I kinda hope this movie bombs....

[jmao]

its gonna bomb to me, cause the first 2 also kinda bombed in my opinion

 

[Cyma]

Yeah, not stating a connection between Rogue, Nightcrawler, and Mystique isn't a deviation. Just because it's not stated doesn't mean there's no connection. That's like saying Jean isn't the same because they don't make a connection between her and Annie Richardson or that Scott's not the same because they don't mention his brother. If it's not mentioned as being otherwise, don't assume so.

I could be wrong, but aren't Jean and the Phoenix one now or something (it's hard to keep track anymore), so didn't she effectively lose control of her powers to begin with?

[FONT=&quot]Annie and Alex weren’t shown or even mentioned so yes, we can’t assume anything about whether they influenced Scott or Jean in anyway or not. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mystique, Kurt and Rogue were altogether in the movie and absolutely nothing suggested that they were related. There should’ve been some hints. Both of Mystique’s kids are right infront of her and she doesn’t even glance at them. Lol, she looks more interested in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Logan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
As far as I know, in the comics, Jean is possessed by a cosmic entity dubbed as the ‘Phoenix Force’. [/FONT]

 

[BMM]

[FONT=&quot]Annie and Alex weren’t shown or even mentioned so yes, we can’t assume anything about whether they influenced Scott or Jean in anyway or not. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mystique, Kurt and Rogue were altogether in the movie and absolutely nothing suggested that they were related. There should’ve been some hints. Both of Mystique’s kids are right infront of her and she doesn’t even glance at them. Lol, she looks more interested in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Logan[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
As far as I know, in the comics, Jean is possessed by a cosmic entity dubbed as the ‘Phoenix Force’. [/FONT]

Regardless of whether or not all three are present in the movie, just because nothing is said, it doesn't mean it's not there. I don't believe Nightcrawler was immediatley aware of his origins in the comic books either, and Mystique certainly didn't go out of her way to inform him of it either. Perhaps, the same is true for the movie. Likewise, apparently, there will be no mention of Juggernaut or Xavier's relationship, but that doesn't mean it's not present--and it certainly shouldn't be assumed to be a deviation from the source material because nothing was stated otherwise to provide such a deviation.

The characters don't have to pop-up on screen and make a brief acknowledgment of their history and relationships with one another just to ensure that you as a comic book reader know something you already know.

In so far as Jean is concerned, there's something going on with her and Phoenix . . . it's been made to be even more convoluted. I don't know--ask one of the Phoenix people.

This is not to say that the movies don't deviate from the comics--because they do. It appears for some, however, the deviations in this movie outweigh those of the previous two, which is the cause for all the grumbling.

 

[Chris M]

If this movie bombs,do you honestly expect too see another one?

I would bet the house on it.

X-Men is now a successful (dare I say it franchise in Hollywood's eyes - similar to Superman, Spiderman and Batman. When another producer/director picks this up in years to come Fox (or which ever studio has the rights) will be very open to the pitch based on it's successful history.

I believe that most of us that are hoping the film shows poorer results is because we want the studios to realise that you deviate from the original vision at your peril. I don't mean source material (comics will never translate well to film), I mean the tone of the original film(s) that made the franchise successful.

This is a cycle that the older fans have seen before:

Step 1: Studio releases first 2 films that are successful due to the vision of the director that usually has close ties with the source material on some level. (Eg: Batman 1&2, Superman 1&2).

Step 2: Enter Hollywood: Blinded by the box office $$$, interfering producers and studios see a marketable franchise that can be exploited. Suddenly the films start to divert from their original vision in the interests of creating (what the studios believe is) a commercially successful film. (Eg: Superman 3&4, Batman 3&4, Star Trek 9 & 10).

Step: 4 Box office failure. Studio cancels any future projects due to dwindling return on investment.

Step 5: X-years later, a new producer/director reinvigorates that franchise by examining why the original films were so successful. New creative team creates a new series of films based on the original vision of the films and comics (eg: Batman Begins, Superman Returns)

And the cycle starts anew....

The sooner we get out of this “Franchise” phase of the cycle, the sooner we’ll see a return to the better films. J

 

[BMM]

I would bet the house on it.

X-Men is now a successful (dare I say it franchise in Hollywood's eyes - similar to Superman, Spiderman and Batman. When another producer/director picks this up in years to come Fox (or which ever studio has the rights) will be very open to the pitch based on it's successful history.

I believe that most of us that are hoping the film shows poorer results is because we want the studios to realise that you deviate from the original vision at your peril. I don't mean source material (comics will never translate well to film), I mean the tone of the original film(s) that made the franchise successful.

This is a cycle that the older fans have seen before:

Step 1: Studio releases first 2 films that are successful due to the vision of the director that usually has close ties with the source material on some level. (Eg: Batman 1&2, Superman 1&2).

Step 2: Enter Hollywood: Blinded by the box office $$$, interfering producers and studios see a marketable franchise that can be exploited. Suddenly the films start to divert from their original vision in the interests of creating (what the studios believe is) a commercially successful film. (Eg: Superman 3&4, Batman 3&4, Star Trek 9 & 10).

Step: 4 Box office failure. Studio cancels any future projects due to dwindling return on investment.

Step 5: X-years later, a new producer/director reinvigorates that franchise by examining why the original films were so successful. New creative team creates a new series of films based on the original vision of the films and comics (eg: Batman Begins, Superman Returns)

And the cycle starts anew....

The sooner we get out of this “Franchise” phase of the cycle, the sooner we’ll see a return to the better films. J

Exactly Great post.

 

[hulkamania85]

Probably not, and if it doesn't, then the writers, Fox, et. all will know they screwed the fans over and got away with it.

Yay! Let's jump to conclusions before seeing how it will play out on screen!

There are some things that I've heard that I don't like, but I'm still going to wait on seeing this thing before I judge it.

 

[Chris M]

Exactly Great post.

Thanks mate!

 

[David33]

I'm going to see this movie opening weekend, so don't get on me too bad. But if this movie is a huge success, then the studio will just think that they can screw over the fans and get away with it.

These aren't their characters, if they're anyone's they're Stan Lee's and Jack Kirby's, but we are the ones who made them successful.

This isn't just about Cyke either, it's about the horrible use of Xavier's character in the trillogy, dispite a wonderful performance by Patrick Stewart. It's about blatantly changing the story lines from the comics, so it doesn't even remotely resemble the comics.

You can change a few things, ala Spider-man with organic webshooters, but what they've done in this film is the Equivalent of having Aunt May defeat Harry as the Green Goblin 2.

The Phoenix story was all about Jean and Scott, period. In fact I remember reading an old "What if.." book about "What if Dark Phoenix lived?" In that book Jean killed all the X-men, (I remember Collosus and Wovlie tried a fast ball special and Jean turned him around and made Collosus de-armor and Wolvie killed him). The last two were Cyke and Dark Phoenix. Cyke said something like "I'm sorry Jean but I can't let you do this..." He gave her the full optic blast, and Jean turned it around and killed him. When she saw what she did to Cyke, she was overwhealmed with guilt, and her rage and anguish over killing Scott caused her to destroy the whole universe and herself.

The book ends with the Beyonder saying something like, "Of all the universes I have seen this is the most tragic...."

Yet in the movies, Jean kills Scott and she feels nothing? In fact in the next scene she's wanting to get busy with Logan? WTH????

Now I am very much looking forward to Kelsey Grammar as Beast, and the Pyro vs. Ice-Man battle. There are going to be some good things in the movie, but they will by far be overshadowed by the bad.

What a stupid post.X3 will be a big hit,it looks awesome and if there is a bomb this summer,apart from Poseidon,it will be Superman,which looks so bad......

 

[Cyma]

Regardless of whether or not all three are present in the movie, just because nothing is said, it doesn't mean it's not there. I don't believe Nightcrawler was immediatley aware of his origins in the comic books either, and Mystique certainly didn't go out of her way to inform him of it either. Perhaps, the same is true for the movie. Likewise, apparently, there will be no mention of Juggernaut or Xavier's relationship, but that doesn't mean it's not present--and it certainly shouldn't be assumed to be a deviation from the source material because nothing was stated otherwise to provide such a deviation.

The characters don't have to pop-up on screen and make a brief acknowledgment of their history and relationships with one another just to ensure that you as a comic book reader know something you already know.

[FONT=&quot]Actually in the comics, when Nightcrawler came across Mystique for the first time, he was shocked at how similar his appearance was to her true form and she neither confirmed nor denied any of his suspicions, just told him to ask his foster mother Margali. In the movie-verse……I guess he seemed a bit curious, but that’s just it so who knows and considering Mystique’s personality, she could act like she’s not related to him, lol. Can’t say anything about Juggy/Prof till I see X3 [/FONT]

In so far as Jean is concerned, there's something going on with her and Phoenix . . . it's been made to be even more convoluted. I don't know--ask one of the Phoenix people.

This is not to say that the movies don't deviate from the comics--because they do. It appears for some, however, the deviations in this movie outweigh those of the previous two, which is the cause for all the grumbling.

[FONT=&quot]The grumbling is justified. But it’s just that the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Phoenix[/FONT][FONT=&quot] thing has been done in the cartoons too, and I’m not sure if hearing Scott incessantly scream Jean in the movies would’ve looked good(And I hope [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Logan[/FONT][FONT=&quot] doesn’t act too much like that). Scott’s death is most probably to bring out the Dark Phoenix in her, like in the comics, though he really doesn’t die. As Rogue said about Scott, ‘That man will probably live forever.’ *Sigh* Let’s see what the third installment of X-men brings………[/FONT]

 

[logansoldcigar]

I would bet the house on it.

X-Men is now a successful (dare I say it franchise in Hollywood's eyes - similar to Superman, Spiderman and Batman. When another producer/director picks this up in years to come Fox (or which ever studio has the rights) will be very open to the pitch based on it's successful history.

I believe that most of us that are hoping the film shows poorer results is because we want the studios to realise that you deviate from the original vision at your peril. I don't mean source material (comics will never translate well to film), I mean the tone of the original film(s) that made the franchise successful.

This is a cycle that the older fans have seen before:

Step 1: Studio releases first 2 films that are successful due to the vision of the director that usually has close ties with the source material on some level. (Eg: Batman 1&2, Superman 1&2).

Step 2: Enter Hollywood: Blinded by the box office $$$, interfering producers and studios see a marketable franchise that can be exploited. Suddenly the films start to divert from their original vision in the interests of creating (what the studios believe is) a commercially successful film. (Eg: Superman 3&4, Batman 3&4, Star Trek 9 & 10).

Step: 4 Box office failure. Studio cancels any future projects due to dwindling return on investment.

Step 5: X-years later, a new producer/director reinvigorates that franchise by examining why the original films were so successful. New creative team creates a new series of films based on the original vision of the films and comics (eg: Batman Begins, Superman Returns)

And the cycle starts anew....

The sooner we get out of this “Franchise” phase of the cycle, the sooner we’ll see a return to the better films. J

I think with Xmen, the time period could also (luckily, IMO) see the property back in marvel's hands as one of their own projects, rather than something at a specific studio..similar to captain america ect

 

[Chris M]

[FONT=&quot] As Rogue said about Scott, ‘That man will probably live forever.’ *Sigh* Let’s see what the third installment of X-men brings………[/FONT]

When did Rogue say that?

 

[Asteroid-Man]

That's not entirely true. The interviewer at IESB tried to pull the same crap on Patrick Stewart during his interview, and Stewart flat out said that wasn't the case, noting that the studio sent him a big box of comics to serve as a guide for the first X-Men film.

Source: http://iesb.net/fox2006/051606.php

ya keep reading my post bud, the box of comics was for X3. Did Brian direct that? exactly

 

[Kurosawa]

Hmm... I don't know about that.

What about Harry Potter then? Hyped to death from books that aren't even that good, movies churned out like mad, many changes made to the story (see wikipedia for a list of how each movie differed from its source). Harry Potter reeks of commercial greed more than anything else around.

The books are actually very enjoyable, far superior to most comics nowadays. There are changes yes, but on nowhere near the scale of X3.

LOTR had the advantage of not having four decades of varying continuities, of being a classic that everyone knows, and of Peter Jackson being allowed to create three-hour movies (and yet with Kong, that three hours proved his undoing). And LOTR irritates in places... not the changes...but some of the pacing is very draggy, some of the hobbit stuff in the first movie felt very twee and unreal, and the final film moved too fast in places yet had too long an ending. It feels like art to you because it's a classic brought to life for the first time on a huge budget and with a three-hour time allowance.

LOTR had the advantage of Peter Jackson, a director who put respect and fidelity for the source material first. The LOTR series easily destroys the X-Men movies.

I know there are some dramatic events in X3 that deviate from the source considerably, but those should not affect how much the movie succeeds in its own right as an epic conflict of the mutants. If my favourite character(s) (Storm and Magneto probably) died, despite my anxieties and annoyances I would still be able to view the movie as a movie. Is the film well-made? Does it work as a film? Does its structure, flow, story, succeed as a cinematic experience? I would still be able to enjoy it if my favourites died. This is X-MEN, by definition a large universe of multiple characters.

X3 takes the source material and craps all over it. What they have done is the same as killing Romeo in Act I of Romeo and Juliet and replacing him with Paris.

Does it have to stick to the source? Is it possible anyway with four decades of variants to plough through? Do we want the comicbook story put on screen frame for frame, so we could predict the entire movie and have no need for spoilers? The first two movies varied vastly from the source - you are less unhappy with those because there were no key deaths of your favourites.. but others are unhappy with Rogue's portrayal, the death of Sabretooth and Deathstrike, the bastardisation of Mastermind... Where does it end?

It's entirely possible to stick close to the source...but unfortunately FOX is a studio that prodices nothing but product and James Marsden is not a big enough brand name for them to hinge a huge movie like X3 on.

The process of accepting that this is a movie that cannot follow the comics exactly has to begin somewhere. One of the criticisms of Da Vinci Code is that events that sounded good in the book just do not translate on screen at all when depicted exactly as in the book.

Bastardizing the source material to the point of changing the male lead of the story and replacing him with a character that is his complete opposite is not acceptable, and I for one will never see X3 because of what they have done. It's the ultimate demonstration of a lack of respect for comics. As a fan of Cyclops, I have no motivation to support this movie and I will never support it.

 

[danoyse]

LOTR had the advantage of Peter Jackson, a director who put respect and fidelity for the source material first. The LOTR series easily destroys the X-Men movies.

The LOTR movies had tons of changes that fans of the book were furious about: taking out Tom Bombadil, having the elves show up at Helm's Deep, turning Faramir into a villian for part of 'Two Towers', taking Saruman out of the theatrical release of 'Return of the King', and leaving out the scouring of the Shire at the end of ROTK.

I saw Peter Jackson speak at a Barnes & Noble in NY after 'Fellowship' was released. He addressed all of those changes, why he made them, and what he had to put up with from fans for making them. He even "warned" everyone about upcoming changes to TTT and ROTK, and squashed a rumor he'd read on the internet about the crews of LOTR and the 'Star Wars' not getting along.

He also said it was frustrating process translating the books because of the lack of cooperation from the Tolkien estate, who wanted nothing to do with the film.

Bastardizing the source material to the point of changing the male lead of the story and replacing him with a character that is his complete opposite is not acceptable, and I for one will never see X3 because of what they have done. It's the ultimate demonstration of a lack of respect for comics. As a fan of Cyclops, I have no motivation to support this movie and I will never support it.

WE GET IT. You don't like Wolverine. You're acting like this is the only change they've made from the comics to the screen. It's one of many.

 

[FieryBalrog]

The original saga would not translate directly to screen. So the need for change is part of the process immediately.

Strawman. No one is calling for a direct translation.

But we are calling for the story to be at least moderately respectful of the source material. X3 is mutilating the source material, not condensing it or adapting it. The characters are practically unrecognizable in many cases, from Rogue (completely different), Bobby (completely different), Pyro (completely different), Juggernaut (completely different), Wolverine (hugely different), Cyclops (killed and ignored) etc. And above all we have the Phoenix saga, except its a minor sublot in a completely different storyline with Wolverine replacing Cyclops. Thats about as disrespectful as it gets, its akin to making Lex Luthor a minor henchman in a Superman movie or making Magneto into Apocalypse's flunky, which they literally did in this movie with Phoenix.

That spits all over the source material. Should LOTR have ditched lame old Sauron and made Saruman the head honcho to market to the "kewl" demographic?

I'm just not going to defend a change like that. I'm sure you would be up in arms if they did the Apocalypse storyline as a minor subplot or the Mutant Massacre with Rogue in Storm's place.

 

[FieryBalrog]

The LOTR movies had tons of changes that fans of the book were furious about: taking out Tom Bombadil, having the elves show up at Helm's Deep, turning Faramir into a villian for part of 'Two Towers', taking Saruman out of the theatrical release of 'Return of the King', and leaving out the scouring of the Shire at the end of ROTK.

I saw Peter Jackson speak at a Barnes & Noble in NY after 'Fellowship' was released. He addressed all of those changes, why he made them, and what he had to put up with from fans for making them. He even "warned" everyone about upcoming changes to TTT and ROTK, and squashed a rumor he'd read on the internet about the crews of LOTR and the 'Star Wars' not getting along.

He also said it was frustrating process translating the books because of the lack of cooperation from the Tolkien estate, who wanted nothing to do with the film.



WE GET IT. You don't like Wolverine. You're acting like this is the only change they've made from the comics to the screen. It's one of many.

I was a huge fan of LOTR before the movies came out, and all I can say is the changes were MINISCULE compared to X-men. The movies were extremely respectful and clearly lovingly crafted by fans, for fans. There were exactly 2 important changes, Bombadil and the Scouring, and both were done for very sensible reasons.

I wouldnt complain if they took Shi'ar and Lilandra and the M'kraan crystal out of the story. I understand why they would do that, just like taking out Tom Bombadil: those are more cosmetic elements of the stories.

But the themes have to be intact, and above all the storyline has to be given time and space. X3 is doing none of that.

People aren't getting pissed because the Phoenix storyline isn't involving a battle on the moon, quit pretending its just minor nitpicking like that. Its literally PSINO, Phoenix Saga in name only. Nothing is the same as the books, just about, from the effects and ideas to the major themes and characters. I mean they couldnt change more if they went out of their way to do it.

 

[vindrow]

What gets me are the people wanting this film to fail, so that the studio will reboot the series. What makes you all think they will do this? For all you know if it does fail they may just shelve the whole thing and you will never see another x-film again, or if they do decide to reboot it, it probably wont happen right away the studio will probably wiat a few years (10 or so) before they will take the chance.

 

[Eros]

fiery blog, you really need to go re-read the phoenix saga. They can't transalate that even remotely close, unless you want "X:3 X-men in space". also the characters act "different" because its different writers. Just like i in the comics different writers do different things to the characters.

 

[FieryBalrog]

fiery blog, you really need to go re-read the phoenix saga. They can't transalate that even remotely close, unless you want "X:3 X-men in space". also the characters act "different" because its different writers. Just like i in the comics different writers do different things to the characters.

You really need to go re-read my post. I dont want X-3 in space. I gave that as an example of an expected change, a good change, one that makes sense in the context of an adaptation. If people were whining about those changes I would be defending them.

Thats not what we're getting though.

PS in the comic books: epic story involving aliens, space, universe-altering crystals, battles with extradimensional entities, and the Hellfire Club. The main idea of the story is that one of the X-men is reborn with power beyond her comprehension, which ends up corrupting her; after the X-men battle with her and fail, she commits unforgivable sins, and commits suicide to redeem herself, saved by her love for another X-man, Cyclops.

What it should be in the movies: epic story involving _____ (whatever the filmmakers find appropriate as cosmetic fantasy elements). The main idea of the story should be one of the X-men is reborn with power beyond her comprehension, which ends up corrupting her; after the X-men battle with her and fail, she commits unforgivable sins, and commits suicide to redeem herself, saved by her love for another X-man, Cyclops.

What we're getting:

relegated to a subplot where one of the X-men's power, restrained by their mentor, grows to its full potential. In the process the character becomes like a mindless insane zombie, and after committing unforgivable sins is saved by her love for Wolverine.

 

[danoyse]

I was a huge fan of LOTR before the movies came out, and all I can say is the changes were MINISCULE compared to X-men. The movies were extremely respectful and clearly lovingly crafted by fans, for fans. There were exactly 2 important changes, Bombadil and the Scouring, and both were done for very sensible reasons.

So when I heard from the director of the movie in person about the grief he got from fans about the changes...he was exaggerating??

 

[Advanced Dark]

I'm going to see this movie opening weekend, so don't get on me too bad. But if this movie is a huge success, then the studio will just think that they can screw over the fans and get away with it.

These aren't their characters, if they're anyone's they're Stan Lee's and Jack Kirby's, but we are the ones who made them successful.

This isn't just about Cyke either, it's about the horrible use of Xavier's character in the trillogy, dispite a wonderful performance by Patrick Stewart. It's about blatantly changing the story lines from the comics, so it doesn't even remotely resemble the comics.

You can change a few things, ala Spider-man with organic webshooters, but what they've done in this film is the Equivalent of having Aunt May defeat Harry as the Green Goblin 2.

The Phoenix story was all about Jean and Scott, period. In fact I remember reading an old "What if.." book about "What if Dark Phoenix lived?" In that book Jean killed all the X-men, (I remember Collosus and Wovlie tried a fast ball special and Jean turned him around and made Collosus de-armor and Wolvie killed him). The last two were Cyke and Dark Phoenix. Cyke said something like "I'm sorry Jean but I can't let you do this..." He gave her the full optic blast, and Jean turned it around and killed him. When she saw what she did to Cyke, she was overwhealmed with guilt, and her rage and anguish over killing Scott caused her to destroy the whole universe and herself.

The book ends with the Beyonder saying something like, "Of all the universes I have seen this is the most tragic...."

Yet in the movies, Jean kills Scott and she feels nothing? In fact in the next scene she's wanting to get busy with Logan? WTH????

Now I am very much looking forward to Kelsey Grammar as Beast, and the Pyro vs. Ice-Man battle. There are going to be some good things in the movie, but they will by far be overshadowed by the bad.

#1 The movie isn't going to bomb.
#2 You haven't seen the movie yet.
#3 IF they movie did bomb you would not be seeing any more X-Films or spin-offs.
#4 #3 won't happen.

 

[Eros]

the only thing i think bothers you about the movie Fireyblog, this that cyclops might die. Because eveything else you have said seems to be pointing to that change.

 

[FieryBalrog]

So when I heard from the director of the movie in person about the grief he got from fans about the changes...he was exaggerating??

He was addressing that topic specifically, so he mentioned the grief he got. But most fans of LOTR loved it, or at the least they said the best possible movie that could have been made was made.

 

[Advanced Dark]

its gonna bomb to me, cause the first 2 also kinda bombed in my opinion

You do realize you can't just fabricate your own meanings of English words and expect us all to understand it. You're dillusional to refer to X1 or X2 as a bomb, or a bomb to you. Saying you didn't like it is one thing. Saying it was not a finacial success to you is another. Make sense.

 

[danoyse]

He was addressing that topic specifically, so he mentioned the grief he got. But most fans of LOTR loved it, or at the least they said the best possible movie that could have been made was made.

But that doesn't mean there weren't dissenters. It's even addressed on the extras on the extending DVD.

It's going to happen with any adaptation. X3 isn't the first or the last.