If you Don't like the movie - POST HERE

[X-Maniac]

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

This is interesting, except... X-Men 1 did not use a comicbook storyline at all, Wolverine and Rogue do not join the team in that way in the source, and Cyclops/Jean/Storm are not the first X-Men, Jean's transformation into Phoenix is, in the source, much more than an odd stare at the Statue of Liberty. X2 also does not follow the comics - the Phoenix Saga does not happen like that in the comics, nor does the God Loves Man Kills storyline. I can't comment on how much Batman Begins resembles the source material, as I don't know the Batman comics well enough. As for Spider-Man... does GG have superstrength from a serum or an outfit intended to be a supersoldier uniform (and the most ridiculous supersoldier defence uniform ever)? And GG doesn't die in one storyline as in the movie.

These movies must have something else that you like, because they do NOT stick to the source material!

X3 also did have elements of the source material - the bridge sequence is inspired by the Planet X storyline in which Magneto uproots bridges in New York; Jean's mental blocks are part of the comics; Wolverine stabs, or attempts to stab, Jean in three comicbook stories, including the original Phoenix story; the scenes with mutant outcasts in the movie are derived from Morlocks and from District X (the comicbook mutant quarter).

What X3 did dare to do was to kill or cure key characters - this seems to be the main cause of dissatisfaction. In the comics, they discovered that deaths = sales, as the Phoenix death issue was a massive seller, as was the Age of Apocalypse issue whose cover hinted the X-Men were all dead. Obviously, in the comics this might work! In the movies, it's proved to be a source of anger, as the movies are much more limited than the number of comics.

I don't think following the source material has that much to do with it.

 

[BMM]

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

For the most part, I agree. X-Men set out to introduce the vast world of the X-Men through the eyes of a select group of characters (Magneto, Rogue, Wolverine, Xavier, etc...), which has been done with the X-Men since the book's inception. In doing so, it remained faithful to the essence of those characters and the tone of their universe, while presenting their stories in a credible and mostly respectful light. The first movie didn't claim to do anymore than that and it did a pretty good job.

Likewise, X2 did a good job of presenting the essence of the character's stories it sought to tell... Magneto, Nightcrawler, Stryker, Wolverine, Xavier... and even managed to include peripheral arcs like Iceman's classic family troubles, while presumably setting up characters like Jean Grey, etc. for their moments to shine in X-Men 3.

The same can be said for some of the Batman films, the Spider-Man films, and a number of the Superman films as well.

 

[Theweepeople]

Well, here is an excerpt from Massawyrm's review of X3 at Aint it cool news. He believes this is the secret to properly making comic book movies.

http://www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/23427





Unfortunately, no one passed on to Ratner the GRAND SECRET OF MAKING A COMIC BOOK MOVIE.

Now here's where I'm going to begin getting just down right ****ing geeky. All the unbiased "I'm not a diehard fan" reviewing is over. From here on out, I'm going to become EXACTLY the kind of nerd Vern was talking about in the beginning of his review. You see, there seems to be a well-kept secret about making super hero films. I say well-kept, because as obvious as it ****ing seems, only Singer, Raimi, Nolan, del Toro, Donner (who apparently didn't tell his wife), McTeigue and the Wachowski's seem to know it (this secret is also understood in the fantasy world by Jackson and Cuaron.) The secret is this. You can take material with a rabid fanbase -- a fanbase so rabid in fact, that they'll scream over and over again about Canon, quoting it verbatim -- then change fundamental parts of that Canon (merging characters, getting histories and events wrong, ignoring backgrounds entirely) if, and only if, you get the soul of the character and the comic book right. There, that's the secret. It's out.


Here are all the other negative X3 reviews on the site.

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23417

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23311

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/23420

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/23426

 

[X-Maniac]

For the most part, I agree. X-Men set out to introduce the vast world of the X-Men through the eyes of a select group of characters (Magneto, Rogue, Wolverine, Xavier, etc...), which has been done with the X-Men since the book's inception. In doing so, it remained faithful to the essence of those characters and the tone of their universe, while presenting their stories in a credible and mostly respectful light. The first movie didn't claim to do anymore than that and it did a pretty good job.

Likewise, X2 did a good job of presenting the essence of the character's stories it sought to tell... Magneto, Nightcrawler, Stryker, Wolverine, Xavier... and even managed to include peripheral arcs like Iceman's classic family troubles, while presumably setting up characters like Jean Grey, etc. for their moments to shine in X-Men 3.

The same can be said for some of the Batman films, the Spider-Man films, and a number of the Superman films as well.

Fair points, but some characters did suffer in the Singer movies - notably the X-Men themselves!!!! Did we really need to see scenes of a mutant running across water or teleporting/speeding on a basketball court - couldn't we instead have learned a little about why Jean, Scott and Ororo were at that school?

And couldn't we have had Deathstrike's (and Sabretooth's) links to Wolverine mentioned in X2 - it would take just a line from Stryker or from Deathstrike. (such as: Stryker to Wolverine 'I used to think you were one of a kind. Then i found Sabretooth - remember him, you were buddies once, long ago. And Yuriko here, you were in love with her but you destroyed that like you destroy everything. And she came to me...for vengeance.")

 

[BMM]

...I can't comment on how much Batman Begins resembles the source material, as I don't know the Batman comics well enough. As for Spider-Man... does GG have superstrength from a serum or an outfit intended to be a supersoldier uniform (and the most ridiculous supersoldier defence uniform ever)? And GG doesn't die in one storyline as in the movie.

Spider-Man deviates a Hell of a lot more than that… Peter Parker, Harry Osborn and Mary Jane Watson’s high school introduction and setup is just as much a fabrication as Rogue and Wolverine’s introduction to the X-Men… nevermind the fact that Mary Jane Watson (whose origin is completely different by the way) effectively replaces Gwen Stacy who is Peter Parker’s original first love interest, Peter Parker was never bit by a blue and red spider on a high school field trip in such a way, he doesn't wake up one morning and discover his powers like that, he doesn’t have organic web shooters, Norman Osborn kidnaps Gwen Stacy (not Mary Jane) and kills her and throws her off of the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. (and that's just in the first Spider-Man film).

...What X3 did dare to do was to kill or cure key characters - this seems to be the main cause of dissatisfaction. In the comics, they discovered that deaths = sales, as the Phoenix death issue was a massive seller, as was the Age of Apocalypse issue whose cover hinted the X-Men were all dead. Obviously, in the comics this might work! In the movies, it's proved to be a source of anger, as the movies are much more limited than the number of comics.

I don't think the main cause of the dissatisfaction simply rests in the curing or deaths of a number of the main characters. The difference between a number of the Batman films, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, a number of the Superman films, and X-Men and X2 is that all of those films, regardless of their multifarious deviations from the source material, at least seem to do a decent job of telling the stories they set out to tell. I don't think The Last Stand does a decent job of telling any one story because it tries to tell to many...

 

[gambitfire]

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?

Well, the cameos where useless and hinted nothing of importance. Atleast with X2 the hints where minor and didn't force themselves on you. In this case they where wide open up but useless. What's the point of having mutants who are important to the mythos if they give us one line and come off as nobodies. In the end the cameos where wasted and unflavorable, meanwhile the past "cameos" are subtle and sweet.

In other words if your going to give us a bunch of other character from the mythos, what's the point of having them running around doing practically nothing?

I understand you can't do justice to so many characters but if you can't do it to your main cast WHY THE HELL ADD MORE!?!

For that i'll take some mutant names on a computer screen or x-ray bones anyday.




That's just MY OPINION on the matter though.

 

[Goddessreicho]

But GF, what's the point of having non-cameo characters who end up having empty pointless roles that don't further the plot and who turn out to be barely useful tools?

How is that any difference from the debauchery of X3?

 

[Theweepeople]

And couldn't we have had Deathstrike's (and Sabretooth's) links to Wolverine mentioned in X2 - it would take just a line from Stryker or from Deathstrike. (such as: Stryker to Wolverine 'I used to think you were one of a kind. Then i found Sabretooth - remember him, you were buddies once, long ago. And Yuriko here, you were in love with her but you destroyed that like you destroy everything. And she came to me...for vengeance.")

I agree that dialogue like that should have been included in X1 and X2.
Maybe you would have done a better job writing the script for X3 because that dialogue sounded more real than most of what Kinberg and Penn wrote.

 

[gambitfire]

But GF, what's the point of having non-cameo characters who end up having empty pointless roles that don't further the plot and who turn out to be barely useful tools?

How is that any difference from the debauchery of X3?

That's why i'm saying if you can't do things right with the characters you already have, what's the point in adding more? t:

I loved X2 but i know it didn't get things near perfect and right. Let's face it a a little more than a couple of characters went to waste in that one too.

I understand that sometimes this is inevitable but even i admit X2 could of had a much better balance if it where not the Wolverine show.

X3 on the other hand barely bothered to deal with other characters, if you look at X3 carefully anything that can be even slightly considered a well developed story (*LAUGHS AT THE STATEMENT*) ends up revolving around Wolverine.

 

[BMM]

Well, the cameos where useless and hinted nothing of importance. Atleast with X2 the hints where minor and didn't force themselves on you. In this case they where wide open up but useless. What's the point of having mutants who are important to the mythos if they give us one line and come off as nobodies. In the end the cameos where wasted and unflavorable, meanwhile the past "cameos" are subtle and sweet.

In other words if your going to give us a bunch of other character from the mythos, what's the point of having them running around doing practically nothing?

I understand you can't do justice to so many characters but if you can't do it to your main cast WHY THE HELL ADD MORE!?!

For that i'll take some mutant names on a computer screen or x-ray bones anyday.




That's just MY OPINION on the matter though.

Exactly. I agree. The difference between the cameos and hints in the first films (such as having Remy LeBeau or Project Wideawake appear on a computer screen or having Colossus help his fellow students) don't detract from Rogue or Stryker's stories in X-Men and X2. Having to take the time to introduce a cluster**** of cameos like Arclight, Callisto, Juggernaut, Multiple Man, Psylocke, Quills (among others), whose appearances actually require the sidelining of already established characters such as Mystique and the supposed main characters (Dark Phoenix!), is a big problem. Moreover, unlike some of the lesser developed characters in X-Men or X2, the characters in The Last Stand aren't even given room to grow in future films.

For instance, Sabretooth (regardless of his role in X-Men) is now an estbalished villain and has been given room to grow in a Wolverine movie where he belongs. Nothing is holding his character back. The same can't quite be said for someone like Psylocke or Quills... who we actually had to take the time to get to know (kind of) and at the expense of other characters.

 

[Goddessreicho]

That's why i'm saying if you can't do things right with the characters you already have, what's the point in adding more? t:

I loved X2 but i know it didn't get things near perfect and right. Let's face it a a little more than a couple of characters went to waste in that one too.

I understand that sometimes this is inevitable but even i admit X2 could of had a much better balance if it where not the Wolverine show.

X3 on the other hand barely bothered to deal with other characters, if you look at X3 carefully anything that can be even slightly considered a well developed story (*LAUGHS AT THE STATEMENT*) ends up revolving around Wolverine.

See that's what I'm saying. Singer had the opportunity to set the trend of a balance story. That never happened. I am not surprised or shocked that X3 turned out the way it did. X2 was X3 on a smaller cheaper scale. Forced emotion [something X1 didn't have alot of, I admit that], botched up repetitive storyline, pointless cannon fodder characters with no access to a story or plot, Xavier's downfall into dinkdom. I still can't believe the scenes and lines Singer kept in the movie compared to what he could have or did cut out.

Watching these films makes me wonder...Could the Tom Cruise production of X-Men been better, or were these characters forever doomed always to be robotic, cardboard, unethnic, empty, dry, cutouts of their counterparts?


Oh and to add: Why on earth do people want Emma Gambit Sinster and those people if the trend of screwing over characters and hollowing out villians (to mere ******ed silent goons) if they can't and didn't get the starting characters and villians right?

 

[gambitfire]

I dunno, i don't want them to do X4 period.

I like what Singer gave in X2 and X1. It wasn't perfect but it needs to be understood that he didn't have

1. Enough Creative Freedom.
2. Yes he did pick Wolverine as a front runner but he wasn't the only one.
3. A low budget.
4. A studio up your butt making demands.

I'm not saying he's innocent i think it's clear he somewhat favored Logan too, but i don't think he had enough of an oppurtunity to set a balanced trend with all the limits he was given.

Once again you say you arn't surprised X3 turned out the way it did, but i think it's unfair for you too make that accusation since you were clearly not happy with the movies to begin with.

I on the other hand was satisfied with X1 and X2 and saw a different X3 before all the studio drama went down.

In a way you're kinda right to not be surprised, since it would have in no way improved to the state that you wanted it, but alot of us on the other hand where surprised and left dissapoitned.









I'm hungry..........

 

[Goddessreicho]

I dunno, i don't want them to do X4 period.

I like what Singer gave in X2 and X1. It wasn't perfect but it needs to be understood that he didn't have

1. Enough Creative Freedom.
2. Yes he did pick Wolverine as a front runner but he wasn't the only one.
3. A low budget.
4. A studio up your butt making demands.

I'm not saying he's innocent i think it's clear he somewhat favored Logan too, but i don't think he had enough of an oppurtunity to set a balanced trend with all the limits he was given.

Once again you say you arn't surprised X3 turned out the way it did, but i think it's unfair for you too make that accusation since you were clearly not happy with the movies to begin with.

I on the other hand was satisfied with X1 and X2 and saw a different X3 before all the studio drama went down.

In a way you're kinda right to not be surprised, since it would have in no way improved to the state that you wanted it, but alot of us on the other hand where surprised and left dissapoitned.









I'm hungry..........

Food then.

But in the mean time, do you think that with the marginal increase in the budget that would have been similar to the one from X1 to X2, would Singer's X3/X4 been any different overall from the first two. Would those characters suddenly have life in them, would those who had been useless tools suddenly have been complex and pertinent?

No, not at all. Not even with relaxed restrictions from the studio. Singer had no intention of cleaning up his blunders or his misinterpretations. (Wow, that's the understatement of the year.)

I seriously never want to see what he had in store. I mean let's say that he had his way with X3/X4. Then what? What happens when he finally gets rid of those characters he couldn't relate to? Yea...I don't know, and I'm actually really excited I don't have to.

Besides what he did to SR is exactly what he did to X-Men, it just turns out that he got caught, and this time there's no excuse.

So, all in all, I'm still not surprised that X3 is a dud, I admit I was hoping for some kind of character recovery. But your right. The disappointment was already festering.

 

[gambitfire]

Notice Goddess i didn't state budget as being the only issue though.

You speak as if you knew him personally and he told you all this.

We don't know what Singer had instored so we shouldn't make assumptions.

I don't know about you but i actually liked SR even though i dislike the character of Superman, but in the end SR was a critical success although not financial. SR wasn't perfect and he had more freedom, but oddly enough i hold SR's mistakes in par with X1 and 2's. So i can't say he would of done things better had he the freedom to do so, but it should be taken into consideration before he's condemmed.

 

[Goddessreicho]

Notice Goddess i didn't state budget as being the only issue though.

You speak as if you knew him personally and he told you all this.

We don't know what Singer had instored so we shouldn't make assumptions.

I don't know about you but i actually liked SR even though i dislike the character of Superman, but in the end SR was a critical success although not financial. SR wasn't perfect and he had more freedom, but oddly enough i hold SR's mistakes in par with X1 and 2's. So i can't say he would of done things better had he the freedom to do so, but it should be taken into consideration before he's condemmed.

Do you remember those press releases about Singer's idea for a back to back X3/X4? He talked about how he wanted Sigourney Weaver for Emma, the Hellfire Club...blah blah blah. Nothing in there about character expansions, origins, or less Wolverine. For all we know Wolverine could have pulled another, "ONLY I CAN STOP PHOENIX, SO HOLD THIS LINE!"

Could that article about it been true? I dunno, but the earlier reports about three graves, and a Cyke dying like a "fart in the wind" were true. Most of those things are about 60% right anyway.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Do you remember those press releases about Singer's idea for a back to back X3/X4? He talked about how he wanted Sigourney Weaver for Emma, the Hellfire Club...blah blah blah. Nothing in there about character expactions, origins, or less Wolverine. For all we know Wolverine could have pulled another, "ONLY I CAN STOP PHOENIX, SO HOLD THIS LINE!"

Could that article about it been true? I dunno, but the earlier reports about three graves, and a Cyke dying like a "fart in the wind" were true. Most of those things are about 60% right anyway.

According to Singer he stated that he promised Marsden that Cyclops would be front and center in both X3/X4. Whether or not it would've happened is complete conjecture on anyones part.

However, I feel he would've stood up to Fox more than Ratner, Kinberg, or Penn ever could, would, or should. So all we're really left with is the possibilities on what could've been really.

 

[gambitfire]

Do you remember those press releases about Singer's idea for a back to back X3/X4? He talked about how he wanted Sigourney Weaver for Emma, the Hellfire Club...blah blah blah. Nothing in there about character expactions, origins, or less Wolverine. For all we know Wolverine could have pulled another, "ONLY I CAN STOP PHOENIX, SO HOLD THIS LINE!"

Could that article about it been true? I dunno, but the earlier reports about three graves, and a Cyke dying like a "fart in the wind" were true. Most of those things are about 60% right anyway.

Interesting although i when working on sequals like this that is a general statement to expand on characters roles, as far as press goes any new players in the game get larger priority as far as being mentioned goes.

Look at F42, did Tim say he would do more with the F4? yes he did (although in this case they drastically needed it) Did Tim talk about the new character to the press more than he talked about improving the F4? Oh HELL YES HE DID.

You may have a point, but i guess we'll never know.

I DEMAND A RESTART!!!

 

[Goddessreicho]

According to Singer he stated that he promised Marsden that Cyclops would be front and center in both X3/X4. Whether or not it would've happened is complete conjecture on anyones part.

However, I feel he would've stood up to Fox more than Ratner, Kinberg, or Penn ever could, would, or should. So all we're really left with is the possibilities on what could've been really.

See the thing is that, had he not fallen into the Wolverine trap in the first place (he was one of the people who agreed about him being front and center) then he wouldn't have to clean up the mess of left out characters in later films.

Why would you trust him to fight for your character when he had never before? Besides as it turned out he didn't. He left. Sure Fox pushed him out, but he didn't fight to hard to stay. WB gives him a blank check and he doesn't look back.

Yea, I wouldn't trust him to cook me an egg all the way through, let alone do something that doesn't suck to pieces with my two favorite characters. (Storm and Cyke) He had his chance. Hell, he even admitted that he A.) Hadn't read a comic book before taking the job and B.) Worked closely with those he could relate with (guess who that doesn't include). Doesn't that say to anyone that this man wasn't the right one for the job. How is someone going to take control of the X-Men and not know what to do or how to portray the poster children of leadership for them.

All I know is that he better not touch Ultimate X-men. It's already sucking enough without him.

I still never forget how Cyke was such a tool and ineffective leader, or how Storm, "couldn't control it like that," when it was the very first thing she did in her opening scene. It's like burned into my memory and will probably be on my headstone.

Here lies the Goddess
Disappointed and Frustrated with the sub-par end result of X-Men so much she cried in 2000

Ok, so I'll have a fairly large tombstone.

 

[BMM]

Fair points, but some characters did suffer in the Singer movies - notably the X-Men themselves!!!! Did we really need to see scenes of a mutant running across water or teleporting/speeding on a basketball court - couldn't we instead have learned a little about why Jean, Scott and Ororo were at that school?

I absolutely agree, and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. And yes, we do need to see scenes of mutants enjoying themselves at the School, racing across ponds and playing basketball. It directly contributes to the atmosphere of the School and the logic as to why it’s been established in the first place; it’s a home and safe place for those who are otherwise hated and feared by the outside world. Those short scenes greatly contribute to the tone of Xavier’s dream and don’t detract from Jean, Ororo, or Scott… in fact, I wish Jean, Ororo, and Scott had received similar scenes contributing to their characters.

And couldn't we have had Deathstrike's (and Sabretooth's) links to Wolverine mentioned in X2 - it would take just a line from Stryker or from Deathstrike. (such as: Stryker to Wolverine 'I used to think you were one of a kind. Then i found Sabretooth - remember him, you were buddies once, long ago. And Yuriko here, you were in love with her but you destroyed that like you destroy everything. And she came to me...for vengeance.")

Again, I agree. The movies aren't perfect... I think it sucks that Deathstryke dies in the manner she does because it makes it difficult (that’s being generous) to continue her arc. Sure, X2 leaves her entire past with Wolverine open, including her misguided need to exact revenge upon Wolverine… but it just doesn’t work as well knowing that she dies. You’re going to receive little sympathy from me regarding Sabretooth though. Not only is he introduced as the dumb lackey that he was in Uncanny X-Men, but his entire history/rivalry with Wolverine has been left completely open… and it’s being worked on as we speak… and Wolverine fans seem pretty happy about it.

Regardless, you’re not going to find me subscribing to the notion that because every X-Man doesn’t receive equally weighted treatment, that the films are bad. I find that sentiment pretty much laughable. It only takes any reasonable person to read a few X-Men comic books to realize that although the X-Men are a team, only a handful ever receive the focus of a given issue. If anyone can prove to me that the books fully do otherwise, than I’ll gladly retract my statement. Until then, I don’t expect any filmmaker to do any differently than what the source material has been doing since 1963.

For instance, despite being members of the team, Colossus, Nightcrawler, and Storm are seemingly background characters compared to the likes of Cyclops and Jean Grey in these issues…

Likewise, Madelyne Pryor, Rogue and Wolverine are the focus of these issues, but I’m pretty sure the X-Men also consist of Dazzle, Havok, Longshot, Psylocke, etc.

Just about every X-Man aside from Gambit and Storm are background (if not non-existent) characters in these issues… I can hear Cyclops fans jeering but Gambit fans cheering...

…Jubilee, Psylocke, and Wolverine… what about the rest of the team?

…Iceman and who else?…

You get my point. Don't get me wrong. I don't think the first X-Men films are perfect... because they're not. There's plenty of room for improvement... and hopefully, there will be better films in the future... but for now, I hold X-Men and X2 as the bare minimum.

 

[BMM]

Double post.

 

[gambitfire]

The Power Of The Double Post!!!

 

[Loganbabe]

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.

"You and me, Jean, in a blaze of glory" was from New X-Men by Grant Morrison, the comic book, not the movie.
I´ll agree that the scene from the comic was more emotional, but I still liked the scene from X3. A lot.

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

Oh, I see your standarts are too high for FF net.
Yeah, I enjoy reading some fanfiction at FF net, and some James Joyce and Sylvia Plath every now and then. And I enjoyed the X-trilogy, but I can also have my moments of Ingmar Bergman and Luchino Visconti. I´m really strange like that.

 

[Goddessreicho]

Tee hee! I saw that double post.

But you can't hold up the Phoenix Saga or Dark Phoenix Saga and say look at what happened to Colossus, Storm, Nightcrawler, Kitty...

We all know that pre-Phoenix and Post Phoenix/Maddy Jean had very little if any development outside of the occasional Phoenix flash for twenty years. Heck, I have the majority of Jim Lee's run, and very little Jean growth outside of being the winy wife who superheroed. The nineties were not her time.

All I'm trying to say is that the movies had the opportunities to break that habit and present the X-men as they should have been. A team. Somehow that got lost in the mix. No one fought for that, no one in production could relate to that. What? Again, Singer was the man for the job. I don't trust him with this. I don't trust Fox, hell I don't trust Marvel. But that's a different issue.

 

[Loganbabe]

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).

Wolverine´s best action scene from the entire trilogy was the school sequence in X2. Deathstrike was okay, but not so great...I prefer the school. When he jumped from the balcony and attacked the soldiers and then just said, "Let´s go", I could totally see comicverse Logan there.

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

Logan had some uncool moments in X3, but in X1/2 he was übercool.

 

[danoyse]

Regardless, you’re not going to find me subscribing to the notion that because every X-Man doesn’t receive equally weighted treatment, that the films are bad. I find that sentiment pretty much laughable. It only takes any reasonable person to read a few X-Men comic books to realize that although the X-Men are a team, only a handful ever receive the focus of a given issue. If anyone can prove to me that the books fully do otherwise, than I’ll gladly retract my statement. Until then, I don’t expect any filmmaker to do any differently than what the source material has been doing since 1963.

Wow BMM, I will be coming over to borrow your comics collection soon...

I agree. I think that if Cyclops had been the main character from X1 on, then we would have all the Wolverine fans up in arms about his lack of screentime. We'd be having the same argument, just with the tables turned.