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

[04nbod]

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.

8.cured rogue
9 introduced characters like colossus and kitty into the team unnecessarily taking time of main character develpment while not developing kitty or colossus.
10. made bobby look like an uncaring scumbag...

 

[Matt.S99]

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.Characters did develop, but not in the proper way( such as rogue isnt supposed to be a whiny *****)

 

[KenK]

Ratner arrived eight weeks before filming was due to start. Although he made structural changes to the script (all changes that Fox welcomed, such as putting the bridge scene at the climax rather than at the middle)... the main story, almost all castings and character decisions were in place.

It was Vaughn who cast the actors for Angel, Beast and Juggernaut. Originally, Worthington Snr was going to be a cynical man who forced the cure on mutant test subjects... but it was too similar to Stryker and his serum from X2, so at some point it was changed and Worthington Snr became simply a misguided father trying to do the best for his son. I've no idea if Vaughn or Ratner or the studio made this change, but it's a good change. It gives more heart to the story than an evil corporate daddy and it's Magneto's actions that force the weaponisation of the cure, which then makes Magneto even more of a threat. This makes sense from the point of view of making Magneto a real menace and the arch-villain.

The very early script had Stacy X (a mutant hooker who controlled people using pheromone secretions), Scarlet Witch, Avalanche and Gambit. It also gave a cameo role to Nightcrawler and at some point Omega Red and Gauntlet were in it. It was decided that a cameo for Nightcrawler wasn't worth doing. Gambit also had a cameo, then they decided he was worth more than a cameo. Omega Red and Gauntlet were dropped from the forest scene, and replaced by Spike.

Scarlet Witch, Stacy X and Avalanche were replaced by Callisto, Arclight and Quill (who was known as Kid Omega for most of the production, even in the credits... Kid Omega does figure in the Endsong story about Phoenix's return). Ratner cast Ken Leung as the Quill/Kid Omega character. Callisto, whose comicbook version has heightened senses and reflexes, was amped up considerably in the movie - her senses became Caliban's mutant detection power, her reflexes became Quicksilver's speed.

There wouldn't have been any way that X3 would have done justice to the considerable powers of Scarlet Witch or Avalanche, who have hugely powerful abilities, so it makes sense that rather than just getting a brief power display they (like Gambit and Nightcrawler) were left out. Mutants were included if they served the story...and they pretty much achieved that. The Quill character seems a little redundant aside from hugging Dr Rao to death, and Psylocke didn't do much apart from telekinetically camouflaging herself against a wall, but the others seem to serve a purpose in the story. It must have been quite an act of plate-spinning to create a mutant army and try to make good use of the various characters.

Ratner made a few slip-ups in choppy pacing/editing (especially making Angel's story too brief.. though he is obviously more symbolic than he is a main character) but most of X3 was in place when he came on board.

THANK YOU!! So many people insist on taking this stance that the film would have been infinitely better if not for Ratner being the director, when so many things the fans didn't like were already in place. (And as disappointed as I was in the film, it was hardly one of the worst comic book movies ever. I swear, if it's not perfect to the letter, the only other opinion to have is that it sucks. It's ridiculous.) The major points of contention are things that had already been planned out, and weren't going to change even if Vaughn did direct the film. Cyclops was gonna die, Professor X was gonna die, Jean was gonna die. Magneto was going to be the villain . . . AGAIN!! Phoenix was not going to be enough of a focal point to do the character justice, because the studio was hellbent on including the cure storyline.

 

[Docker2.0]

THank you KenK! People ***** about this movie more so than any other movie out and this movie is not nearly as bad as other movies that have been released! Ratner is the fall guy! Blame him. Geez, dude was given a script and did what he could with it. It's so easy for peeps to blame him. Don't get me started on fanboys who are NEVER happy.

 

[X-Maniac]

WTF, the suite's were the LEAST of my problems with X3!

My problems with it were poor storytelling, poor acting, poor writing, poor directing, poor character development, which lead to uninteresting action scene's for me, and overall, just a poor and completely unsatisfying ending to the trilogy, not to mention some inconsistencies with the previous movies.

All of which has also been said about Superman Returns (except the trilogy part, obviously) and probably about other comicbook movies such as Spider-Man 3 as well.

Singer is obviously a very different director to Ratner, and most would say Singer is a better director by far... but there were many flaws with SR, including the directing.

I'm not sure how you can say the action scenes in X3 were uninteresting. They happened as a direct result of the story and were not shoved in there in a meaningless fashion. Stuff like Phoenix vs Xavier, Magneto vs the prison convoy, were brilliant sequences. The action was not the problem with X3!

If you accept the changes in writer and director, which were going to happen as soon as Singer left, and which you can do nothing about.... the problem with X3 is purely structural - pacing/editing/length which gave it a 'rushed' feel as though it was sometimes skimming over certain characters and story points. Which is why I want an Extended Edition.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

THank you KenK! People ***** about this movie more so than any other movie out and this movie is not nearly as bad as other movies that have been released! Ratner is the fall guy! Blame him. Geez, dude was given a script and did what he could with it. It's so easy for peeps to blame him. Don't get me started on fanboys who are NEVER happy.

I have been happy with plenty of CB movies, in fact i would hardly have a bad word to say about my top 10-15.


And though its not entirely Ratners fault he was still a contributing factor, HE was the guy who made the movie the length it was, people blame Fox, but i remember Ratner saying clearly in an interview that the movie will not be 2 hours long, because he has a short attention span . What an idiot.

Dont get me wrong though, Fox, Rothman, Penn and Kinberg all get constant **** from me as well, Penn even mentioned some of my comments on SHH about him in an interview shortly after he was announced as writer of TIH.

Hugh Jackman is even partly at fault being a producer, he should have known the fans would not like many of the events that happened, yet he didnt change them.

 

[KenK]

Hugh Jackman is even partly at fault being a producer, he should have known the fans would not like many of the events that happened, yet he didnt change them.

I can't imagine Jackman had THAT much influence as a producer, it being his first producer credit. Now I will agree, his influence as a producer will probably factor into the Wolverine solo movie, but on X-3, I doubt he could have done anything substantial to change the course of the film.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

All of which has also been said about Superman Returns (except the trilogy part, obviously) and probably about other comicbook movies such as Spider-Man 3 as well.

Singer is obviously a very different director to Ratner, and most would say Singer is a better director by far... but there were many flaws with SR, including the directing.

I'm not sure how you can say the action scenes in X3 were uninteresting. They happened as a direct result of the story and were not shoved in there in a meaningless fashion. Stuff like Phoenix vs Xavier, Magneto vs the prison convoy, were brilliant sequences. The action was not the problem with X3!

If you accept the changes in writer and director, which were going to happen as soon as Singer left, and which you can do nothing about.... the problem with X3 is purely structural - pacing/editing/length which gave it a 'rushed' feel as though it was sometimes skimming over certain characters and story points. Which is why I want an Extended Edition.

Why do keep bringing up Superman Returns? WHAT has it got to do with X3? Is it simply because i like it?

And anyway, both critics and fans on the internet give both Spidey 3 and Superman Returns MUCH better ratings than X3, and again i disagree, the action was both meaningless AND uninteresting in X3.

However i do agree tha it wasnt the films biggest problem, but for me, it was just one of many.

I can't imagine Jackman had THAT much influence as a producer, it being his first producer credit. Now I will agree, his influence as a producer will probably factor into the Wolverine solo movie, but on X-3, I doubt he could have done anything substantial to change the course of the film.

I bet he had SOME influence, he got pai around $20 million for the movie afterall, however, out of all the people i listed, he probably had the least input in making it a poor movie.

 

[X-Maniac]

Why do keep bringing up Superman Returns? WHAT has it got to do with X3? Is it simply because i like it?

And anyway, both critics and fans on the internet give both Spidey 3 and Superman Returns MUCH better ratings than X3, and again i disagree, the action was both meaningless AND uninteresting in X3.

I'm just trying to keep it real. You are prone to aggression and extreme over-reaction, with very little middle ground. Something is either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever in most of your statements.

Let's go over this: Singer directed X1 and X2 and then, for whatever reason, he moved on to SR. We don't really know if he'd have come back for an X3 - if SR had done astonishlngly well, he would no doubt have gone straight into an SR sequel. Therefore, X3 was not going to be a Singer movie. Especially with Fox wanting to keep to the deadline of May 2007, having contracted all the actors. You cannot just cancel a movie, not without paying everyone you have contracted. Actors had all made themselves available for X3.

Therefore, X3 was going to have different writers and a different director. And then James Marsden opted to appear in SR. Singer also spoke to some of the other people due to appear in X3, but they didn't choose to leave Fox. Therefore, X3 was taking shape as a movie that would have a different set of writers, a different director and a limited Marsden involvement. It was never going to be a Bryan Singer movie. Any new director or writers who come into a franchise are going to make something that is different to the previous movies. The directors changed on the Harry Potter movies... but this is a different set of circumstances, as JK Rowling kept everything pretty solid and connected - she was writer of the source material and had strict control of the movies. So the movies tie together pretty well. This kind of thing didn't happen with the X-franchise.

This is why I mention Singer and SR. You cannot expect X3 to follow Singer's style, because it wasn't made by Singer and Singer had zero involvement in it. No matter who made X3, it would have differed in tone and presentation from X1 and X2. Matthew Vaughn famously said he wanted the actors to forget everything they had done before in the X-movies. So even if he'd done it, there would have been variations in the characters.

This is all about being realistic. Singer left X3, so X3 is not a Singer movie and never would have been, no matter who had taken the reins.

I bet he had SOME influence, he got pai around $20 million for the movie afterall, however, out of all the people i listed, he probably had the least input in making it a poor movie.

Jackman would have had limited influence. He was more than likely given a producer credit to justify his increased salary, which was probably the highest. He may have had some say on his character, but not much else.

However, he said Singer had been approached to direct the Wolverine movie, so Fox and Jackman realise that Singer was very well suited to the X-Men franchise. In contrast, Ratner hasn't been asked back - we're not getting a Ratner X4 or a Ratner-directed Wolverine movie. I still don't think Ratner did a crap job - he didn't have time to do much more than shoot what had already been written and mapped out. Where he made a mistake was in cutting material out. He likely didn't have time to shoot or do post-production on a lot of stuff, which would explain the lack of Angel in the final battle and a lack of Colossus vs Juggernaut. However, he could have added a bit more of Angel (the novelisation has a great scene with Angel and his father chatting after Angel rescues him) and a bit more dialogue for Colossus - but those aren't massive failures: in the previous X-movies there have been characters who didn't get huge amounts of screentime or depth and who fell by the wayside because there wasn't time to focus on them fully.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm just trying to keep it real. You are prone to aggression and extreme over-reaction, with very little middle ground. Something is either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever in most of your statements.

Once again you show that you think you know me so much when you really dont have a clue. Show me were I have said SR is one fo the best movies ever, please. I have said its one of the best CB movies ever, but that is a HUGE difference.

I'm prone to anger with you because you try and tell me what MY opinion should be, get it through your skull, me and me alone makes decisions on what movies i like and dont like. Plus, if i recall, in our last little encounter you were the first to resort to name calling, so you are prone to anger yourself.

Let's go over this: Singer directed X1 and X2 and then, for whatever reason, he moved on to SR. We don't really know if he'd have come back for an X3 - if SR had done astonishlngly well, he would no doubt have gone straight into an SR sequel. Therefore, X3 was not going to be a Singer movie. Especially with Fox wanting to keep to the deadline of May 2007, having contracted all the actors. You cannot just cancel a movie, not without paying everyone you have contracted. Actors had all made themselves available for X3.

Therefore, X3 was going to have different writers and a different director. And then James Marsden opted to appear in SR. Singer also spoke to some of the other people due to appear in X3, but they didn't choose to leave Fox. Therefore, X3 was taking shape as a movie that would have a different set of writers, a different director and a limited Marsden involvement. It was never going to be a Bryan Singer movie. Any new director or writers who come into a franchise are going to make something that is different to the previous movies. The directors changed on the Harry Potter movies... but this is a different set of circumstances, as JK Rowling kept everything pretty solid and connected - she was writer of the source material and had strict control of the movies. So the movies tie together pretty well. This kind of thing didn't happen with the X-franchise.

This is why I mention Singer and SR. You cannot expect X3 to follow Singer's style, because it wasn't made by Singer and Singer had zero involvement in it. No matter who made X3, it would have differed in tone and presentation from X1 and X2. Matthew Vaughn famously said he wanted the actors to forget everything they had done before in the X-movies. So even if he'd done it, there would have been variations in the characters.

This is all about being realistic. Singer left X3, so X3 is not a Singer movie and never would have been, no matter who had taken the reins.

Are you really this short sighted to think i expected a Singer movie from someone who wasnt him! Are you really that ignorant. There are literally a hundred directors out there who i feel could have done a better job than Ratner and quite a few who may have done a better job than Singer. Batman Begins IMO is better than ALL Singer CB movies by some way, does that mean i think ALL CB movies should be directed by Chris Nolan .

In all honestly Singer wasnt really needed to make a great X3, any director taking over had the perfect set-up with X2 not to mention the perfect material to adapt from.

However, yes i do think Singer would have made a great X3, but the fact of the matter is so could many other directors out there.

Jackman would have had limited influence. He was more than likely given a producer credit to justify his increased salary, which was probably the highest. He may have had some say on his character, but not much else.

However, he said Singer had been approached to direct the Wolverine movie, so Fox and Jackman realise that Singer was very well suited to the X-Men franchise. In contrast, Ratner hasn't been asked back - we're not getting a Ratner X4 or a Ratner-directed Wolverine movie. I still don't think Ratner did a crap job - he didn't have time to do much more than shoot what had already been written and mapped out. Where he made a mistake was in cutting material out. He likely didn't have time to shoot or do post-production on a lot of stuff, which would explain the lack of Angel in the final battle and a lack of Colossus vs Juggernaut. However, he could have added a bit more of Angel (the novelisation has a great scene with Angel and his father chatting after Angel rescues him) and a bit more dialogue for Colossus - but those aren't massive failures: in the previous X-movies there have been characters who didn't get huge amounts of screentime or depth and who fell by the wayside because there wasn't time to focus on them fully.

And this is your whole problem, you dont think X3 is crap, but MANY others do, and you cant accept that, you jump on anyone and everyone who makes a bad comment about it, and try to 'correct' their opinion.

And trust me, i will never stop making bad comments about it.

 

[Storm22]

And anyway, both critics and fans on the internet give both Spidey 3 and Superman Returns MUCH better ratings than X3

Not necessarily, Superman Returns did very well with the critics but I've seen many fans who complained about it and were disappointed, as the poor box office performance suggests. As for Spider-Man 3, that seems to have faired pretty much the same as X3 both critically and among fans. Average to good reviews for each film. If I remember correctly Rottentomatoes has Spider-Man 3 on 62% with X3 on 57% and Metacritic has SM3 at 60 with X3 at 58 so there's not that much between them!

 

[X-Maniac]

Critical ratings aren't perfect either. I'm astonished at the 80% for Star Wars:RoTS, as I don't know anyone (offline) who likes that movie. In fact, everyone i know who saw it says how crap it was. I saw it on DVD well after the movie release and immediately sold the DVD on an online marketplace for used copies of movies. It was an atrocious piece of film-making.

Also, the Rotten Tomatoes site has only existed since 1998, so reviews of older movies are rated on hindsight, public popularity and the known consensus of critical thought about the movie, rather than on the critics' unbiased feeling at the time of release.

Bad word was building against X3 well before release, largely because those in the industry knew about Singer's departure, Ratner coming on board and the alleged script leaks online. The general public isn't aware of all that stuff. My parents and my sister don't have a computer, don't go on the internet and have never heard of Bryan Singer or Brett Ratner. They are fairly typical of those in their locality.

The online fan community and the critics' community are not the mainstream.

Many opinions of X3 are unrealistic and founded on prejudice, rather than based on the movie itself. It's quite clear that online hatred can fester and spread - this was indicated by comparing people's views of the movie when it came out and their views a year later. Many people online are little more than a contagion. The best way to prevent being afflicted with this frothing mass of negativity is simply to watch the movies again and reacquaint onself with them. Enjoyment and pleasure is so much better than bitterness and negativity.

Another point worth raising - the industry definition of a blockbuster used to be a movie that made at least $100m in profit. It's often agreed that the figure should now be $200m because of the larger costs and earnings of movies these days. On the basis of the $200m definition of a blockbuster, all three X-movies were blockbusters. But Superman Returns was not a blockbuster, as it only made $121million profit. X3 could and should have made more money if it had been deeper and more crafted in places.

But it was clearly designed to be a front-loaded action-adventure popcorn movie that raked in maximum exposure on the opening weekend - just an extra 15 minutes in length would have created a deeper movie, though the source of many complaints lies in things that length could not fix and which are not really that bad, except for unrealistic fanboys living in bedroom dreamworlds (Cyclops' death, Rogue being cured, Jean dying, Mystique being cured, Xavier dying). The fanboys keep wanting and expecting Rogue to become a superwoman who flew around, using trucks as baseball bats and punching through buildings - clearly this was never going to happen. Cyclops' fate was sealed as soon as Marsden moved on. Jean couldn't live after all the terrible things she'd done. Xavier had to lose that battle in order for Jean's threat to continue, and his apparent death was a dramatic driving force for the X-Men to continue to fight for his dream.

The telling signs of online hatred festering like a disease were the differences between the view of the film when released, and the views of it a year later. People shouldn't let themselves be tainted.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Not necessarily, Superman Returns did very well with the critics but I've seen many fans who complained about it and were disappointed, as the poor box office performance suggests. As for Spider-Man 3, that seems to have faired pretty much the same as X3 both critically and among fans. Average to good reviews for each film. If I remember correctly Rottentomatoes has Spider-Man 3 on 62% with X3 on 57% and Metacritic has SM3 at 60 with X3 at 58 so there's not that much between them!

But there is much between SR and X3. Plus, have you seen the SR vs X3 and Spiderman 3 vs X3 threads on this website? X3 was beaten by over a hundred votes on each. I will admit Spiderman 3 had MANY flaws, and i didnt think too much of it, and wasnt much better than average, yet it still wiped the floor with X3 in terms of quality and entertainment IMO.

Critical ratings aren't perfect either. I'm astonished at the 80% for Star Wars:RoTS, as I don't know anyone (offline) who likes that movie. In fact, everyone i know who saw it says how crap it was. I saw it on DVD well after the movie release and immediately sold the DVD on an online marketplace for used copies of movies. It was an atrocious piece of film-making.

Also, the Rotten Tomatoes site has only existed since 1998, so reviews of older movies are rated on hindsight, public popularity and the known consensus of critical thought about the movie, rather than on the critics' unbiased feeling at the time of release.

Bad word was building against X3 well before release, largely because those in the industry knew about Singer's departure, Ratner coming on board and the alleged script leaks online. The general public isn't aware of all that stuff. My parents and my sister don't have a computer, don't go on the internet and have never heard of Bryan Singer or Brett Ratner. They are fairly typical of those in their locality.

The online fan community and the critics' community are not the mainstream.

Many opinions of X3 are unrealistic and founded on prejudice, rather than based on the movie itself. It's quite clear that online hatred can fester and spread - this was indicated by comparing people's views of the movie when it came out and their views a year later. Many people online are little more than a contagion. The best way to prevent being afflicted with this frothing mass of negativity is simply to watch the movies again and reacquaint onself with them. Enjoyment and pleasure is so much better than bitterness and negativity.

Another point worth raising - the industry definition of a blockbuster used to be a movie that made at least $100m in profit. It's often agreed that the figure should now be $200m because of the larger costs and earnings of movies these days. On the basis of the $200m definition of a blockbuster, all three X-movies were blockbusters. But Superman Returns was not a blockbuster, as it only made $121million profit. X3 could and should have made more money if it had been deeper and more crafted in places.

But it was clearly designed to be a front-loaded action-adventure popcorn movie that raked in maximum exposure on the opening weekend - just an extra 15 minutes in length would have created a deeper movie, though the source of many complaints lies in things that length could not fix and which are not really that bad, except for unrealistic fanboys living in bedroom dreamworlds (Cyclops' death, Rogue being cured, Jean dying, Mystique being cured, Xavier dying). The fanboys keep wanting and expecting Rogue to become a superwoman who flew around, using trucks as baseball bats and punching through buildings - clearly this was never going to happen. Cyclops' fate was sealed as soon as Marsden moved on. Jean couldn't live after all the terrible things she'd done. Xavier had to lose that battle in order for Jean's threat to continue, and his apparent death was a dramatic driving force for the X-Men to continue to fight for his dream.

The telling signs of online hatred festering like a disease were the differences between the view of the film when released, and the views of it a year later. People shouldn't let themselves be tainted.

Right so people thought "Hey, others dont like it so i wont!" Hahahahahahahahaha, you really find any excuse wont you.

Plus, i know plenty of people who didnt know about X3's troubled production yet thought it was ****.

 

[X-Maniac]

Right so people thought "Hey, others dont like it so i wont!" Hahahahahahahahaha, you really find any excuse wont you.

Plus, i know plenty of people who didnt know about X3's troubled production yet thought it was ****.

I don't think people 'thought' anything. That's the problem, they weren't thinking. It was a herd instinct, a poisoning by ridiculous outbursts of bitterness. The internet is full of spam and viruses, and on here it seems to be people who fill those roles.

It's also become a political battle - Ratner v Singer, Superman v X-Men, Fox v Warner.

My advice to anyone is: Make your own mind up. Don't get sucked into endless bitterness, especially if it's a while since you watched the movies. Watch the movies again. If you like X3, then watch it; if you hate it, then don't. If you used to like it, before encountering the negativity on here, then rewatch it and see why you used to like it.

And, even if we all agree X3 was 'popcorn action', what would be wrong with that? I don't think it was just popcorn action, but ther is a genre of popcorn action-adventure. People want to see superpowered beings display their abilities in kick-ass action scenes. I'd rather watch Phoenix vs Xavier or Magneto vs the prison convoy or Storm rise into the air outside the Greys' house than watch Superman lift an island or get stabbed in the side. You'd rather watch Superman lift that island, so go ahead and enjoy it. Leave the X3 fans alone and buzz off.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't think people 'thought' anything. That's the problem, they weren't thinking. It was a herd instinct, a poisoning by ridiculous outbursts of bitterness. The internet is full of spam and viruses, and on here it seems to be people who fill those roles.

It's also become a political battle - Ratner v Singer, Superman v X-Men, Fox v Warner.

My advice to anyone is: Make your own mind up. Don't get sucked into endless bitterness, especially if it's a while since you watched the movies. Watch the movies again. If you like X3, then watch it; if you hate it, then don't. If you used to like it, before encountering the negativity on here, then rewatch it and see why you used to like it.

And, even if we all agree X3 was 'popcorn action', what would be wrong with that? I don't think it was just popcorn action, but ther is a genre of popcorn action-adventure. People want to see superpowered beings display their abilities in kick-ass action scenes. I'd rather watch Phoenix vs Xavier or Magneto vs the prison convoy or Storm rise into the air outside the Greys' house than watch Superman lift an island or get stabbed in the side. You'd rather watch Superman lift that island, so go ahead and enjoy it. Leave the X3 fans alone and buzz off.

I do leave the X-fans alone, when was the last time you saw me on the X3 board? And yet everytime i make a comment on X3, which i will continue to do whenever the **** i feel like it, your the one who comes along and doesnt leave ME alone.

If YOU Buzz off and leave the (many) X3 haters alone, things would be a lot more harmoneus, but every time someone makes a bad comment about X3, YOUR the one who jumps on them for it, so buzz off yourself.

As for the 1st half of your post, that is complete and utter bull****, and simply you grasping at straws trying to find a way to discredit people who didnt like the movie.

 

[Docker2.0]

I'm just trying to keep it real. You are prone to aggression and extreme over-reaction, with very little middle ground. Something is either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever in most of your statements.

Let's go over this: Singer directed X1 and X2 and then, for whatever reason, he moved on to SR. We don't really know if he'd have come back for an X3 - if SR had done astonishlngly well, he would no doubt have gone straight into an SR sequel. Therefore, X3 was not going to be a Singer movie. Especially with Fox wanting to keep to the deadline of May 2007, having contracted all the actors. You cannot just cancel a movie, not without paying everyone you have contracted. Actors had all made themselves available for X3.

Therefore, X3 was going to have different writers and a different director. And then James Marsden opted to appear in SR. Singer also spoke to some of the other people due to appear in X3, but they didn't choose to leave Fox. Therefore, X3 was taking shape as a movie that would have a different set of writers, a different director and a limited Marsden involvement. It was never going to be a Bryan Singer movie. Any new director or writers who come into a franchise are going to make something that is different to the previous movies. The directors changed on the Harry Potter movies... but this is a different set of circumstances, as JK Rowling kept everything pretty solid and connected - she was writer of the source material and had strict control of the movies. So the movies tie together pretty well. This kind of thing didn't happen with the X-franchise.

This is why I mention Singer and SR. You cannot expect X3 to follow Singer's style, because it wasn't made by Singer and Singer had zero involvement in it. No matter who made X3, it would have differed in tone and presentation from X1 and X2. Matthew Vaughn famously said he wanted the actors to forget everything they had done before in the X-movies. So even if he'd done it, there would have been variations in the characters.

This is all about being realistic. Singer left X3, so X3 is not a Singer movie and never would have been, no matter who had taken the reins.




Jackman would have had limited influence. He was more than likely given a producer credit to justify his increased salary, which was probably the highest. He may have had some say on his character, but not much else.

However, he said Singer had been approached to direct the Wolverine movie, so Fox and Jackman realise that Singer was very well suited to the X-Men franchise. In contrast, Ratner hasn't been asked back - we're not getting a Ratner X4 or a Ratner-directed Wolverine movie. I still don't think Ratner did a crap job - he didn't have time to do much more than shoot what had already been written and mapped out. Where he made a mistake was in cutting material out. He likely didn't have time to shoot or do post-production on a lot of stuff, which would explain the lack of Angel in the final battle and a lack of Colossus vs Juggernaut. However, he could have added a bit more of Angel (the novelisation has a great scene with Angel and his father chatting after Angel rescues him) and a bit more dialogue for Colossus - but those aren't massive failures: in the previous X-movies there have been characters who didn't get huge amounts of screentime or depth and who fell by the wayside because there wasn't time to focus on them fully.

x2000

 

[X-Maniac]

Well, AVEITWITHJAMON, something happened to people's views between their votes when the movie came out and they first saw it and their votes a year or so later. The old 'rate the movie' thread was dug up in the X3 forum and compared with a 'what do yoi think now' thread. The change was substantial, with many people becoming negative. That doesn't just happen. Why would someone's excitement deteriorate into anger and negativity over the past year? Because they spend too much time on here taking the views of others as gospel, because they don't have minds of their own, because they are fickle and easily swayed, because it's easy to bash, because their memories of the movie are distant and distorted a long time later.

And it quite clearly HAS become a political fight. And furthermore there is nothing wrong with an action-oriented fast-moving climactic instalment to a franchise. Before X3 came out, people on the boards were wanting more action, they were wanting Angel and Beast and Juggernaut, they were wanting Storm to fly, they were even suggesting how cool it would be for Xavier to be revealed as the manipulator who held back Phoenix's powers. There were huge discussions on that particular idea, of Xavier holding back Jean's powers. Well, that's what they got. To become negative a year after the movie says more about these fickle flip-floppers than about the movie.

But whatever people think, X3 is a done deal. Singer won't ever come back, no matter what he says. There were all those claims about him coming back to do X3 after SR, but that was all crap and was never going to happen. Clearly, he's moved on. Maybe other people should do as well.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, AVEITWITHJAMON, something happened to people's views between their votes when the movie came out and they first saw it and their votes a year or so later. The old 'rate the movie' thread was dug up in the X3 forum and compared with a 'what do yoi think now' thread. The change was substantial, with many people becoming negative. That doesn't just happen. Why would someone's excitement deteriorate into anger and negativity over the past year? Because they spend too much time on here taking the views of others as gospel, because they don't have minds of their own, because they are fickle and easily swayed, because it's easy to bash, because their memories of the movie are distant and distorted a long time later.

And it quite clearly HAS become a political fight. And furthermore there is nothing wrong with an action-oriented fast-moving climactic instalment to a franchise. Before X3 came out, people on the boards were wanting more action, they were wanting Angel and Beast and Juggernaut, they were wanting Storm to fly, they were even suggesting how cool it would be for Xavier to be revealed as the manipulator who held back Phoenix's powers. There were huge discussions on that particular idea, of Xavier holding back Jean's powers. Well, that's what they got. To become negative a year after the movie says more about these fickle flip-floppers than about the movie.

The thing that dissapointed people though was the fact that Angel and Juggernaut were sparingly used, and the Xavier just wasnt explored in any depth besides his conversation with Wolverine, so it wasnt satisfying in the least.

Also, how many times have you watched a movie, enjoyed it, watched it again and realised it was crap? Or vice versa? I know i have done it many times and i have heard many people state that this is what happened to them regarding X3, so maybe people arent as robotic in their thinking as you suggest. At least you kniw i hated X3 from the start t:

But whatever people think, X3 is a done deal. Singer won't ever come back, no matter what he says. There were all those claims about him coming back to do X3 after SR, but that was all crap and was never going to happen. Clearly, he's moved on. Maybe other people should do as well.

Maybe you need to move on as well then huh? Plus, i have said this before, but there are countless directors out there, non of whom are Singer, who could have made a great X3.

 

[Docker2.0]

The thing that dissapointed people though was the fact that Angel and Juggernaut were sparingly used, and the Xavier just wasnt explored in any depth besides his conversation with Wolverine, so it wasnt satisfying in the least.

Also, how many times have you watched a movie, enjoyed it, watched it again and realised it was crap? Or vice versa? I know i have done it many times and i have heard many people state that this is what happened to them regarding X3, so maybe people arent as robotic in their thinking as you suggest. At least you kniw i hated X3 from the start t:

Wow! you just described SR!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Wow! you just described SR!

Hey if you didnt like SR, thats fine. There are a lot of people who didnt.

But there are many who did also.

 

[Docker2.0]

Hey if you didnt like SR, thats fine. There are a lot of people who didnt.

But there are many who did also.

Believe it or not, I KIND OF liked SR but not to much. I think the point that X and I are making is that you seem to blast X3 for the same reasons you love SR and you do it nonrelentingly! You are coming off hard man. Just being real. You didnt like it fine, a lot of people didn't.........but you have to call a spade a spade, X3 belongs in the same category as SR. Again.............it did bring more money in than SR and you can say that critics hated X3 but loved SR, but money talks and if that's the case, X3 is the better movie. More people supported and even though it is close, X3 beat it out. So you can concede that they are in the same category or SR is worse.

 

[X-Maniac]

The thing that dissapointed people though was the fact that Angel and Juggernaut were sparingly used, and the Xavier just wasnt explored in any depth besides his conversation with Wolverine, so it wasnt satisfying in the least.

Also, how many times have you watched a movie, enjoyed it, watched it again and realised it was crap? Or vice versa? I know i have done it many times and i have heard many people state that this is what happened to them regarding X3, so maybe people arent as robotic in their thinking as you suggest. At least you kniw i hated X3 from the start t:

You say robotic, I say consistent. I don't think my own views have really changed at all. I don't see why they should, and I certainly won't let anonymous haters online have an influence on what I think. I can carry out my own analysis. Others should try to be more consistent.

I saw Juggernaut as the Sabretooth of X3 - dumb muscle who didn't get, or need, much more time. I didn't expect complex family connections to Xavier to be explored, just as the previous movies didn't go into the links between Sabretooth and Wolverine (only the vaguest nod with the dogtag) or the Rogue/Mystique/Nightcrawler connections. There just isn't time for all that soap opera stuff where everyone turns out to be related. Leave that for TV series...and that's just what's happening in Heroes, where they have far more time to explore blood ties. As for Angel, I agree he could have done with a couple more scenes (the novelisation's dialogue after he rescues his father would be perfect) but he was presented more as a symbolic character who was really more of a metaphor for mutation, for a teenager's discovery of it and making a choice about it, and for freedom. All of his scenes had a strong and obvious meaning. Angel was like the backdrop against which the story was told.

I thought Xavier was pretty well presented. We knew what he had done and why he had done it, and why he was doing what he was doing. His dream was explained at the funeral and again in Wolverine's speech before they board the X-jet. It all seemed very clear.

There are countless directors out there, non of whom are Singer, who could have made a great X3.

Possibly, but circumstances didn't go in that direction. Singer and Vaughn both left, Ratner was hired because Fox was committed to that release date. There is no point wishing anything else, or wondering anything else. Circumstances had their say already.

 

[Storm22]

Hey if you didnt like SR, thats fine. There are a lot of people who didnt.

But there are many who did also.

Just like there are many who liked X3 and many who didn't. It's all down to personal opinion at the end of the day so there's no point in you and X-Maniac getting too frustrated with each other.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Believe it or not, I KIND OF liked SR but not to much. I think the point that X and I are making is that you seem to blast X3 for the same reasons you love SR and you do it nonrelentingly! You are coming off hard man. Just being real. You didnt like it fine, a lot of people didn't.........but you have to call a spade a spade, X3 belongs in the same category as SR. Again.............it did bring more money in than SR and you can say that critics hated X3 but loved SR, but money talks and if that's the case, X3 is the better movie. More people supported and even though it is close, X3 beat it out. So you can concede that they are in the same category or SR is worse.

Sorry no, but SR was not even NEAR in the same category as X3. X3 was the final installment in a franchise that people had been waiting for, X3 was coming off of the back of two very successful and very high thought off 2 movies. SR was both a franchise starter and a continuiation of a franchise began over 20 years before, ther is a BIG difference my friend. Plus, did you see the SR vs X3 thread on here? SR won by more than 100 votes, not to mention people who hated SR still thought it was better than X3.

You say robotic, I say consistent. I don't think my own views have really changed at all. I don't see why they should, and I certainly won't let anonymous haters online have an influence on what I think. I can carry out my own analysis. Others should try to be more consistent.

I saw Juggernaut as the Sabretooth of X3 - dumb muscle who didn't get, or need, much more time. I didn't expect complex family connections to Xavier to be explored, just as the previous movies didn't go into the links between Sabretooth and Wolverine (only the vaguest nod with the dogtag) or the Rogue/Mystique/Nightcrawler connections. There just isn't time for all that soap opera stuff where everyone turns out to be related. Leave that for TV series...and that's just what's happening in Heroes, where they have far more time to explore blood ties. As for Angel, I agree he could have done with a couple more scenes (the novelisation's dialogue after he rescues his father would be perfect) but he was presented more as a symbolic character who was really more of a metaphor for mutation, for a teenager's discovery of it and making a choice about it, and for freedom. All of his scenes had a strong and obvious meaning. Angel was like the backdrop against which the story was told.

I thought Xavier was pretty well presented. We knew what he had done and why he had done it, and why he was doing what he was doing. His dream was explained at the funeral and again in Wolverine's speech before they board the X-jet. It all seemed very clear.


Possibly, but circumstances didn't go in that direction. Singer and Vaughn both left, Ratner was hired because Fox was committed to that release date. There is no point wishing anything else, or wondering anything else. Circumstances had their say already.

Of course there is point in wishing and wondering something else, otherwise the studio's will never learn, are you that naive to accept any **** a studio will put out with the X-Name on it?

 

[Docker2.0]

Box office says differently. This is ONE forum! the GA says other wise. Again, I liked both movies, X3 more, but you are bashing this movie for the same reason you love SR.