MV: I didn't want to ruin X-Men

[Still A ThorFan]

Vaughn can't help savouring the satisfaction of knowing he did the right thing when he risked his career by walking out on the £100 million X-Men 3: The Last Stand after he had been hired by Fox to take over the lucrative franchise.

He strongly denies he was overawed at the prospect of taking on such a financially heavy responsibility. "Big movie-making is a lot easier than small movie-making," he says. "All these big directors and producers would be struggling if you gave them a million dollars and told them to make a movie for that amount.

"What happened with X-Men was I didn't have the time to make the movie that I wanted to make. I had a vision for how it should be, and I wanted to make sure I was making a film as good as X-Men 2, and I knew there was no way it could be. I just suddenly knew it wasn't the right thing for me to do.

"It was a tough decision because it was a hell of an opportunity. But I was trying to make a career as a director, and I didn't want to be the guy accused of making a bad X-Men movie."

Brett Ratner stepped into the breach, and Vaughn was not impressed. "As it happens, I could have made something a hundred times better than the film that was eventually made," he says. "It sounds arrogant, but I could have done something with far more emotion and heart. I'm probably going to be told off for saying that, but I genuinely believe it."

Happily, Neil Gaiman, with whom he had worked on a short film, gave him the go-ahead for Stardust after Miramax, who owned the rights, could not see how to make it.

"The X-Men thing could have been a death knell," says Vaughan. "I had to be very, very careful because Hollywood could have said, 'Who does he think he is? He walked off a big movie.' So it was a scary time doing Stardust."


X3 was so f'n horrible. This is a very smart man.

 

[Silvermoth]

My god, Vaughn and I seem to have a lot in common. I like a director with integrity. Integrity! Thats what we need more of in comic book films!

I'm very pleased Marvel hired him for Thor. To think of all the time I wasted in the comic book films before they went independent...

 

[Mr Jide]

There's hardly any integrity within the current state of the comics. What makes you think integrity will be attributed to the movies?? As it stands, I'm not very impressed with marvel's movies besides blade and blade 2....and the only DC movie I'm feeling is, BB.

 

[Vartha]

I don't blame him for walking out either. I looked at Last Stand as more of a What-If movie rather than an actual story.

 

[Mr. Socko]

To hell with him for walking out, he clearly says there he could have made A MUCH BETTER MOVIE OUT OF X3. But instead he left the job so Fox hired the hack ratt.

"I walked out but if I stayed, i would have made a much better movie blah blah"

We got a POS movie, we don't need anyone who left the project to say they would have done far better when they're the idiot who decided to leave. What next? Bryan Singer says X3 was terrible and says he could have made it better too, y'know, right after he left us and a good series he had going on to make that Superman dud.

 

[Vartha]

Soko you've seen in the past what Fox has done to Marvel properties.
Fox basically wants things done thier way, not the directors way.

 

[KangConquers]

There's hardly any integrity within the current state of the comics. What makes you think integrity will be attributed to the movies?? As it stands, I'm not very impressed with marvel's movies besides blade and blade 2....and the only DC movie I'm feeling is, BB.

I'm sorry but the Blade movies are lame B-movies. Not any better than The Mortal Kombat movies or any number of dark uber gothic movies created in the late 90s "black is cool" phase.

 

[SUPERSEBAS]

Vaughn can't help savouring the satisfaction of knowing he did the right thing when he risked his career by walking out on the £100 million X-Men 3: The Last Stand after he had been hired by Fox to take over the lucrative franchise.

He strongly denies he was overawed at the prospect of taking on such a financially heavy responsibility. "Big movie-making is a lot easier than small movie-making," he says. "All these big directors and producers would be struggling if you gave them a million dollars and told them to make a movie for that amount.

"What happened with X-Men was I didn't have the time to make the movie that I wanted to make. I had a vision for how it should be, and I wanted to make sure I was making a film as good as X-Men 2, and I knew there was no way it could be. I just suddenly knew it wasn't the right thing for me to do.

"It was a tough decision because it was a hell of an opportunity. But I was trying to make a career as a director, and I didn't want to be the guy accused of making a bad X-Men movie."

Brett Ratner stepped into the breach, and Vaughn was not impressed. "As it happens, I could have made something a hundred times better than the film that was eventually made," he says. "It sounds arrogant, but I could have done something with far more emotion and heart. I'm probably going to be told off for saying that, but I genuinely believe it."

Happily, Neil Gaiman, with whom he had worked on a short film, gave him the go-ahead for Stardust after Miramax, who owned the rights, could not see how to make it.

"The X-Men thing could have been a death knell," says Vaughan. "I had to be very, very careful because Hollywood could have said, 'Who does he think he is? He walked off a big movie.' So it was a scary time doing Stardust."


X3 was so f'n horrible. This is a very smart man.

I like much more X3 than the others! I dont understand why mostly X men fans dont like it! the first two movies are ok but only I can see them as a good movie if you make 1 movie of those 2, X - 3 have a lot of things that I wanted to see and Singer didin`t show!

 

[dsfjr1190]

I like much more X3 than the others! I dont understand why mostly X men fans dont like it! the first two movies are ok but only I can see them as a good movie if you make 1 movie of those 2, X - 3 have a lot of things that I wanted to see and Singer didin`t show!

People hate it because:

1. No character developement.
2. The story moved to fast, jumping from one action scene to another.
3. We have another Wolverine centic film.
4. Killed of fan-favorite Prof. X (who may not be dead)
5. Killed off a major fan-favorite character in Cyclops.
6. Killed of Jean Grey.
7. Now that they killed off three major characters they can now safely change the name of X4 to "Wolverine and the X-Men" or some crap like that.

 

[Bubonic]

Hell, this Wolverine movie that'll come out is X4... I mean like you've mentioned, and many others, the damn movies revolved around him, and they didn't even get him right, just made the girlies wet.

Haha, as for Vaughn, maybe Odin needs to teach him some humility!

 

[Mr Jide]

I'm sorry but the Blade movies are lame B-movies. Not any better than The Mortal Kombat movies or any number of dark uber gothic movies created in the late 90s "black is cool" phase.

Well I disagree. I think that the first 2 blade movies are the only comic book movies that were good enough to surpass the source material. I hate that people write blade off just because he's not a flagship character or as popular as spidey or supes. All I'm saying is, there was a great cast and crew that worked on those 2 movies and it payed off. I'd rather watch those than the other crappy comic book movies that came out post blade 2.

 

[cookiva]

Fox wouldnt give Vaughn the freedom he would want in an Xmen film. They directed that film, and Ratner stood off to the side.

 

[KangConquers]

Well I disagree. I think that the first 2 blade movies are the only comic book movies that were good enough to surpass the source material. I hate that people write blade off just because he's not a flagship character or as popular as spidey or supes. All I'm saying is, there was a great cast and crew that worked on those 2 movies and it payed off. I'd rather watch those than the other crappy comic book movies that came out post blade 2.

I disagree.

I think on the opposite end of the spectrum people just like Blade because they never gave a **** about the comic book character before they saw it. Those movies aren't that bad, but they're certainly not great films at all.

Deacon Frost sucks in the first movie, he's supposed to be like middle-aged and spooky, not a freakin' 20 something candy raver in leather pants.

 

[Mr. Socko]

The Blade movies aren't any worse than Elektra, Trinity included. But hey, that isn't saying much.

 

[KangConquers]

The Blade movies aren't any worse than Elektra, Trinity included. But hey, that isn't saying much.

no ****...but they're not that good either. Hell, I'd take Ang Hulk over Blade.

 

[Mr Jide]

I disagree.

I think on the opposite end of the spectrum people just like Blade because they never gave a **** about the comic book character before they saw it. Those movies aren't that bad, but they're certainly not great films at all.

Well, to me the movies do what they're supposed to do and that is to entertain and satisfy. You sd thay they're not great films and thats fine. Blade has never been a great character or a great comic book BUT his first 2 movies are better than anything done in the comics prior to itheir releases. Saying that, I feel as though there isn't a single marvel movie thats been released that is anywhere near great. They range from mediocre to crap at best.

Deacon Frost sucks in the first movie, he's supposed to be like middle-aged and spooky, not a freakin' 20 something candy raver in leather pants.

Well, doc ock was supposed to be a selfish, unmarried egomaniac who didn't go around smiling or giving poetry and love advice and nor was he controlled by some sort of busted AI in which he refers to himself with the tentacles as, "we"...and don't get me started on the crapfest that was hulk, ugh!

There will always be changes, some that people like or some that people hate. Nothing will ever be perfect but thats just the way the cookie crumbles. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

 

[KangConquers]

Well, to me the movies do what they're supposed to do and that is to entertain and satisfy. You sd thay they're not great films and thats fine. Blade has never been a great character or a great comic book BUT his first 2 movies are better than anything done in the comics prior to itheir releases. Saying that, I feel as though there isn't a single marvel movie thats been released that is anywhere near great. They range from mediocre to crap at best.



Well, doc ock was supposed to be a selfish, unmarried egomaniac who didn't go around smiling or giving poetry and love advice and nor was he controlled by some sort of busted AI in which he refers to himself with the tentacles as, "we"...and don't get me started on the crapfest that was hulk, ugh!

There will always be changes, some that people like or some that people hate. Nothing will ever be perfect but thats just the way the cookie crumbles. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Doc Ock's characterization in the movies was superior to his characterization in the comics imo. He was something more than a mustache twirling evil scientist, which is really all he is in the comics.

I think we can both agree though, that Marvel films offers an oppurtinity for comic book characters to be given more faithful adaptations.

 

[X-Maniac]

People hate it because:

1. No character developement.
2. The story moved to fast, jumping from one action scene to another.
3. We have another Wolverine centic film.
4. Killed of fan-favorite Prof. X (who may not be dead)
5. Killed off a major fan-favorite character in Cyclops.
6. Killed of Jean Grey.
7. Now that they killed off three major characters they can now safely change the name of X4 to "Wolverine and the X-Men" or some crap like that.

1. Of course it had character development. Storm became a leader and head of the school - her character developed. Rogue's fragile confidence was challenged by Kitty and she took the cure - her character developed. Xavier revealed he had held back Jean's powers - his character developed. Jean returned from apparent death and her dark side emerged - her character developed. Need i go on? It's obvious you don't even know the meaning of the phrase character development.

2. At times, it did move much too fast, mostly near the beginning... but not later on.

3. We've always had Wolverine at the centre of the X-movies.

4. Prof X's death was not 'bad', it was a shock. But, we are shown his power of astral projection, enabling him to survive death. Therefore he isn't killed off at all

5. Cyclops' death was a driving force for the motivations/changes in Xavier, Storm, Wolverine and almost everyone in the movie who fought for the X-Men's dream. It upset fans of the character, and was probably not a wise move by the studio to want him dead, but these are movies not comics. The movies tell their own story, much like Ultimate X-Men in which Beast died.

6. Jean Grey is meant to die in the classic Phoenix Saga. She had to die. Even if cured of her powers, her split personality and murderous alter-ego would remain. As in the comics, it was more important that she die a human. She allowed her death. It's central to the character

7. Whether we get a X4 is anyone's guess. They simply cannot keep adding on characters without removing some others, plus the cast was becoming hugely expensive ($100m in salaries for X3) so it's good to push some characters out of the way. These are movies, not weekly soap opera episodes. The scope is much more limited. I doubt Angel and Beast will be around in X4 for a start - their characters seemed to move on at the end of X3. We will probably see some new characters such as Gambit, and you can't keep adding new ones without taking others out.

Try to be practical in your outlook.

The reason some people don't like X3 is that it differed in style from Bryan Singer's approach and chose to do some surprising and dramatic things to bring the stories to a conclusion. And it didn't include many quiet character moments, such as Angel being reunited with his dad. It did move a little fast, the rest of your complaints aren't really that valid.

 

[The Guard]

Interesting. I'm in the camp that doesn't think X-MEN: THE LAST STAND was that bad. The general public certainly didn't think so. There were a few missteps, to be sure, but hardly a train wreck of a movie. It had some great moments, and in fact, many of the issues fans had with X3, existed in X2 as well (character development, for instance).

And Vaughn, for all his talk, didn't make an X-MEN film a hundred times better than Brett Ratner's. No, he walked off the film because he couldn't handle the pressure. And then he made STARDUST, which wasn't all that impressive, considering the source material he had to work with. Certainly didn't make as much at the box office as X3 did. In fact, last I checked, STARDUST hasn't come close to making back its budget, which was something like $70 mill.

Big words, Mr. Vaughn, but where's the big stick?

 

[ang_hulk]

the dialog and characters development made it worse than that tv film version of generation x.I think he could have done much better.

 

[Vartha]

I still haven't seen Generation X, is that on DVD? Come to think about it, I haven't seen new mutants either, kept missing it.

 

[Abaddon]

People hate it because:

1. No character developement.

We saw character development for Wolverine, Storm, and the X-Kids to a lesser extent.

4. Killed of fan-favorite Prof. X (who may not be dead)

oh, come on.

6. Killed of Jean Grey.

so did the comics.

 

[Ben Breeck]

We saw character development for Wolverine, Storm, and the X-Kids to a lesser extent.

Wolverine already had two movies worth of development time.

Storm's character development was the artifact of Halle Berry's demands. Actor demands on a script are the stuff train wrecks are made of.

oh, come on.

When you kill off a character under the sort of circumstances Ratner did Professor X there, you don't leave an out. Ever.

so did the comics.

The first time, Jim Shooter demanded it before Cleremont could finish the storyline.

The second time seems to have been one of the rare instances of pure self indulgence on the part of Grant Morrison. That said, bringing her back the second time was..., well considering everyting else going on at Marvel lately, not one of the worst things in Marvel's recent history, but if I had been EIC I would have put my foot down against it.

 

[X-Maniac]

Wolverine already had two movies worth of development time.

Storm's character development was the artifact of Halle Berry's demands. Actor demands on a script are the stuff train wrecks are made of.

Wolverine was hardly going to fade away into the background in X3 if he he'd had a central role in the two previous movies.

And it was the fans demanding a stronger role for Storm that led to Halle wanting a stronger role for her character. Whether what happened was good or bad, it was the fans of Storm who wanted the character to fly, be less mousy and have a stronger presence. Which doesn't seem unreasonable.

When you kill off a character under the sort of circumstances Ratner did Professor X there, you don't leave an out. Ever.

Says who? Where is this rule written?

The first time, Jim Shooter demanded it before Cleremont could finish the storyline. The second time seems to have been one of the rare instances of pure self indulgence on the part of Grant Morrison. That said, bringing her back the second time was..., well considering everyting else going on at Marvel lately, not one of the worst things in Marvel's recent history, but if I had been EIC I would have put my foot down against it.

That's not entirely relevant to what happened in the movie. Regardless of the background to the comicbook stories, those stories were published...and therefore no one can blame the movie writers for looking at the source material. Comicbook movie writers are damned if they ignore the source, and damned if they follow it. Make your mind up.

 

[Ben Breeck]

Says who? Where is this rule written?

You didn't see Professor X putting on a squib and dye pack beneath his suit vest and then get shot(even in flashback), you didn't see him traped in the house as it went up in smoke with no one to get at him, you never even get to meet Echo/Morph, you saw PROFFESOR X's BODY DISINTEGRATE right in center screen! Under such circumstances, the final scene felt like a cop out.

That's not entirely relevant to what happened in the movie. Regardless of the background to the comicbook stories, those stories were published...and therefore no one can blame the movie writers for looking at the source material. Comicbook movie writers are damned if they ignore the source, and damned if they follow it. Make your mind up.

Well, there's researching the source material, and then there's researching the source material. Supermans III and IV, as bad as they were, could have been much worse. Imagine if in addition to the Arctic Fortress, they also included other pieces from the Julie Schwartz era, like Rainbow Kryptonite, Krypto the Superdog, Streaky the Supercat, Marvel the Superhorse, the Supercar, or the Undead Football Team?

One can't simply pick and choose pieces from the book for a superhero movie. You have to make sure that it fits with the story You are telling. And furthermore, ideally one should take a peak at the editorial background of the story, just in case.

Personally, I didn't have that much of a problem with the resolution of that particular plot point, except that I wished I hadn't been able to have seen it from a mile away.