If you Don't like the movie - POST HERE

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

The characters´inner battles mean a lot to me.

My point is that it doesn't in the big picture. Destiny, IN THE MU or pretty much any fantasy universe, isn't shaped by goddamned therapy. It's shaped by heroes and villains battling one other.

This is the part I don't get in this feud of hours. This is what I've been talking all along. For some reason, the focus shifted to me alledgedly being a moronic action-junkie. WTF?

From the very first post, I spoke of apples. You keep bringing up oranges. I keep trying to stir the debate to said apples, but it's just not happening.

Whatever. You´re the kind of fan who loves the X-Men battling the "Villain of the Month". It´s not a surprise you hated the movies. You just wanted to see never-ending battles of X-Men against Apocalypse, X-Men against Mr. Sinister, X-Men against Sentinels, Wolverine kicking the butt of all his arch-nemesis while saying stupid one-liners about beer, Joss Whedon style.

Oh dear. *sigh* t: t: t:

Ask to other regulars of this thread familiar with my posts.

Not once have I asked for more action scenes in the x-movies. My complaints regarding said scenes were that they were badly directed, that their players were conveniently chosen and that some of them were just there for the hell of it.

I posted an X4 parody. I laughed at bad characterization, lame one-liners, pointless action scenes and X3's very loose notion of epic. Check the Astonishing thread. I commented on how I loved the Torn arc. And there was hardly any action in it. Reservations I had with it had to do with how some key scenes played out. I never asked for a battle every 5 pages.

I'll admit, I'm not a huge fan of 'not much happening'. Still, if it's well done, I don't have a problem with it.

Also, my main complaint about the x-movies was that they got most characters wrong. I made that clear rather often and loudly.

Oh, wonderful argument! You don´t know what to say, so "Frodo is a wuss" will be just that, something stupid enough to end all possibilities of an interesting discussion.

The funniest part is that for some bloody reason you just ignored the following lines which pretty much were the point of the comment. That line was just meant as a funny opening statement. God, stop taking everything so literaly. Please.

I have a sense of humor. Most of what I said is meant seriously yet with a twinkle in the eye. Surely, you noticed that.

Uh?!
When did I say I was offended that you referred to Logan as an "angry samurai"? Check out the last two or three pages, if you please. I really would like to know where I said that. My memory isn´t that bad, and I seem to remember that the discussion started because you were referring to Logan, post after post, as an "obnoxius runt". Don´t distort things.

I'll admit my memory didn't serve me well on that one. You did compare me to lesser writers, though. But you're right, 'offended' was too strong a word.

Altough it seems that distorting things and putting words in other
people´s mouth is really a hobby around here...as much as having the one and only view about certain subjects.

Too f****n funny. Refer to my second comment. You don't get to wave an accusing finger around and accuse people of profiling and distorting things, sister.

 

[La_She-Beast]

Torn? In which issue was that? I also like AstXM btw. :heart:

 

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

That´s also the kind of stuff we find in comics. I thought it was as adorable as the "You and me, Jean...you and me in a blaze of glory", from Grant Morrison´s New X-Men. Lovely.

Pfff. The scene in New X-Men was lightyears above that crap in X3. I'll repeat it one last time for kicks. We think it's rather OOC for Logan to do it just for her rather than, oh, I dunno, the whole bloody world. Thus the whole 'perverted wretch' comment.

No, but I´m starting to think I have to ask for some kind of permission from the "majority" here to have my own opinions...

Look, Loganbabe. This is me essentially bailing on this fiasco and trying to explain it to you ONE LAST TIME.

Look, opinions are fine and everything but you keep arguing and pointedly pissing us off by denying facts which are pretty much written in stone.

So the G.I.Joe/Transformers, no matter how relevant, didn't do it for you. Fine.

How about one coming from this world's very history? Take first half of the sixteenth century France. The two most important players are Louis XIII and Richelieu. That's goddamn fact. Whether you like the pair or not and whether you think they did a good job or not is completely irrelevant to the truth in that one basic fact.

Superman Returns and Spiderman flicks aren't exactly action-packed. Blade movies, on the other hand, are. The set-up to the shoot-out at the end of Godfather III drags on forever. Bad guys rarely get to hit Steven Seagal. Starship Troopers is a political satire masquerading as a sci-fi war epic. All of those are bloody fact. Once again, whether you think any of those ended up being a good or bad thing is irrelevant.

Kinda like the whole 'the pen is not mightier than the sword' in MU and about any fantasy universe I brought up. Warriors get to shape destiny more often than anyone else. Usually the leaders of the pack. And if they don't on one select occasion, they still have more occasions to do so than anyone else. Them having much higher probabilities is fact. Hate it all you want, it's still there.

Also, I'll clue you in on that one little 'fact' Fox refused to aknowledged. Said disregard pretty much spawned this debate.

Logan isn't the most important X-Men. Not then, not now, not ever. That statement transcends mere opinion or alledged contempt at the character. The irony here is that we don't think it makes him any less of an interesting character when handled properly, but whatever.

Now, let us keeping that tiny bit of intel and let us look at X3. Hell, make that the x-movies. Logan chews on scenery like crazy. Other characters suffer from it because they just didn't get the screentime or development. Once again, that's fact. Whether it's a good or bad thing is open to debate. Maybe you think most X-Men aren't worth more than 5 minutes of screentime. Fine, whatever. Still, stop denying the fact that Wolvie chewing scenery is bloody there for all to see. It's not even an interpretation of the material. It's just there.

We in this thread happen to think said overexposure was a bad thing for the x-flicks. Most of us think no one should've been the main character[i/] in such a media. Not ever.

You disagree. Fine. Whatever.

But stop saying things aren't there when they're mind-numbingly easy to see(this one's for me).

And for the love of God, stop saying that us aknowledging/criticizing Wolvie's exposure has anything to do with bashing his comicverse persona (this one's for everyone else).

We're not making stuff up about overexposure just for the hell of bashing him. The material's right there and, well, to put it politely, it's not exactly subtle. There's no f****n conspiracy. Geez.

 

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

Torn? In which issue was that? I also like AstXM btw. :heart:

13-18.

The whole Emma going insane thingy. t:

Not sure it's appropriate to discuss of it in the X3 forum, though, since Scott actually got to do something and Logan hasn't exactly been the be-all-end-all of Whedon's run. t:

 

[CapBeerCino]

"You and me, Jean...you and me in a blaze of glory", from Grant Morrison´s New X-Men. Lovely.

What movie have you been seeing? Where was the glory? She was a zombie, he didn't even know her, and the scene ended by the worst cliché possible.

I´ve read some really great fanfiction at FF.net

That explains a lot - you should feel right at home watching TLS. Not get back to antagonism, obviously you're good at it.

 

[Theweepeople]

Maybe someone should do a study on comparing the amount of screentime all the characters got. After watching all 3 X-Men movies it's pretty obvious to me that Wolverine got the most screentime and I wouldn't have had a problem with this if all his scenes were necessary to keeping the stories moving. Unfortunately, this was not the case. What really bothers me about the oversaturation of Wolverine's presence is he only had two cool looking fight scenes in the whole series(Wolverine vs. Deathstrike and Wolverine vs. Mystique). Many of the other characters had cool action scenes that looked just as powerful as Wolverine's and sometimes more powerful:

Magneto(Prison Break in X2. Caravan mutant prison scene in X3. Bridge scene in X3. )

Cyclops(Mageto's cell in X2 though the scene should have been much longer. Still it is the only time Cyclops looked cool in the whole series.)

Nightcrawler(Whitehouse scene in X2. Best damn action sequence in the whole seres.)

Pryo(Bobby's house in X2.)

Mystique(Fight with Wolverine in X1. Infiltration of Stryer's base in X2.)

Sabertooth(Fight with Wolverine in X1.)

It's quite pathetic that Wolverine needed the most screentime to barely look as cool as all the characters mentioned above in the series.

 

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

It's quite pathetic that Wolverine needed the most screentime to barely look as cool as all the characters mentioned above in the series.

I always thought it was hilarious that not only was Wolvie overexposed, but it was BAD overexposure. t:

I recall making a few 'him being little more than a glorified punching bag against tough cookies' comments. t:

 

[Theweepeople]

Gaaah. Constantine had some cool moments, but god, it just had to be one of the most goddamned unfocused flicks I've ever seen.



t: t: t:

Well what do you know, X3's battle scene just might not be the worst in recent history.

I'm not a big fan of Constantine but, the movie had some really cool moments. The tone of the movie was good and the music was classic. Even some of the action sequences were okay.

After analyzing GR and Constantine I don't know how the budget of GR was 20 million more? Avi Arad seems to have a knack for wasting huge portions of money with the movies he produces.

My comic book movie director and producer hack list keeps growing:

Rob Bowman(Electra)
Jean-Christophe Comar aka Pitof(Catwoman)
Avi Arad (GR, X3, Daredevil, Manthing, Elektra, Blade Trinity, Nick Fury: Agent of Shield)
Mark Steven Johnson(Daredevil(Was more epic than GR). GR)
Paul WS. Anderson(Alien vs. Predator)
Brett Ratner(X3)
Tim Pope(The Crow 2)
Mystery Men(Kinka Usher)
Steel(Kenneth Johnson)

I checked boxofficemojo today and GR had made only 15mil. It is officially a flop.

 

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

I'm not a big fan of Constantine but, the movie had some really cool moments. The tone of the movie was good and the music was classic. Even some of the action sequences were okay.

I said that too. About the cool moments. t:

Still, it's an unfocused flick imo.

I checked boxofficemojo today and GR had made only 15mil. It is officially a flop.

Only the friday grosses are available on saturdays.

Flick probably will end up with around 40M over the 4-days weekend. You can't expect 75M opening weekends in february. Whether it officially become a flop will depend on its - most likely terrible - legs. Who knows, it might actually crack the 100M barrier. I mean, hey, Daredevil did. t:

 

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

Avi Arad seems to have a knack for wasting huge portions of money with the movies he produces.

Avi Arad seems to have a knack for producing disappointing movies. t:

 

[Theweepeople]

Only the friday grosses are available on saturdays.

Flick probably will end up with around 40M over the 4-days weekend. You can't expect 75M opening weekends in february. Whether it officially become a flop will depend on its - most likely terrible - legs. Who knows, it might actually crack the 100M barrier. I mean, hey, Daredevil did. t:

I agree. But, Daredevil only cost 78mil to make and it barely broke the 100m barrier. GR cost 120mil and will probably make 40 to 45 million like daredevil did and then make 15 million the next week. It's domestic gross will end up in the 70 to 75 mil range. That makes it a huge flop and very little reason to make a sequel.

 

[Theweepeople]

Read what one of the actors in the Transformers movie had to say about X-Men 3's action sequences. It's near the top of the commentary and he doesn't sound too impressed.


http://www.zackward.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=45

 

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

I agree. But, Daredevil only cost 78mil to make and it barely broke the 100m barrier. GR cost 120mil and will probably make 40 to 45 million like daredevil did and then make 15 million the next week. It's domestic gross will end up in the 70 to 75 mil range. That makes it a huge flop and very little reason to make a sequel.

Wait... a 120 f****n million. Oh, then, yeah, it'll most likely flop.

Still, 120??? WTF's wrong with Arad, lol??? Reiterating he's out of his f****n mind. t:

 

[Theweepeople]

Wait... a 120 f****n million. Oh, then, yeah, it'll most likely flop.

Still, 120??? WTF's wrong with Arad, lol??? Reiterating he's out of his f****n mind. t:

I agree. How in the heck did GR end up with a higher budget than the following comic book films?:

X1, X2, Daredevil, Sin City, Hellboy, Blade, Blade 2, Constantine, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Men in Black.

 

[Horhey]

Pfff. The scene in New X-Men was lightyears above that crap in X3. I'll repeat it one last time for kicks. We think it's rather OOC for Logan to do it just for her rather than, oh, I dunno, the whole bloody world. Thus the whole 'perverted wretch' comment.



Look, Loganbabe. This is me essentially bailing on this fiasco and trying to explain it to you ONE LAST TIME.

Look, opinions are fine and everything but you keep arguing and pointedly pissing us off by denying facts which are pretty much written in stone.

So the G.I.Joe/Transformers, no matter how relevant, didn't do it for you. Fine.

How about one coming from this world's very history? Take first half of the sixteenth century France. The two most important players are Louis XIII and Richelieu. That's goddamn fact. Whether you like the pair or not and whether you think they did a good job or not is completely irrelevant to the truth in that one basic fact.

Superman Returns and Spiderman flicks aren't exactly action-packed. Blade movies, on the other hand, are. The set-up to the shoot-out at the end of Godfather III drags on forever. Bad guys rarely get to hit Steven Seagal. Starship Troopers is a political satire masquerading as a sci-fi war epic. All of those are bloody fact. Once again, whether you think any of those ended up being a good or bad thing is irrelevant.

Kinda like the whole 'the pen is not mightier than the sword' in MU and about any fantasy universe I brought up. Warriors get to shape destiny more often than anyone else. Usually the leaders of the pack. And if they don't on one select occasion, they still have more occasions to do so than anyone else. Them having much higher probabilities is fact. Hate it all you want, it's still there.

Also, I'll clue you in on that one little 'fact' Fox refused to aknowledged. Said disregard pretty much spawned this debate.

Logan isn't the most important X-Men. Not then, not now, not ever. That statement transcends mere opinion or alledged contempt at the character. The irony here is that we don't think it makes him any less of an interesting character when handled properly, but whatever.

Now, let us keeping that tiny bit of intel and let us look at X3. Hell, make that the x-movies. Logan chews on scenery like crazy. Other characters suffer from it because they just didn't get the screentime or development. Once again, that's fact. Whether it's a good or bad thing is open to debate. Maybe you think most X-Men aren't worth more than 5 minutes of screentime. Fine, whatever. Still, stop denying the fact that Wolvie chewing scenery is bloody there for all to see. It's not even an interpretation of the material. It's just there.

We in this thread happen to think said overexposure was a bad thing for the x-flicks. Most of us think no one should've been the main character[i/] in such a media. Not ever.

You disagree. Fine. Whatever.

But stop saying things aren't there when they're mind-numbingly easy to see(this one's for me).

And for the love of God, stop saying that us aknowledging/criticizing Wolvie's exposure has anything to do with bashing his comicverse persona (this one's for everyone else).

We're not making stuff up about overexposure just for the hell of bashing him. The material's right there and, well, to put it politely, it's not exactly subtle. There's no f****n conspiracy. Geez.

Yea, your right Logan was a screen-hog in all 3 movies, but I have to wonder if you would be in this thread posting if Cyclops and Logan's screentime were switched.

You also have to consider the fact that Logan would of been out of character if he was in the background like in Astonishing X-Men. I agree with you though, that Cyclops should of had a more prominant role in all 3 movies becouse hes the leader and Jean Grey's husband.

His role as basically a background character really didnt make any sense. Collossus deserved a larger role as well. They could of gave him a fight sequence with Juggernaut atleast.

 

[BMM]

I agree. How in the heck did GR end up with a higher budget than the following comic book films?:

X1, X2, Daredevil, Sin City, Hellboy, Blade, Blade 2, Constantine, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Men in Black.

Weird... I didn't even think of that. It's funny when you put it within the context of the budgets of the first two X-Men films.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

Wait... a 120 f****n million. Oh, then, yeah, it'll most likely flop.

Still, 120??? WTF's wrong with Arad, lol??? Reiterating he's out of his f****n mind. t:

Here's some food for thought...I hear him and Paula Abdul are teaming up to do a live action movie of the Bratz dolls...now tell me he ain't crazy!

 

[danoyse]

I'm willing to bet a decent chunk of that budget was whatever they paid Nicolas Cage. Not to mention the various delays prior to the release.

It did come in higher than expectations on Friday. The real tell of how well it's doing is Saturday and Sunday though, when word-of-mouth starts to spread, especially the Sunday grosses. It wasn't screened for critics, and it's a hard sell outside of the comic fans, so beyond possibly breaking Daredevil's record, I can't see it breaking any other records weekend.

(I haven't seen it either )

 

[X-Maniac]

So, it seems Ghost Rider is a flop and that, according to the Rotten Tomato critics, it's crap?!

I haven't seen it yet, and would like to see it to make up my own mind.

Doesn't this all go to show how difficult it is to adapt comicbook heroes for the big screen? There is the risk of alienating the fans who know the source material, the risk of alienating the mainstream audience (non-fans) who don't care about the source, there is the risk of not enough action, there is the risk of making things too popcorn. There is the idea of making it reality-grounded, there is the idea of making it fantastical and forgetting any sense of reality.

I know people who hated Batman Begins. I personally did not like Spider-Man that much. I thought the red and blue superspider looked hokey, and the idea of the Goblin outfit as a supersoldier uniform was ridiculous. Some of the effects were also rather dodgy.

Singer had a tough job with X-Men and omitted tons of stuff to try to make it manageable, and some key characters weren't fleshed out at all - only a select few got depth and characterisation; in X2, we had similar circumstances, with 'set dressing' like the icons on Stryker's computer and the X-rays at the dam being his way of compensating by adding texture to the world, hinting at mythology he couldn't include. In X3 we instead had lots of cameos hinting at this wider world. That didn't please people either.

It's almost impossible to put 40 years of X-Men comics - and several continuities like Uncanny, New, Ultimate, Astonishing - into a two-hour movie without massive sacrifice and compromise. It must be similarly difficult with other superheroes. How much do you ignore or discard, how much do you try to include or just hint at? What is the successful formula?

 

[LadyVader]

I haven't seen it yet cause it hasn't been released in Romania, but by George, I'll see it on thursday night, the very first showing!

 

[danoyse]

So, it seems Ghost Rider is a flop and that, according to the Rotten Tomato critics, it's crap?!

Actually, it wasn't screened for critics, so whatever is on Rotten Tomatoes now (I haven't looked, don't really care), so whatever is drifting in from critics who caught it over the weekend. Bad decision by Sony, critics usually do not give favorable reviews to anything they don't get early screenings of.

And any "flop" pronouncements are premature. It's actually ahead of Friday estimates. Beyond the box office, it's also got DVD and other TV revenue streams to make up the difference.

It's no blockbuster, but it's not flop yet either. At least not yet.

Audiences are limited on this one...I don't know anyone outside of comics fans who want to see it. Everyone else I know thinks it's looks awful. I'm more than likely going to wait on DVD for this one myself.

 

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

How much do you ignore or discard, how much do you try to include or just hint at? What is the successful formula?

What you do bother to include, get it right. It's not so much as how much as what you do with it.

Fans get pissed at omissions. They get even more pissed at botched OOC renditions/cameos. As simple as that.

If they're gonna butcher something, might as well not include it at all. Something Fox got wrong from day one.

For Cyke and Storm to not even be in the movieverse? Sure, whatever, it's an AU. But for the pair to be cardboard cut-outs and ineffectual indecisive whimps??? WTF?

 

[Theweepeople]

So, it seems Ghost Rider is a flop and that, according to the Rotten Tomato critics, it's crap?!

According to two ain't it cool news reviews its crap.



http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31612

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31609

 

[FaT_tONle]

So, it seems Ghost Rider is a flop and that, according to the Rotten Tomato critics, it's crap?!

I haven't seen it yet, and would like to see it to make up my own mind.

Doesn't this all go to show how difficult it is to adapt comicbook heroes for the big screen? There is the risk of alienating the fans who know the source material, the risk of alienating the mainstream audience (non-fans) who don't care about the source, there is the risk of not enough action, there is the risk of making things too popcorn. There is the idea of making it reality-grounded, there is the idea of making it fantastical and forgetting any sense of reality.

I know people who hated Batman Begins. I personally did not like Spider-Man that much. I thought the red and blue superspider looked hokey, and the idea of the Goblin outfit as a supersoldier uniform was ridiculous. Some of the effects were also rather dodgy.

Singer had a tough job with X-Men and omitted tons of stuff to try to make it manageable, and some key characters weren't fleshed out at all - only a select few got depth and characterisation; in X2, we had similar circumstances, with 'set dressing' like the icons on Stryker's computer and the X-rays at the dam being his way of compensating by adding texture to the world, hinting at mythology he couldn't include. In X3 we instead had lots of cameos hinting at this wider world. That didn't please people either.

It's almost impossible to put 40 years of X-Men comics - and several continuities like Uncanny, New, Ultimate, Astonishing - into a two-hour movie without massive sacrifice and compromise. It must be similarly difficult with other superheroes. How much do you ignore or discard, how much do you try to include or just hint at? What is the successful formula?

The successful formula is simple.... Spiderman, Batman Begins, Xmen 1,2.... thats the formula... once you deviate from the source material... make an hour and a half action flick just to fill wallets... you sh:t on the fans... and X3 (NO IT WAS NOT IN THE LEAGUE OF Electra and the other WORST comic book films of all time) was the most disappointing... it really was... with that budget... with those expectations... it deviated... you stick to the source material like Singer did... and you can hash out some darn good pictures... now Superman Returns may have been a disappointment at the BO... but b/c WB is at least comitted... expect good things from the sequel

 

[Goddessreicho]

The successful formula is simple.... Spiderman, Batman Begins, Xmen 1,2.... thats the formula... once you deviate from the source material... make an hour and a half action flick just to fill wallets... you sh:t on the fans... and X3 (NO IT WAS NOT IN THE LEAGUE OF Electra and the other WORST comic book films of all time) was the most disappointing... it really was... with that budget... with those expectations... it deviated... you stick to the source material like Singer did... and you can hash out some darn good pictures... now Superman Returns may have been a disappointment at the BO... but b/c WB is at least comitted... expect good things from the sequel

Woah woah...Singer stuck to WHAT source material? His X-men are nothing more than cardboard bland empty cutouts that happen to have the same name as their counterparts but have absolutely no relationship to them, each other, their origins, or to how they think. Yes, we have Bobby's disastrous and unrecognizable expansion thanks to Singer. He said it himself that that scene was his idea. Someone should have shook some sense into him then. Even when he said that the only characters he could relate to where the only one's that got developed, someone should have said, "wait, don't you realize that the X-men are a group and should function as such, or you could at least attempt to have them do it?"

Superman Returns barely squeeked by a 200 million dollar domestic gross before it left theaters. Who would have ever thought that baby-mama-drama-of-super-stalker-dad wouldn't go over well with an iconic character like Clark Kent? Oh yea, you'd think it might be because Singer (who had a budget of a blank check, all the time in the world, and lots of hands on time with the script) deviated way too much from established history like he got away with for the X-Films. t:

People wonder why I like to say he was blinded because of his own self-deluded glory. Superman Returns critical and blockbuster failure proves it. Someone tells a person, "you are so great" for so long, they will actually believe you.