If you Don't like the movie - POST HERE

[gambitfire]

My goodness. What a thread.

You guys do realize that there a tons of things in X1 and 2 that just don't make sense. There are just as many shoulda/woulda/coulda moments. In fact, just about every film ever made has them.

Regardless i still believe they don't hold as highly as the things that happened around X3.

 

[JP]

In X1, Wolverine gives the nearly-dead Rogue his healing power to revive her. Then all his old wounds re-open. How can this be? Surely, once his wounds have been healed, that's the end of that. Not having a healing power would mean he wouldn't heal from future wounds, but it wouldn't reopen wounds from which he had already healed.

Also in X1, the X-Men enter the head of the Statue of Liberty. Wolverine shouts for everyone to leave and is then magnetically pulled on to the side of the room. Pieces of metal reach out like tendrils, grab the other X-Men and pull everyone else to the side of the room. It's at that point that Magneto descends into the chamber. How did he know where to direct the metal strips without seeing where the other X-Men were? That part has always bugged me.

Even in the first 2 movies alone, the time it takes Wolverine to heal has gone from almost instantly to hours into the future. The same can be said for the amount of time it took for Rogue to absorb another mutants powers. Each have been hugely inconsistent in the first two films.

Then their is one of the final scenes of X2. Jeans sacrifice. I remember this being a huge topic of interest when the movie first came out. Everyone wanted to know "why" Jean had no choice but to leave the plain. There were plenty of threads on just what could have happened instead. Now, we the viewer can assume that Jeans power caused an electrical interference with the jet and was the reason it didn't work. Thus, leaving the plain was her only option. But wait, that was never said in the movie, so we can't draw that conclusion. We can only second guess. But the fact that we have to "guess" and "draw our own conclusion" is just one of the other reasons everyone loves Singer.

"My goodness, this man is so great, he makes us think about things that didn't even happen in the film!"

But wait..

"Damn Ratner. He makes us think about things that weren't in the film! That's just crappy script writing!"

You see, there is somewhat of a double standard going on here. Many of the things we let Singer get away with, be criticize Ratner for.

 

[gambitfire]

Even in the first 2 movies alone, the time it takes Wolverine to heal has gone from almost instantly to hours into the future. The same can be said for the amount of time it took for Rogue to absorb another mutants powers. Each have been hugely inconsistent in the first two films.



Then their is one of the final scenes of X2. Jeans sacrifice. I remember this being a huge topic of interest when the movie first came out. Everyone wanted to know "why" Jean had no choice but to leave the plain. There were plenty of threads on just what could have happened instead. Now, we the viewer can assume that Jeans power caused an electrical interference with the jet and was the reason it didn't work. Thus, leaving the plain was her only option. But wait, that was never said in the movie, so we can't draw that conclusion. We can only second guess. But the fact that we have to "guess" and "draw our own conclusion" is just one of the other reasons everyone loves Singer.



"My goodness, this man is so great, he makes us think about things that didn't even happen in the film!"



But wait..



"Damn Ratner. He makes us think about things that weren't in the film! That's just crappy script writing!"



You see, there is somewhat of a double standard going on here. Many of the things we let Singer get away with, be criticize Ratner for.

Ok. First of all, it's plane.

Second of all, where is it that Wolverine heals at the rate that he did when going up against the Pheonix in past movies?

Inconsistent or not, he never healed at that rate in X1 or 2.

Oh, and i don't know if you knew this but Ratner isn't the Script writer.

 

[JP]

Second of all, where is it that Wolverine heals at the rate that he did when going up against the Pheonix in past movies?

What does it matter? The fact is Wolverines healing factor has been inconsistant from the very begining.

Inconsistent or not, he never healed at that rate in X1 or 2.

Again, this is what I mean by the double standard. "Singer did it, but Ratner did it even more!"

Oh, and i don't know if you knew this but Ratner isn't the Script writer.

No. He's the director, silly. And like all directors, he has a say in what does and doesn't happen.

 

[The Guard]

Well, if I were a scriptwriter (and thank god I'm not, because I have the audacity to demand logical writing), I wouldhave the sense to realize that Magneto can not only drop the bridge, but he could corrugate the bridge before dropping it so that it crushes a much larger area of the island, and then if necessary also dismantle the bridge into a steel tempest that would demolish the entire facility and army, crushing anything in his path. Plus he could do all of this while hovering in the air with a protective barrier of metal orbiting around him.

Corrugate the bridge? (Falls over laughing). If you all want him to destroy the building so badly, why doesn't he just rip the metal structuring in it to pieces, causing it to collapse? Hell, why have ANY drama at all? Let's have the VILLAIN win, and kill a little boy! Yay!

So Magneto would accomplish this goal by utilizing a "cure" that has absolutely no effect on the humans that he wants to eliminate, and can only be used against other people of his own kind?

How in God's name does that make sense?

Since Magneto is never shown trying to use the cure against another mutant, this is clearly not his actual goal in X3. As he flat out states, Magneto uses the idea of a weaponized cure as a RUSE to get the mutant army he's amassed to fight for him. He uses it in his speech to rile his Brotherhood up. What he really wants seems to be to destroy the cure, as he somewhat privately asks Juggernaut to kill Leech.

Why why why WHY does Magneto NEED to resort to hypocritically using the "cure" created by his oppressors to defeat the X-MEN. Especially now that he has Dark Phoenix on his side along with an army of Brotherhood members, Xavier and Cyclops are dead and out of his way, and two of the remaining X-MEN's powers involve metal that he can manipulate at his whim, and another one of them is basically just a gorilla.

That's not ever his actual plan. It's just an addendum he makes to his speech. He just wants an end to the cure, period.

Guard, I am disappointed. That you of all people defending X3 would dismiss my suggestion for Storm firing lightning at Magneto as superfluous action, when I clearly suggested it because Storm is vehemently against the cure, let alone in weaponized form, and so it goes completely against her established character for her to resort to using it without even attempting to take out Magneto with her own powers.

Huh? What does Magneto throwing cars have to do with the cure as a last resort? They're mutually exclusive concepts.

After that failed, let's say because Magneto simply channeled the lightning into an electical forcefield, then the X-MEN would truly have been forced to resort to using the cure.

So Storm would fail. For no good reason at all, storywise. And the X-Men have to use the cure anyway. What the hell is the point of that? It's superfluous action, and it denies us the Bobby/Pyro confrontation, and makes their confrontation that much less important.

I would love to see a more various display of Storm's powers, and the writers could have written it in. But if Storm's most effective power is lightning in a particular situation, then she shouldn't be going out of her way to mix things up just for the sake of not being redundant. It's a fight, not a dance.

Please tell me you didn't ape that from BATMAN BEGINS.

Instead of just hiding, she could have generated wind to blow the cars away, or strike them with lightning in midair before they have a chance to crash down.

Uh...maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking it's better to let Iceman get his shining moment, and that it's about eight times cooler to have BOBBY stop his former friend. Not Storm.

Storm did not fry Magneto at Liberty Island because they were in a giant copper conductor.

So the X-Men weren't willing to die to stop Magneto from murdering thousands? It would have worked. She didn't fry him because Storm and Jean tried to talk him down instead.

If you had read my previous posts, you would see that I brought this up as an example of Singer and his writers actually trying to provide an explanation for Storm's inaction, as opposed to Ratner.

And Ratner shows Storm in a heated battle, and then recovering and running from flaming car grenades! How is that not a reason not to use some of her powers in a battle scenario?

And sure, she could have risked a precision lightning strike at Magneto when he floats up out of the Statue, but then Sabretooth would have just gutted her and the rest.

Except that Magneto still would have been stopped and unable to kill MILLIONS. Therefore, the X-Men would have saved the day, despite their fate.

As for not frying Jason Stryker, that would be a valid complaint... if she failed to do anything to defeat him. But she did defeat him, using severe cold instead of lightning, which was a nice change of pace of her powers. So what exactly is the problem here?

Because she didn't do what she COULD do. It was a nice change of pace to see BOBBY step up and stop Magneto and Pyro. So...to quote you...what exactly is the problem here?
.

If having problems with such major plot points as Magneto going against the essence of his character by hypocritically planning to utilize the cure created by his own oppressors against his own kind, or the X-MEN deciding to use the cure against Magneto when it hasn't been adequately demonstrated that they have no other choice, is "nitpicking trivial aspects" then I don't understand what isn't.

If you have a problem with that, than you clearly don't get the nature of Magneto's character (at least in the movieverse). Because the essence of Magneto, at least in these films, and the thing that makes him a villain in them, is that he IS a HYPOCRITE, though and through. He's doing EXACTLY what he seems to hate OTHERS for doing to him in the past.

When people are as super-powered as the X-Men, you have to introduce some inaction in order to create suspense. We saw this with Storm in X1 and X2 when she was slow to muster a response against Toad, when she did nothing inside the head of the statue, when she did nothing to slow the descent of the missile-hit X-jet or try to lift the powerless X-jet at Alkali Lake.

Similar things happen in the comics. In one issue, Magneto just froze all the X-Men by seizing control of the iron in their blood. Casting aside the bad science (iron in the blood is not in a metallic, magnetisable form, but in a compound called haemoglobin), why didn't Magneto do that whenever the X-Men were a threat? In another issue, he wrapped himself in a magnetic force field that rendered him invisible (magnetism itself is invisible, but it wouldn't make him so!?). In early X-Men comics he was able to astrally project a living likeness of himself along the earth's magnetic field. There are many other inconsistencies and conveniences throughout the comics.

It therefore seems part of the creative process of storytelling for superhuman characters that sometimes they are especially powerful, other times less so.

Exactly.

I agree that Storm didn't do enough on Alcatraz, and that I'd have liked at some point in the three movies to see Magneto's forcefield and her lightning deflecting off it.

I dunno...Storm flies them all in...she creates the fog, she creates the lightning that drives both sides back, and she has a one-on-one battle with Callisto while helping the X-Men stop Magneto. I would hardly say she does nothing during the battle.

How on earth can you keep on arguing your case while completely ignoring that the issues of Storm versus Toad, Storm's doing nothing in the Statue Head, Storm not slowign the descent of the jet, and Storm not raising the jet have all been addressed in our previous debate, and I gave reasonable explanations for all of those scenes which you had no counter-argument for(except for Storm versus Toad, which we both agreed was screwy).

Addressed or not, all those were cases where Storm COULD have done any number of things...and didn't. Which is exactly what people are whining about with X3.

Storm could have done much more against Toad, Storm could have done much more in the statue head, she could have done much more when Wolverine was wanting to be raised to the machine, she could have done much more when the jet was plumeting, she could have done more when the jet needed raising. Nothing was mentioned. Magneto sarcastically dismissed the possibility of lightning in the statue head, but she can do much more than that.

She didn't because it wasn't her moment to shine.

Even though she could somehow pilot a jet in X2 and create tornadoes at the same time - never mind that being electrically charged while using her powers would have made piloting the jet's controls out of the question. In the novel they account for this, in the movie they do not. And where were Storm and Cyclops when Magneto walked through the rubble of the train station in X1, having captured Rogue? Why didn't Storm at least stick around to try to stop Magneto.

Because it wasn't her moment to shine. We needed some suspense, we needed to see others in the spotlight.

That's your anwer. Plain and simple. The X-Men have to look like they are sometimes in danger. The same applies to when they are cowering behind cars on Alcatraz. That's why Storm doesn't suddenly rise up as a weather goddess. The fight with Callisto 'knocked the stuffing out of her', as they say, and she is seen concentrating hard to generate some fog.

Exactly.

 

[gambitfire]

What does it matter? The fact is Wolverines healing factor has been inconsistant from the very begining.

How so?

If anything i think they have been clear on the fact that a hard hit can knock him out.

Again, this is what I mean by the double standard. "Singer did it, but Ratner did it even more!"

That's the thing though, i don't see it as inconsistent, therefore it's not you're double standard claim.

To think i would prefer one director who critics reviewed as giving us something good, over one who's clearly delivered an inferior film, is just insanity!.......

No. He's the director, silly. And like all directors, he has a say in what does and doesn't happen.

*gasp* No way, Really?!

BTW i was speaking in regards to this.

"Damn Ratner. He makes us think about things that weren't in the film! That's just crappy script writing!"

I don't recall anyone saying that. Something which implies he's responsible for the crappy writing.

edit- i could of taken it the wrong way but the sentence that followed it made it seem that way.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

That's the thing though, i don't see it as inconsistent, therefore it's not you're double standard claim.

But it is a double standard.

At the very least, Rogue knocks a boy into a coma for 3 weeks with hardly a kiss, nearly killed Wolverine twice, knocking him out for a few days once, with a touch. Yet, when she grabs Pyro and holds on to him, for much longer than the amount of time she touched her boyfriend, and Wolverine twice, COMBINED, he barely drops to the ground a little bit, with absolutley no after effects.

That's pretty inconsistant to me.

Plot convenient power surges are not exclusive to Brett Ratner.

 

[JP]

But it is a double standard.

At the very least, Rogue knocks a boy into a coma for 3 weeks with hardly a kiss, nearly killed Wolverine twice, knocking him out for a few days once, with a touch. Yet, when she grabs Pyro and holds on to him, for much longer than the amount of time she touched her boyfriend, and Wolverine twice, COMBINED, he barely drops to the ground a little bit, with absolutley no after effects.

That's pretty inconsistant to me.

Plot convenient power surges are not exclusive to Brett Ratner.

Exactly. The final showdown at the end of X3 can be open to many interpretations as to why Wolverine had a sudden surge in power. The same way we can infer the many possibilities associated with the ending of X2.

To think i would prefer one director who critics reviewed as giving us something good, over one who's clearly delivered an inferior film, is just insanity!.......

I really don't think this conversation has anything to do with whether or not a film was good. It's about the flaws of all three films. I personally don't feel it's okay to ignore Singers inconsistencies just because his film may have been of better quality.

i could of taken it the wrong way but the sentence that followed it made it seem that way.

My bad.

 

[WorthyStevens]

But it is a double standard.

At the very least, Rogue knocks a boy into a coma for 3 weeks with hardly a kiss, nearly killed Wolverine twice, knocking him out for a few days once, with a touch. Yet, when she grabs Pyro and holds on to him, for much longer than the amount of time she touched her boyfriend, and Wolverine twice, COMBINED, he barely drops to the ground a little bit, with absolutley no after effects.

That's pretty inconsistant to me.

Wolverine and Pyro were both mutants. Her boyfriend wasn't. Wolvie and Pyro had powers for her to steal from, so since Cody or whatever his name didn't have any powers, Rogue stole his lifeforce. Thus being in a coma for a longer period of time.

 

[gambitfire]

But it is a double standard.

At the very least, Rogue knocks a boy into a coma for 3 weeks with hardly a kiss, nearly killed Wolverine twice, knocking him out for a few days once, with a touch. Yet, when she grabs Pyro and holds on to him, for much longer than the amount of time she touched her boyfriend, and Wolverine twice, COMBINED, he barely drops to the ground a little bit, with absolutley no after effects.

That's pretty inconsistant to me.

Plot convenient power surges are not exclusive to Brett Ratner.

Besides the fact that it was only one situation which wasn't even the climax of the film, I can argue that Pyro is a powerful mutant as stated in X3 thus allowing him to resist her abilities a bit more. Magneto was also victim to Rogue's touch and he was affected as much as Pyro.

But i do believe there is a difference here, that i can't remember. When i have the time i'll go back and look at the film.

Regardless power surges are exlusive to Ratner in this one case, since he hyped them, not diminished them like it can be said Rogue did in that scene.

I really don't think this conversation has anything to do with whether or not a film was good. It's about the flaws of all three films. I personally don't feel it's okay to ignore Singers inconsistencies just because his film may have been of better quality.

I'm not ignoring Singers inconsistences, there just arn't as many as in Ratner's film. I'm not even arguing the Storm thing that's being argued around here. I just find more inconsitences in Ratner's film.

While i'm at it what does Singer inconsistence matter anyway? Not only where they less, but like you said in the end it was a better quality film. So if that's so why even bother constantly briging it up?

It holds little grounds.
Someone says Wolverine defeated the Phoenix and it seemed wrong, then someone else comes along: Well in Singer's film he was a big focus.....SO?

My bad.

:meow:

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Besides the fact that it was only one situation which wasn't even the climax of the film, I can argue that Pyro is a powerful mutant as stated in X3 thus allowing him to resist her abilities a bit more. Magneto was also victim to Rogue's touch and he was affected as much as Pyro.

But i do believe there is a difference here, that i can't remember. When i have the time i'll go back and look at the film.

Regardless power surges are exlusive to Ratner in this one case, since he hyped them, not diminished them like it can be said Rogue did in that scene.

No, power surges AREN'T exclusive to Ratner. I'm pointing out to you a blatant example of Singer's inconsistancies, and again, everyone chooses to ignore it because it's Singer.

Wolverine, with a healing power, was almost killed, when Rogue touched him. Pyro just goes slowly down to the ground with absolutley no after effects. The "life force" drain is not exclusive to humans, or else Wolverine wouldn't have said "It felt like she almost killed me" with a response from Xavier "If she'd held on any longer, she could have".

That is a blatant "plot convenience" power surge that is nothing less than what Ratner did with Wolverine's accelerated healing factor.

These plot convenient power surges are not exclusive to Ratner, and this is my problem with X3 bashers because they act like it is, and point out Ratner's flaws while ignoring the same exact things that Singer did, or come up with totally outlandish explanations that were never shown to us in the context of the movie and are merely a creation of your imagination to try to make X-Men: The Last Stand look like a horrible movie.

 

[Theweepeople]

What a surprise? I'm gone for most of the day and that hate against the X3 haters opinions continues. Regardless of what the lovers say I will continue to hate X3 forever and cut Singer slack for his mistakes because his films were made under very unfavorable circumstances. X3 had more hype than previous X-Men films, had a larger budget and more time to be done properly so I can't excuse the fact that it turned out to be the biggest disappointment for me since The Phantom Menace.

 

[flavio_lebeau]

I don't really see why people keep on bringing bridge lenghts, Logan's super-duper factor, or the color of the sky, Storm's way of walking, when these are clearly not the reasons why the movie is terrible. At least in my opinion, the movie is bad because of much more visceral problems. All this discussion is nothing but digging 1cm of surface into the mistakes...and after digging, keeping on eating and _________ and then eating again.

 

[Theweepeople]

No, power surges AREN'T exclusive to Ratner. I'm pointing out to you a blatant example of Singer's inconsistancies, and again, everyone chooses to ignore it because it's Singer.

Wolverine, with a healing power, was almost killed, when Rogue touched him. Pyro just goes slowly down to the ground with absolutley no after effects. The "life force" drain is not exclusive to humans, or else Wolverine wouldn't have said "It felt like she almost killed me" with a response from Xavier "If she'd held on any longer, she could have".

That is a blatant "plot convenience" power surge that is nothing less than what Ratner did with Wolverine's accelerated healing factor.

These plot convenient power surges are not exclusive to Ratner, and this is my problem with X3 bashers because they act like it is, and point out Ratner's flaws while ignoring the same exact things that Singer did, or come up with totally outlandish explanations that were never shown to us in the context of the movie and are merely a creation of your imagination to try to make X-Men: The Last Stand look like a horrible movie.

How many times do I have to tell you that the reason many of us haters hate X3 and cut Singer slack is because Singer's films were made under very unfavorable circumstances and they turned out to be decent films. X1 had many flaws but, X2 was considerably better and I expected X3 to be the best of the 3 films since Fox dramatically increased the budget and had more time to properly make the film. The end result was a film that was rushed, overhyped, had disjointed storylines, was to short, and turned me into an enraged consumer who was unsatisfied with the product I payed for. For these reasons I will continue to rip X3 to shreads until the franchise is either rebooted or the suits responsible for this mess are fired. What is so difficult about this to understand?

 

[LastSunrise1981]

No, power surges AREN'T exclusive to Ratner. I'm pointing out to you a blatant example of Singer's inconsistancies, and again, everyone chooses to ignore it because it's Singer.

Wolverine, with a healing power, was almost killed, when Rogue touched him. Pyro just goes slowly down to the ground with absolutley no after effects. The "life force" drain is not exclusive to humans, or else Wolverine wouldn't have said "It felt like she almost killed me" with a response from Xavier "If she'd held on any longer, she could have".

That is a blatant "plot convenience" power surge that is nothing less than what Ratner did with Wolverine's accelerated healing factor.

These plot convenient power surges are not exclusive to Ratner, and this is my problem with X3 bashers because they act like it is, and point out Ratner's flaws while ignoring the same exact things that Singer did, or come up with totally outlandish explanations that were never shown to us in the context of the movie and are merely a creation of your imagination to try to make X-Men: The Last Stand look like a horrible movie.

You do realize that Rogue was learning to control her powers? Which explains why Iceman and Pyro didn't get knocked out immediately.

I think what people are talking about Nell is how you constantly defend X3, rather than just accepting a difference of opinion and moving on. Me? I've decided to move on, stop *****ing, and continually discuss my disappointment with X3 without resorting to veiled insults or snapping at the defenders.

It seems you get upset because you want people to like this film, but when someone doesn't like it, you get upset and basically imply that those who don't like this film or Ratner are bitter Singer fanboys. I've seen plenty of Singer defenders acknowledge, discuss, and point out the mistakes Singer made with X1/X2. The thing is that since both films are better in quality, emotion, and storytelling his mistakes aren't big as Ratners.

Either way they're both mistakes and both suffer from their mistakes to an extent. The only difference is Singer paid attention to detail and provided a successful well established story.

If you love the film the way you say you do, then you wouldn't feel the need to defend it or get upset about someone expresing negativity towards it.

 

[Theweepeople]

I don't really see why people keep on bringing bridge lenghts, Logan's super-duper factor, or the color of the sky, Storm's way of walking, when these are clearly not the reasons why the movie is terrible. At least in my opinion, the movie is bad because of much more visceral problems. All this discussion is nothing but digging 1cm of surface into the mistakes...and after digging, keeping on eating and _________ and then eating again.

I don't never had a problem with bridge lengths. I do have a problem with the bridge being dropped and there being no logical explanation for why no one was hurt because its lazy writing. All that sequence needed was a quick scene where Magneto orders Jean to use her telekinetic powers to protect the mutants but, Ratner and the writers were too lazy to show this scene.

I still have a problem with Logan's super healing power. Yes, his power appears to work incosistently from time to time but, it did have limits during all 3 movies until Logan's final encounter with Jean. If a class 5 mutant can't kill Logan then I guess there is no limit to his power anymore. He must be more powerful than Superman since even the Man of Steel has weaknesses.

 

[gambitfire]

*sigh*

Sometimes Nell you really need a time out.

No, power surges AREN'T exclusive to Ratner. I'm pointing out to you a blatant example of Singer's inconsistancies, and again, everyone chooses to ignore it because it's Singer.

I didn't ignore it, as a matter of fact i responded towards it.

Wolverine, with a healing power, was almost killed, when Rogue touched him. Pyro just goes slowly down to the ground with absolutley no after effects. The "life force" drain is not exclusive to humans, or else Wolverine wouldn't have said "It felt like she almost killed me" with a response from Xavier "If she'd held on any longer, she could have".

No one ever said it was exclusive to humans Nell, seriously go back and tell me who said that.

What was said was that it may have had more of an effect to humans.

and here was my other response one more time.

Besides the fact that it was only one situation which wasn't even the climax of the film, I can argue that Pyro is a powerful mutant as stated in X3 thus allowing him to resist her abilities a bit more. Magneto was also victim to Rogue's touch and he was affected as much as Pyro.

That is a blatant "plot convenience" power surge that is nothing less than what Ratner did with Wolverine's accelerated healing factor.

How can you possibley compare the two. If she had put Pyro in coma what difference would it have made?

In this instance powers, expanded or not she still would of stopped Pyro.

In the other situation Wolverine wouldn't have been able to take out Pheonix without the "power surge".

These plot convenient power surges are not exclusive to Ratner, and this is my problem with X3 bashers because they act like it is, and point out Ratner's flaws while ignoring the same exact things that Singer did, or come up with totally outlandish explanations that were never shown to us in the context of the movie and are merely a creation of your imagination to try to make X-Men: The Last Stand look like a horrible movie.

How is the Rouge situation even Plot convenient ?

Seriously this X3 bashers this X3 lovers that needs to stop. This addressing others in that form is ridiculous.

I got nothing against ya Nell. We're cool i hope, but could we not generalize everyone (same goes for the rest of ya "haters or lovers") I havn't called out neither.

 

[Theweepeople]

I think what people are talking about Nell is how you constantly defend X3, rather than just accepting a difference of opinion and moving on. Me? I've decided to move on, stop *****ing, and continually discuss my disappointment with X3 without resorting to veiled insults or snapping at the defenders.

I'm glad you were finally able to agree to disgree with the opinions of people who like X3. Their opinions are just as valid as ours. I've always respected their opinions and will continue to do so. What suprises me is it appears as though you and Nell have switched roles? Nothing against you LastSunrise but, I thought you were pretty rude towards him and other people who liked X3 when you first joined this forum.

It seems you get upset because you want people to like this film, but when someone doesn't like it, you get upset and basically imply that those who don't like this film or Ratner are bitter Singer fanboys. I've seen plenty of Singer defenders acknowledge, discuss, and point out the mistakes Singer made with X1/X2. The thing is that since both films are better in quality, emotion, and storytelling his mistakes aren't big as Ratners.

I can't speak for the opinions of the X1 and X2 lovers in those forums because I rarely visit them. However, in the X3 forum there are many people who have acknowledged the mistakes of the previous X-Men films.

If you love the film the way you say you do, then you wouldn't feel the need to defend it or get upset about someone expresing negativity towards it.

Agreed. I've been saying for months that it makes no sense for people who feel secure about their opinions to come into forums and bash people who have different viewpoints.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I'm glad you were finally able to agree to disgree with the opinions of people who like X3. Their opinions are just as valid as ours. I've always respected their opinions and will continue to do so. What suprises me is it appears as though you and Nell have switched roles? Nothing against you LastSunrise but, I thought you were pretty rude towards him and other people who liked X3 when you first joined this forum.




I can't speak for the opinions of the X1 and X2 lovers in those forums because I rarely visit them. However, in the X3 forum there are many people who have acknowledged the mistakes of the previous X-Men films.




Agreed. I've been saying for months that it makes no sense for people who feel secure about their opinions to come into forums and bash people who have different viewpoints.

I admit that I was very rude to Nell, Storm22, Danoyse, and quite a few others who liked X3. I apologized to Storm22 and Danoyse for being nasty to them in the beginning.

I was only rude to other supporters of the film because they were rude to me, my friends, and others who were disappointed with the film. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but I remember X-Maniac slamming Nell and calling him a "fake superhero fan" because Nell initially posted a negative X3 review. It wasn't until Nell saw it a second time that he changed his thought process about the film.

When others were calling us "bitter Singer fanboys", "fake superhero fans", or telling us "go *********e yourself into a stupor over Spider-Man, Superman, Saw, and POTC" then I felt obligated to speak my mind and defend myself, my friends, and my views.

 

[Theweepeople]

II was only rude to other supporters of the film because they were rude to me, my friends, and others who were disappointed with the film. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but I remember X-Maniac slamming Nell and calling him a "fake superhero fan" because Nell initially posted a negative X3 review. It wasn't until Nell saw it a second time that he changed his thought process about the film.

You're definitely right about X-Maniac bashing Nell and others who hated the film. Though he was not as rude as horrorfan, blindfurry, and antarish.

When others were calling us "bitter Singer fanboys", "fake superhero fans", or telling us "go *********e yourself into a stupor over Spider-Man, Superman, Saw, and POTC" then I felt obligated to speak my mind and defend myself, my friends, and my views.

I definitely believe more insults have been directed at the people who hate X3 then vice versa. Thevileone and Kurosawa are the only haters I can remember who bashed people who liked X3 and those two disappeared a few weeks after the movie was released.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

How many times do I have to tell you that the reason many of us haters hate X3 and cut Singer slack is because Singer's films were made under very unfavorable circumstances and they turned out to be decent films. X1 had many flaws but, X2 was considerably better and I expected X3 to be the best of the 3 films since Fox dramatically increased the budget and had more time to properly make the film. The end result was a film that was rushed, overhyped, had disjointed storylines, was to short, and turned me into an enraged consumer who was unsatisfied with the product I payed for. For these reasons I will continue to rip X3 to shreads until the franchise is either rebooted or the suits responsible for this mess are fired. What is so difficult about this to understand?

So in other words, you judge the film based upon the behind the scenes drama instead of judging the film for what it actually is...

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

You do realize that Rogue was learning to control her powers? Which explains why Iceman and Pyro didn't get knocked out immediately.

I think what people are talking about Nell is how you constantly defend X3, rather than just accepting a difference of opinion and moving on. Me? I've decided to move on, stop *****ing, and continually discuss my disappointment with X3 without resorting to veiled insults or snapping at the defenders.

It seems you get upset because you want people to like this film, but when someone doesn't like it, you get upset and basically imply that those who don't like this film or Ratner are bitter Singer fanboys. I've seen plenty of Singer defenders acknowledge, discuss, and point out the mistakes Singer made with X1/X2. The thing is that since both films are better in quality, emotion, and storytelling his mistakes aren't big as Ratners.

Either way they're both mistakes and both suffer from their mistakes to an extent. The only difference is Singer paid attention to detail and provided a successful well established story.

If you love the film the way you say you do, then you wouldn't feel the need to defend it or get upset about someone expresing negativity towards it.

And if the film is truly as bad as you say it is, then neither yourself nor the rest of the X3 bashers need to continue to come to these message boards for fans of these movies and talk about how horrible they are.

Right?

I mean, it's the same thing that you're telling me to do.

For the bazillionth time, I have absolutley no problem with people hating this film.

I just get frustrated when double standards are applied towards Singer and Ratner, and when things that don't matter for the quality of the film one way or another are used as evidence as to why the film sucks. It's frustrating to see bridge lengths, people not being hurt when the bridge is dropped, or Storm shooting a bolt of lightning, being called out as "bad storytelling", when it simply isn't. It's the same kind of "plot conveniences" that any piece of fiction uses to tell it's story.

I mean, complaining about people not being hurt when the bridge drops, we might as well complain that when Wolverine stabs people, there isn't any blood on his claws. Or how a bolt of lightning into someone doesn't kill them (Toad and Sabretooth both in X-Men).

I also don't like it when people make blind assumptions of "what could have happened" to justify Singer's flaws, when their "what could have happened" scenarios have absolutley no implications what so ever of being anywhere remotley established in the films. Such as Rogue learning to control her powers. Where is that estblished? Rogue CAN'T control her power, and that's the whole point of her character. She can't just turn it off and on when she wants, and she can't control how harsh the effect of her powers are. But, when it's convenient, she can kiss Iceman, and hold on to Pyro for a long time without killing him, when she put her boyfriend in a coma for 3 weeks for barely touching him, and almost killed Wolverine twice.

The double standard isn't valid, because the flaws in Singer's films aren't due to budget. The budget doesn't effect the fact that there could be no possible way for Magneto to know about Rogue, the nature of her powers, and where to find her. And with Magneto tracking Rogue, not Wolverine, there'd be no way for Xavier to thwart Magneto's plans by tracking Wolverine, when at the time, Wolverine was nothing more than a random mutant.

And Bryan Singer's films weren't under any worse conditions than Ratner's. The only difference was the amount of money spent to make it. But Ratner still had the scheduling restraints that Singer did, and even worse, because he had lost Marsden and Paquin to other films, whereas Singer didn't have those kind of scheduling problems. All 3 movies were equally as rushed, and had very similar amounts of production time before their releases.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

And if the film is truly as bad as you say it is, then neither yourself nor the rest of the X3 bashers need to continue to come to these message boards for fans of these movies and talk about how horrible they are.

Right?

I mean, it's the same thing that you're telling me to do.

Nope. I enjoy discussing it with those who feel the same way I do and not with those who get angry, upset, or defensive because someone else may not like it.

We discuss certain aspects on what could've made the film better. The Behind the Scenes drama, politics, and petty revenge of a studio ruined what could've been a great film for me. I judged the film based on the quality of it and not just the behind the scenes drama alone.

Of course the drama behind the scenes kept it from being great. But you enjoyed it and that should be enough for you right? So why get defensive or upset anymore? Threads like "If you don't like the movie-post here" or "for those disappointed by X3" are for those who don't like it, so we(who don't like the film) have a right to be in those threads, offer suggestions, and discuss possible sequels or a restart for a franchise that was mishandled. We're not here starting flame wars or going into other positive threads ruining anything.

All I'm saying is if you're secure in your beliefs why justify it still? If it's good enough for you then move on, stop whining, and just accept that both sides have a right to feel the way they do.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Nope. I enjoy discussing it with those who feel the same way I do and not with those who get angry, upset, or defensive because someone else may not like it.

We discuss certain aspects on what could've made the film better. The Behind the Scenes drama, politics, and petty revenge of a studio ruined what could've been a great film for me. I judged the film based on the quality of it and not just the behind the scenes drama alone.

Of course the drama behind the scenes kept it from being great. But you enjoyed it and that should be enough for you right? So why get defensive or upset anymore? Threads like "If you don't like the movie-post here" or "for those disappointed by X3" are for those who don't like it, so we(who don't like the film) have a right to be in those threads, offer suggestions, and discuss possible sequels or a restart for a franchise that was mishandled. We're not here starting flame wars or going into other positive threads ruining anything.

All I'm saying is if you're secure in your beliefs why justify it still? If it's good enough for you then move on, stop whining, and just accept that both sides have a right to feel the way they do.

Because I enjoy debate. I like discussing the pros and cons of this movie, not just talking with people who have the same opinion.

I truly feel that there are very valid concerns with this movie, and I really enjoy the views that are expressed intelligently with perspective and logic behind them, even if I don't agree with them. And when I see something that I feel is completely illogical, I speak to it.

Disliking the film is not what I deem illogical. I have had debates with plenty of people whom I disagree with on this film, who I feel have very valid takes on this movie even if it's negative. To be honest, I feel that you're opinion is one of those that has a lot of logic and perspective behind it. The problem is, I feel you've been way too hostile towards myself for me to be able to express that. But I don't see you running around here, blindly flailing your arms at anything you can to make this film look bad. I think you have very valid opinions that, when we're not bickering, I find very interesting to read, even when I disagree.

The problem is, most of the "hatred" around here doesn't have that same perspective and logic. It's filled with double standards, and obvious bias towards certain filmakers over others. The same flaws in Singer's films get a free pass, or blind, wild justifications that have no actual basis in what's established in the films, while Ratner's mistakes are ridiculed, and are offered up as evidence to prove that X-Men: The Last Stand was a bad movie.

Seriously, you say if I love the movie as much as I do, then I shouldn't have to justify it.

Well, what other purpose do you all as X3 haters have than to try to justify your point than the movie sucks? This is a forum for fans of the X-Men movies, and yet you all are on here trying to wildly prove how horrible the movie sucks.

People are on here making personal attacks towards the filmmakers, making them out to be horrible human beings because of a movie, and hoping that people lose their jobs because they didn't like a movie. And yet you say I'M the one taking it too personal.

Look, I really don't care who hates the movie and who loves it. That's not my gripe.

But to be brutally honest, I don't take most of the opinions around here as worth taking seriously, because they aren't based on actual perspective or logic. They are based on blindly bashing this film at every possible oppourtunity to make it look bad. They are based on attacking flaws that are found in most films and forms of fiction, and offering those up as evidence as to why the film sucks. I've seen hardly any true criticisms of good or bad script writing or directing or acting. It seems to me that people are carrying a grudge because of certain inaccuracies when compared to the source material, and are unwilling to accept this as a good movie, and pick out every asanine flaw they can find to prove their point. The complaining that goes on around here are not about flaws that any real student of filmmaking and storytelling would find as flaws.

There are a few opinions that I find to be credible, but unfortunatley, it seems as though most of the people with logic and perspective, who can intelligently form an opinion one way or another, have moved on from this board.

 

[Theweepeople]

So in other words, you judge the film based upon the behind the scenes drama instead of judging the film for what it actually is....

Your absurd reasoning continues to amaze me. So we as consumers shouldn't be affected negatively by a product that was falsely advertised, overhyped, and poorly produced? Maybe thelastsunrise was right about you having lower standards for what you expect to see in these films.

Well, thanks for at least finally admitting to me that your opinion isn't worth taking seriously.

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.