If you Don't like the movie - POST HERE

[Angamb]

you know what I think, X4 will be better than X3. I'm sure of it. Just with Gambit and Emma, more Rogue, Angel, etc, and just that will make the film better. We'll see.

 

[GeoffTheArtist]

I just watched "Layer Cake" today. If Matthew Vaughn had stayed on, X3 would have been a far better film. Which makes me cry that Brett Ratner got a hold of it. I liked both "Rush Hour" films, but an epic superhero movie is not an area Mr. Ratner should try to major in.

2 cents.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

you know what I think, X4 will be better than X3. I'm sure of it. Just with Gambit and Emma, more Rogue, Angel, etc, and just that will make the film better. We'll see.

What universe will this X4 be playing in? Next time I'm there, I'll remember to catch it.

 

[liamoversion2]

that dude is out of line!

you're all out of line

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I just watched "Layer Cake" today. If Matthew Vaughn had stayed on, X3 would have been a far better film. Which makes me cry that Brett Ratner got a hold of it. I liked both "Rush Hour" films, but an epic superhero movie is not an area Mr. Ratner should try to major in.

2 cents.

I agree. X-Men material is too serious and too intelligent for Ratner, which is why I felt he was wrong for it in the first place. The thing is that Ratner is a studio yes man. He'll never question anything, he'll accept anything, and never sees anything wrong with his films.

Every film he feels is "perfect" and that anyone who finds a flaw with it is simply being nitpicky. Maybe if the first two X-Men films were mindless action blockbusters it wouldn't have been a big deal. Considering how serious, dark, intelligent, and emotional the first two films were, it's pretty obvious that Ratner doesn't have a real understanding of that concept.

I did see some of the Vaughn storyboards and designs on this site one time.

It made me curious to see what he would've done with the X-Men, however, in general he wasn't and isn't my first choice at all for an X-Men. Singer is the one who started the X-Men franchise and I felt he should've finished it.

But if not Singer, then Cameron, Raimi, or Peter Jackson would be my ideal directors for a future X-Men restart or sequel.

 

[gambitfire]

Jackson!? Oh god a 3 hour X-men movie. *shivers* even i can't stomach that much Wolverine.

That's one of those things that sounds good in theory.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Jackson!? Oh god a 3 hour X-men movie. *shivers* even i can't stomach that much Wolverine.

That's one of those things that sounds good in theory.

I think if Jackson read the comics and understood the characters he'd create a great balance that one wouldn't outshine the other.

Of course it sounds good on paper and theory, it's execution is what matters the most. But considering what he's done with Lord of the Rings and King Kong one would have faith in his abilities in translating great material to the big screen.


Seriously, when Orlando Bloom was being advertised everywhere he didn't make Legolas the star.

 

[gambitfire]

That's the problem it's not so much knowledge. It's more like a studio down your throat.

I didn't find LOTR or King Kong to be that great, so sorry bud but i'm gonna have to disagree on that one.

The only other movie of his i've seen is a mocumentary he did i think it was called Forgotten Silver. I know it was a mocumentary but Bleh.



Edit- Nolan would be my dream director for X-men.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

That's the problem it's not so much knowledge. It's more like a studio down your throat.

I didn't find LOTR or King Kong to be that great, so sorry bud but i'm gonna have to disagree on that one.

The only other movie of his i've seen is a mocumentary he did i think it was called Forgotten Silver. I know it was a mocumentary but Bleh.



Edit- Nolan would be my dream director for X-men.

Since Nolan is doing the Batman trilogy he will never do an X-Men film. Of course it'd be nice to see what he could do, however, his style fits more of the darker Batman stories.

 

[gambitfire]

Since Nolan is doing the Batman trilogy he will never do an X-Men film. Of course it'd be nice to see what he could do, however, his style fits more of the darker Batman stories.

Obviously Silly.

Hence why i said dream.

I'm just saying, like you did picking Raimi, Jackson, and Cameron.

But anyways it's just opinion, Yea his stuff is dark, but he has a good balance.

He made BB darker than his other movies for the character. I think he would offer a lot to the x-men. He could deffinetley give us something more along the lines of Singer's tone. Unlike that Hack job Ratner.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

that dude is out of line!

you're all out of line

I hope you're not talking to me...cause nothing was out of line...yikes.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I agree. X-Men material is too serious and too intelligent for Ratner, which is why I felt he was wrong for it in the first place. The thing is that Ratner is a studio yes man. He'll never question anything, he'll accept anything, and never sees anything wrong with his films.

Every film he feels is "perfect" and that anyone who finds a flaw with it is simply being nitpicky. Maybe if the first two X-Men films were mindless action blockbusters it wouldn't have been a big deal. Considering how serious, dark, intelligent, and emotional the first two films were, it's pretty obvious that Ratner doesn't have a real understanding of that concept.

I did see some of the Vaughn storyboards and designs on this site one time.

It made me curious to see what he would've done with the X-Men, however, in general he wasn't and isn't my first choice at all for an X-Men. Singer is the one who started the X-Men franchise and I felt he should've finished it.

But if not Singer, then Cameron, Raimi, or Peter Jackson would be my ideal directors for a future X-Men restart or sequel.

While Brett Ratner isn't my ideal guy for an X-Men film (I think in the big picture, he delivered with X-Men: The Last Stand, but unfortunatley with many flaws that held it back from being as good as it could have been), I think Vaughn would have been worse.

Remember, this script that everyone bashes Kinberg and Penn for, was written, under the supervision of Vaughn. He was with Kinberg and Penn during the writing of this script, and although I can't say for 100% certain WHO he was planning to off, it was Vaughn who first started talking about deaths of characters, and contriversial creative decisions.

From the things that I've heard him say (total disrespect for Bryan Singer and his films, as well as some of his ideas) to some of the storyboards that I saw from his version of the film, his X3 truly would have been of Batman & Robin proportions, and I'm glad that he was bounced when he was, and someone else was allowed to take over.

Yup, ideally I would have liked to have someone like Singer, or Nolan, or someone with a style that compliments more character driven emotion (and a little bit more cohesiveness...), I think that Ratner handled the film well. Under Ratner, we did get an element that Singer's films lacked. Unfortunatley, it wasn't the perfect balance, as we lost a very important element of Singer's style, but I think that both styles offer something equally as valid to the X-Men.

I truly fear for what a Matthew Vaughn X-Men would have been like, and I am truly grateful that I never had the chance to find out.

 

[the a1ant]

It think Matthew would have made an interesting and unique film with X3, but I think it might've been too wild and different for some fans, lol. Dunno...Some quotes from the Vaughn-ster:

I've got a lot of experience with dealing with a lot of characters in a film... That doesn't intimidate me at all, so I think I know how to get that balance. That should be one of the easier parts of making this movie.

I have plans to put my stamp on it. I hope to, I mean the studio has been incredibly supportive. I thought when I pitched them the way I wanted to make the movie, they'd run a mile. I think the X-Men are very much movies of the '90s and I think it's time for them to toughen up a bit.

I wanted the villains to be less, sort of, what's the word? At the moment I think there's a lot of mustache-twirling in the last films and I want to get rid of that and make the villains really scary and more realistic.

Yeah, I hate CGI. That's why I'm trying to do everything in-camera. Listen, you have to use CGI but I want to do as much in-camera as possible. I'm a gamer, I like videogames and I feel like, when you watch movies, half the time it's like watching an extended game... You just switch off [with bad CGI],

I'm trying to find a new DP at the moment, because I don't want the standard American lighting. I think my DP did a brilliant job [on Layer Cake], I'd like to give it that sort of look.

The irony is that I haven't got the luxury of casting most of these guys, which is going to be odd, especially if I don't like what they're doing, cause I'm going to have to pull them aside and tell them to ignore everything they did in the last film."

"I'm just going to make the film as good as I can, and hopefully, they'll like it. I know that there's going to be elements I'm going to be bringing to it that will worry the fans in the sense that I want to make a movie that stands up in twenty, thirty years time basically. The film I'm doing is more in the tone of [the Clint Eastwood Western] 'Unforgiven'."

 

[LastSunrise1981]

What I don't understand is how certain supporters say "Ratner got more right than Singer did." How so? Upping the action? Adding more characters? Adding more eye candy visuals? What exactly did he get right?

The thing is Ratner was given a much higher budget, Fox provided him all the resources necessary, and at some point and time they decided to put all of their trust in him. Singer was never given that chance to really make an X-Men film that would blow people away.

We can sit here all day and say, "Ratner got more right than Singer and provided the essence of what Singer films lacked". But in the end, it still doesn't hold as a strong argument. Perhaps if Fox provided trust, understanding, and respectfulness to Singer the way Sony did for Raimi with the Spider-Man trilogy then this argument wouldn't be happening.

The only thing Ratner did was provide more action and more of an ADD pace to please those whined about Singer's being "boring". That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course this is my opinion on the subject at hand.

After reading what Vaughn had intended for X3 I'm still somewhat curious.

He hates CGI? We all know in order to accomplish certain feats of the mutants you need CGI. Unless he speaking from a James Cameron perspective in trying to make it look as real as possible. Either way it sounds interesting at best.

 

[Rac]

I don't get where there isn't any warmth in the other films? X1 has more emotion than anything in X3, that, and the fact that the scenes were given enough time to sink in and last...you people are talking about X3 having more emotion, but it was in short, spastic bursts...that's not more emotion if you can't experience it for yourself.

X1: Opening scene at Auschwitz, overcomes any emotional scene in X3, in my opinion. What an impact, what a way to introduce a character, to help us understand him, and in the end to help us care.

X1:Rogue's introduction scene. We see her fiesty nature, the tension in the scene is there, the anticipation, then it's all stripped away in one moment.

X1: Conversation between Xavier and Magneto at the Senate hearing. The history between the two is there and you can feel the companionship between the two, the emotion goes up and down, you feel compassion for one another.

X1:The conversation between Rogue and Wolverine when they first meet has some emotion, when they reveal a little about who they actually are. "So, what kind of a name is Rogue?" "I don't know, what kind of a name is Wovlerine?" "Name's Logan" "Marie" it's subtle, but present. There began a connection between the characters, but it's interupted.

X1: The conversation between Logan and Marie at the train station is another one that, to me, isn't comparable to X3, we care about the characters, we understand what they're going through.

X1: When Xavier has been "poisoned" by Mystique, the monologue by Cyclops is more powerful than anything X3 offered with Cyclops. We care about his character yet again.

X1: Senator Kelly and Storm's talk, yeah some complain that Storm, "I suppose, sometimes I am afraid of dem." that the line has no background, but still she has emotion, she has a fear...and that beats her throwing more lightning around, having a chic haircut, and an angry stance about some political issue anytime.

X1: The liberty scene towards the end, when Magneto stops Wolverine from destroying the machine, and we're waiting for Cyclops to do something, the tension is unbearable, "Scott, wait!"

X1: Logan attempting to revive Marie, again, beats X3 stuff for me.

X1: The little conversation between Logan and Jean, "You know, I think she's a little taken with you." "Tell her my heart belongs to someone else" There is warmth among the characters.

X1: End conversation between Logan and Rogue.

These are all of course my own opinions, but don't tell me that X3 is CLEARLY more emotional than the first two...because clearly to me, it isn't.

Amen.

 

[X-Maniac]

What I don't understand is how certain supporters say "Ratner got more right than Singer did." How so? Upping the action? Adding more characters? Adding more eye candy visuals? What exactly did he get right?

The thing is Ratner was given a much higher budget, Fox provided him all the resources necessary, and at some point and time they decided to put all of their trust in him. Singer was never given that chance to really make an X-Men film that would blow people away.

We can sit here all day and say, "Ratner got more right than Singer and provided the essence of what Singer films lacked". But in the end, it still doesn't hold as a strong argument. Perhaps if Fox provided trust, understanding, and respectfulness to Singer the way Sony did for Raimi with the Spider-Man trilogy then this argument wouldn't be happening.

The only thing Ratner did was provide more action and more of an ADD pace to please those whined about Singer's being "boring". That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course this is my opinion on the subject at hand.

After reading what Vaughn had intended for X3 I'm still somewhat curious.

He hates CGI? We all know in order to accomplish certain feats of the mutants you need CGI. Unless he speaking from a James Cameron perspective in trying to make it look as real as possible. Either way it sounds interesting at best.

Relying less on CGI in a mutant movie would mean more wirework, prosthetics and make-up - which we got anyway. Cudmore wore metal mask and armour for Colossus, Beast was make-up and prosthetics (as was Juggernaut) and wirework was used for flying sequences. And yet all these were criticised by the haters. You can't have it all ways!

And I don't think Ratner had unlimited freedom or cash. He was restricted by time, and he must have had budgetary limits too. I would imagine it was lack of time that led to the script change that took the Washington assault out of the story - in his defence, that lack of time was not Ratner's fault either. I would also imagine that the bridge being dropped heavily (and TheWeePeople's fixation over people on it being hurt or killed) is because that was filmed at the time when only Magneto was involved in that scene. In fact, on one of the trailers you see the bridge coming down and there are no cars or mutants on it at all. I bet the bridg-dropping was part of the original script where Magneto frees mutants from Alcatraz (and performs a mercy killing on Mystique who has been forcibly cured in an experiment).

I believe Ratner's script changes were purely for the sake of time, knowing what could be achieved. This may be why some of the 'connective tissue' is missing in the movie (a lack of scenes with Angel, Beast and Phoenix to explain their decisions).

When Ratner, Kinberg and Penn were presented with the chance to be involved with an X3, of course they jumped at the chance. Who wouldn't!?
It was up to people like Schuler-Donner and Ralph Winter and Avi Arad to keep the faith, but then these are people who think Gambit is too similar to Wolverine.

I think Ratner isn't the demon hellspawn you all make him out to be.

 

[gambitfire]

And I don't think Ratner had unlimited freedom or cash. He was restricted by time, and he must have had budgetary limits too. I would imagine it was lack of time that led to the script change that took the Washington assault out of the story - in his defence, that lack of time was not Ratner's fault either. I would also imagine that the bridge being dropped heavily (and TheWeePeople's fixation over people on it being hurt or killed) is because that was filmed at the time when only Magneto was involved in that scene. In fact, on one of the trailers you see the bridge coming down and there are no cars or mutants on it at all. I bet the bridg-dropping was part of the original script where Magneto frees mutants from Alcatraz (and performs a mercy killing on Mystique who has been forcibly cured in an experiment).

That would have nothing to do with it though, since the changes where made before that was filmed and or the CG had begun.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

What I don't understand is how certain supporters say "Ratner got more right than Singer did." How so? Upping the action? Adding more characters? Adding more eye candy visuals? What exactly did he get right?

The thing is Ratner was given a much higher budget, Fox provided him all the resources necessary, and at some point and time they decided to put all of their trust in him. Singer was never given that chance to really make an X-Men film that would blow people away.

We can sit here all day and say, "Ratner got more right than Singer and provided the essence of what Singer films lacked". But in the end, it still doesn't hold as a strong argument. Perhaps if Fox provided trust, understanding, and respectfulness to Singer the way Sony did for Raimi with the Spider-Man trilogy then this argument wouldn't be happening.

The only thing Ratner did was provide more action and more of an ADD pace to please those whined about Singer's being "boring". That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course this is my opinion on the subject at hand.

After reading what Vaughn had intended for X3 I'm still somewhat curious.

He hates CGI? We all know in order to accomplish certain feats of the mutants you need CGI. Unless he speaking from a James Cameron perspective in trying to make it look as real as possible. Either way it sounds interesting at best.

I never said Ratner got MORE right, I said he got a particular element right that Singer didn't.

Also in my post, I also stated that we lost in Ratner a very vital element that Singer brought, that Ratner didn't.

I believe that both elements are equally as valid, it's just a shame that there was never a true balance found.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Thanks for proving to me that you truely never had respect for the opinions of people who hate this film. Also, congratulations for being the second person to be added to my ignore list. Since you don't value my opinions I don't see any reason why I should see any more of your commentaries. I guess I don't have to worry about being affected by your lower standards ever again.

I'm sorry that you saw that (my post that you quoted, that this is in response to)

I did write that, and I felt bad shortly after because I realize that you have never been rude with your opinions.

I will admit, I do find many of your complaints to be of the "nitpick" variety, and I don't particularly agree with your methods of continuously posting the old Kinberg quotes (nor your old habits of constantly spamming the same complaint post).

However, with those personal disagreements aside, you have never been rude (that I have witnessed) with the expression of your opinions, and while I may disagree with them, I had no right to post what I did (that you obviously saw before I edited it out).

So you probably won't see this, because it seems that you have put me on your ignore list, but regardless, I apologize for my out of line comment.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

To me, it seemed like all of the X-Men's focused shifted from the cure directly to Jean once she was reborn, which I can understand, since she's their team member. While Storm didn't further comment on the cure, she had a lot to say to Wolverine about Jean, and choosing a side. She also had to worry about keeping the school open, sans Xavier. While it would've been nice to touch more on her opinion of the cure, there were gother things she had to think about. I thought she had a few very meaningful scenes, where she expressed her opinion, including her eulogy at ther funeral. She did more than just fly in the film, IMO. Besides, there were many characters in this film...there's only so much opinion Storm can get in.

I do agree with many of your complaints though. The script wasn't that great. If they had more time, maybe it could've been perfected (I still don't want Penn/ Kinberg near X-Men again though).

I'd buy that if Storm actually had a significant part in the Phoenix story arc as well. But she didn't. She talked to Wolverine about how Jean killed the Professor, but we saw no interaction what so ever between Storm and jean. We saw no reaction of Storm's best friend coming back from certain death, we saw no struggle in Storm having to face the realization that her friend was gone for good. We had one conversation that was less about her struggles with Jean's problems than it was about trying to make sure Wolverine was being a team player.

The movie just didn't give off the sense that "Wow, the cure is bad, but there's something a lot more important that we have to deal with right now", and that's where the lack of depth lies in this film, and where my biggest complaint with the film is at.

 

[Theweepeople]

When Ratner, Kinberg and Penn were presented with the chance to be involved with an X3, of course they jumped at the chance. Who wouldn't!?

Alex Proyas and Joss Whedon were both considered to direct X3 and they both passed on the offer. Why would Joss want to direct something that is a bastardization of some of the astonishing X-Men comics he writes? The interesting thing about Joss is he was involved with writing the horrid Alien Resurrection script in 1997. In an interview Joss admitted that the Fox suits determined 90% of everything that went into that script. There was no way he was going to relive the experience of not having artistic freedom while working on a film a second time.

Alex Proyas who direct I Robot admitted to not wanting to direct or produce anything for Fox again while Rothman is CEO.

I think Ratner isn't the demon hellspawn you all make him out to be.

I never suggested this. I just don't understand the reasoning many people use to justify there satisfaction with X3. What would have happened if Ratner directed the following third films of trilogies?

Return of the King
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Return of the Jedi

X3 was at least 30 minutes too short. Is there anyone who truley believes these films wouldn't suffer if the running times were cut by 30%.

 

[X-Maniac]

That would have nothing to do with it though, since the changes where made before that was filmed and or the CG had begun.

How do you know this for sure? How do you know that the changes were made before that scene was filmed?

 

[X-Maniac]

Alex Proyas and Joss Whedon were both considered to direct X3 and they both passed on the offer. Why would Joss want to direct something that is a bastardization of some of the astonishing X-Men comics he writes? The interesting thing about Joss is he was involved with writing the horrid Alien Resurrection script in 1997. In an interview Joss admitted that the Fox suits determined 90% of everything that went into that script. There was no way he was going to relive the experience of not having artistic freedom while working on a film a second time.

Alex Proyas who direct I Robot admitted to not wanting to direct or produce anything for Fox again while Rothman is CEO.

Is this all accurate and reliably reported somewhere? I can imagine the short timeframe might have been an offputting factor as well.

And I can imagine the men in suits do have a lot of control these days. Regrettably, this is how Hollywood works - it's where all the money is, but not where all the talent is.

I never suggested this. I just don't understand the reasoning many people use to justify there satisfaction with X3. What would have happened if Ratner directed the following third films of trilogies?

Return of the King
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Return of the Jedi

X3 was at least 30 minutes too short. Is there anyone who truley believes these films wouldn't suffer if the running times were cut by 30%.

I'd say X3 could have done with another 15-20 minutes - that's a very long time in film terms. Plenty of time for more dialogue and scenes.

But I would say that the LoTR movies could have been cut a little for theatrical release. The pace was too slow in places.

 

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

But I would say that the LoTR movies could have been cut a little for theatrical release. The pace was too slow in places.

Considering the books are about 100x times slower, I think they did fine...

 

[danoyse]

And I can imagine the men in suits do have a lot of control these days. Regrettably, this is how Hollywood works - it's where all the money is, but not where all the talent is.

Anything produced at a big studio, absolutely. Can be either a blessing or a curse.

I noticed Tom Rothman got big thank yous from two of the winners at the Golden Globes last week--in fact, Meryl Streep during her Best Actress (Comedy/Musical) referred to him as "Tommy" Rothman. Forrest Whittaker also thanked Tom Rothman for "always looking out for him," when he won Best Actor for Last King of Scotland.

Made wonder how he's thought of outside the fanboy/girl perspective.