simply, if it doesn't actually happen in the films, then you don't exactly know the writers' intentions.

X1:

Professor Xavier (regarding Scott, Storm and Jean): "They were SOME of my first students"...implying that he had others in the same class as them. Hank, perhaps?

Professor Xavier: "When they finish here, they can either go into the world as educated young men and women or stay here to teach others, become what the children affectionally call...X-men"

Students do leave the Xavier institute...Beast was one of them.

X3:

Professor Xavier: "You always have a home here, you're part of this place."

Beast: "This used to fit."

I'm pretty sure, based on the evidence the movies create, the writers INTENDED for people to believe Beast is a former X-man.

 

[TNC9852002]

Two years have passed since X2. In that time, we got a new president and Beast joined the government.

Simple really. No flaw. Just needs some common sense. Which is sadly not very common on here. Sometimes it's like the idiot bus has just pulled up in these threads.

lol....Idiot bus..

Actually, according to the writers, it really hasn't been that long between X2 and X3,..not even a year...I could be wrong, but that's what I remember them saying (but yeah, I know, I know... )

-TNC

 

[Matt]

Too many people are nitpicking over the cameo in X2. Most people who saw the movie likely did not even notice it.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Why is this a problem?

He was in human form, at Xavier's years ago, then he turned furry, which made him bigger, so, it used to fit, now it doesn't.

 

[The Kid]

what's the problem with the continuity? I see none.

 

[skruloos]

Well, Bryan Singer clearly said that during Cerebro's targeting of mutants, he intended to show three particular shots - Beast going blue and furry, Gambit, and Marrow shooting bones...

To me, that gives a neat enough answer. Simon Kinberg, co-writer of the movie, said that they were going with the idea that Beast had experimented on himself (as he did in the comics). Either way, the intention of Bryan Singer or of the writers of X3 was that a transformation had taken place since we saw Hank on that TV screen.

Bryan Singer said it. Simon Kinberg said it. Whichever theory you go for, both state that a transformation occurred since the TV scene in X2.

So, those are the facts. Not assumptions. I'm not sure why you choose to argue, but you aren't doing a very good job of it.

The problem is that you're arguing based on what people said was supposed to happen and not actually what is shown in the movie. Look at it from someone who doesn't read interviews from the production team or documentaries on what deleted scenes COULD have been. There is nothing in the films indicating that. Judging by the scenes given in both films, there is no explanation to it at all and the timeline does not match. You're making up excuses for it to have it make sense and relying on non-canonical information (meaning stuff that never actually shows up in the movies). The movie has to exist on its own merits without the "ifs, ands, or buts" of the filmmakers. As far as the movies go, the only "facts" are the ones presented in the movies.

 

[liamoversion2]

The problem is that you're arguing based on what people said was supposed to happen and not actually what is shown in the movie. Look at it from someone who doesn't read interviews from the production team or documentaries on what deleted scenes COULD have been. There is nothing in the films indicating that. Judging by the scenes given in both films, there is no explanation to it at all and the timeline does not match. You're making up excuses for it to have it make sense and relying on non-canonical information (meaning stuff that never actually shows up in the movies). The movie has to exist on its own merits without the "ifs, ands, or buts" of the filmmakers. As far as the movies go, the only "facts" are the ones presented in the movies.

Exactly. The movie doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You can't ignore blatant things like this when making a movie. It's just bad film making plain and simple. And there are too many other things in the movie just like this.

Ever notice how usually with a film it takes many many repeat viewings before people notice continuity errors and mistakes? Some of them don't show up for years! That's because they're usually not HUGE and GLARINGLY OBVIOUS!

People are noticing these things on their very first viewing becuase they're fecking ridiculous and scream 'look at me I'm a massive mistake'. That's a real disgrace.

This isn't nitpicking. It's just having the courage to admit the difference between letting things slide / suspending your disbelief and realising how bad something is technically and taking a stand against it.

 

[Anthony05]

Hank was a team member prior to X1. Isn't it easier to look at it that way?

 

[Matt]

Exactly. The movie doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You can't ignore blatant things like this when making a movie. It's just bad film making plain and simple. And there are too many other things in the movie just like this.

Ever notice how usually with a film it takes many many repeat viewings before people notice continuity errors and mistakes? Some of them don't show up for years! That's because they're usually not HUGE and GLARINGLY OBVIOUS!

People are noticing these things on their very first viewing becuase they're fecking ridiculous and scream 'look at me I'm a massive mistake'. That's a real disgrace.

This isn't nitpicking. It's just having the courage to admit the difference between letting things slide / suspending your disbelief and realising how bad something is technically and taking a stand against it.

Blatant things? A 2 second cameo is not a blatant thing. It can easily simply be taken out of the continuity.

I swear, the same people *****ing about this would be the same ones *****ing if Beast were played by the same guy and couldn't act worth ****.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Beast was a member of the X-Men before the first movie.

He would have left the team, previous to the first movie, to pursue his career in politics. Hence his cameo on the TV screen.

I think, however, that this film ignored the cameo in X2, and just has it so that Beast was always blue.

Either way, the fact that he was an X-Men member before hand wasn't portrayed ALL that well. They gave 2 nods to it, and let the audience figure it out for themselves.

 

[Matt]

Hank was a team member prior to X1. Isn't it easier to look at it that way?

Thats clearly what the writers were implying.

 

[skruloos]

X1:

Professor Xavier (regarding Scott, Storm and Jean): "They were SOME of my first students"...implying that he had others in the same class as them. Hank, perhaps?

Professor Xavier: "When they finish here, they can either go into the world as educated young men and women or stay here to teach others, become what the children affectionally call...X-men"

Students do leave the Xavier institute...Beast was one of them.

X3:

Professor Xavier: "You always have a home here, you're part of this place."

Beast: "This used to fit."

I'm pretty sure, based on the evidence the movies create, the writers INTENDED for people to believe Beast is a former X-man.

There we go. A plausable argument based on actual evidence provided in the films and not relying on outside knowledge of rumored scenes. The above scene from X1 can be used as an explanation to show that Hank was indeed a student at Xavier's before the events of X1. Howver, us assuming that McCoy was an X-Men in human form is still speculation. And the fact that none of the students watching television when McCoy is on recognize him as a student or even acknowledge him can be used to argue that he wasn't a student. It is only in X3 that they try to nail down specifics and because they don't really dwell on it or show us conclusive proof, speculation is legitimate from both sides.

 

[The Kid]

Hank was a team member prior to X1. Isn't it easier to look at it that way?

what other way is there? What's this thread about the clothes or Hank's time on the team? It's pretty clear he was on the team back in the day before logan and rogue came in... Am I missing something?

 

[Matt]

There we go. A plausable argument based on actual evidence provided in the films and not relying on outside knowledge of rumored scenes. The above scene from X1 can be used as an explanation to show that Hank was indeed a student at Xavier's before the events of X1. Howver, us assuming that McCoy was an X-Men in human form is still speculation. And the fact that none of the students watching television when McCoy is on recognize him as a student or even acknowledge him can be used to argue that he wasn't a student. It is only in X3 that they try to nail down specifics and because they don't really dwell on it or show us conclusive proof, speculation is legitimate from both sides.

But we don't see him on TV in the school...his scene on the TV is watched by Magneto's guard in a bar...and like I said, they more likely than not did not acknowledge it.

 

[liamoversion2]

There we go. A plausable argument based on actual evidence provided in the films and not relying on outside knowledge of rumored scenes. The above scene from X1 can be used as an explanation to show that Hank was indeed a student at Xavier's before the events of X1. Howver, us assuming that McCoy was an X-Men in human form is still speculation. And the fact that none of the students watching television when McCoy is on recognize him as a student or even acknowledge him can be used to argue that he wasn't a student. It is only in X3 that they try to nail down specifics and because they don't really dwell on it or show us conclusive proof, speculation is legitimate from both sides.

I would argue that speculation is not as legitimate on both sides. I would in fact argue that it's far more plausible that they just decided to ignore the cameo in X2 thinking that they could get away with it.

 

[The Kid]

How does the cameo affect his role in x3?

becomes

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

And the fact that none of the students watching television when McCoy is on recognize him as a student or even acknowledge him can be used to argue that he wasn't a student.

Are you talking about the TV cameo he had in X2? Because that could easily be explained in 2 ways:

1. We only see that cameo in the bar, we don't see students in the mansion watching that. So it could be assumed that no students were watching that on TV (even though the students do have a knack for watching news events on the TV)

2. These students are all younger, who knows when they were recruited. Hank is obviously an older student, since he was a student, and X-Men member, and left, all before the events of X-Men. So these students may be to young to have been around when Hank was, and wouldn't recognize him. It seems the only students he would have really known would have been Ororo, Scott, and Jean.

 

[BlazingBread]

Look at it from someone who doesn't read interviews from the production team or documentaries on what deleted scenes COULD have been. movies.

TAHNK YOU, i dont apperciate x-maniac calling people idiots that make these threads. I am not going to the extremes to read all the interviews and what the coulds have been. I just look at what was on the screen. Best post i have read on this forum so far.

 

[Matt]

TAHNK YOU, i dont apperciate x-maniac calling people idiots that make these threads. I am not going to the extremes to read all the interviews and what the coulds have been. I just look at what was on the screen. Best post i have read on this forum so far.

Look at it from the view of someone who doesn't nitpick through movies. 95% of America did not notice the Beast cameo. It is plausible to simply ignore it.

 

[liamoversion2]

Look at it from the view of someone who doesn't nitpick through movies. 95% of America did not notice the Beast cameo. It is plausible to simply ignore it.

True. 95% would not have noticed the Beast cameo.

But that's absolutely no excuse!

Doesn't that just constitute bad workmanship? Irresponsible, lazy, bad film making? It's dishonest. It's just saying, 'oh screw the fans, 90% of our revenue comes from people who won't know the difference whether beast has pink or blue fur or three heads'. How can you defend this??

 

[BlazingBread]

Look at it from the view of someone who doesn't nitpick through movies. 95% of America did not notice the Beast cameo. It is plausible to simply ignore it.

Dont get me wrong what you said is very acceptable but me being a fan noticed that the guy on tv was none other than beast. But i guess they said hey screw the x-men fans and lets just leave them hanging.