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

[matrix_ghost]

While i agree that Singer had too much money to spend on SR (the budget for which was only actually $204 million) I dont believe that was the case with the first 2 X-Movies.

However, on SR i agree, he wasted a lot of money which could have been used to make the movie more mainstream.

Holy crap , ave admitting that Singer did actually something wrong with SR.


j/k ave. j/k.

AFter reading so many posts of yours where you defend SR , it was kinda weird to see something some criticism

 

[matrix_ghost]

And yet Transformers was made for $150m, 300 for just $65m, LotR: Return of the King for $94m.

.

Yeat but there is more to it then just simple budgets dude.
Often these movies are used as examples that you can make big blockbusters for with low numbers.
That is true...if you know how to make your movie.

TF had huge support from the military and sponsoring from GM all of which meant that they got cars and military materials for free. That ultimately leads to a lower budget. Not only that but looking at VFX as well , it's much easier to understand why the budget is low. Metal surfaces are far more easier to animate in CGI then organic stuff. You can get (near) photorealistic quality. Animating CG humans..whole different issue. Head over to the Iron Man forum. There is an interview with Jon Favreau where he's discussing the movie's VFX and he says the same thing.

SR had none of that


With 300 , the reason whhy they were able to make the movie for such a low cost is simply by using the blue screen method of shooting. You don't have to build big sets , you can just animate all the stuff in CGI. And you can shoot very fast . This ultimately leads far lower number of your budget.

300 didn't feature CG humans. SR was shot mostly on real locations and sets with the VFX shots being mostly done on green screen

ROTK cost 94 million because it was part of a saga containing 3 movies that were shot back to back. Meaning that they were able to use all the sets at the same time. Shooting movies back to back is a great way of limiting your budget. Not only that but they were able to ave all their digital artists work for a long period on these movies. The technology that they developed for the first movie is refined/upgraded for the 2nd movies and again refined/updated for the 3rd movie. The used the same artists as well who knew what they were up against and that motivated them to work harder.

SR had to start from scratch , featured far more complex VFX shots , didn't have blue screen shoot and didn't get the support from the military.
All of which leads to a huge budget.

Here's an interesting thought.
Batman Begins was made for 150 million. TF was made for 150 million. One could say that Chris Nolan just had so much money but coudln't do anything whereas Bay could do much more. But on the other hand , Bay 's movie didn't have an entire city block build , nor did bay's movie had to design a car from scatch nor did bay's movie had to design several costumes.

Don't get me wrong. I no way am i a fan of SR. I think Singer blew it big time. But IMO one can't use movies like TF , ROTK and 300 as examples in this case

 

[X-Maniac]

Yeat but there is more to it then just simple budgets dude.
Often these movies are used as examples that you can make big blockbusters for with low numbers.
That is true...if you know how to make your movie.

TF had huge support from the military and sponsoring from GM all of which meant that they got cars and military materials for free. That ultimately leads to a lower budget. Not only that but looking at VFX as well , it's much easier to understand why the budget is low. Metal surfaces are far more easier to animate in CGI then organic stuff. You can get (near) photorealistic quality. Animating CG humans..whole different issue. Head over to the Iron Man forum. There is an interview with Jon Favreau where he's discussing the movie's VFX and he says the same thing.

SR had none of that


With 300 , the reason whhy they were able to make the movie for such a low cost is simply by using the blue screen method of shooting. You don't have to build big sets , you can just animate all the stuff in CGI. And you can shoot very fast . This ultimately leads far lower number of your budget.

300 didn't feature CG humans. SR was shot mostly on real locations and sets with the VFX shots being mostly done on green screen

ROTK cost 94 million because it was part of a saga containing 3 movies that were shot back to back. Meaning that they were able to use all the sets at the same time. Shooting movies back to back is a great way of limiting your budget. Not only that but they were able to ave all their digital artists work for a long period on these movies. The technology that they developed for the first movie is refined/upgraded for the 2nd movies and again refined/updated for the 3rd movie. The used the same artists as well who knew what they were up against and that motivated them to work harder.

SR had to start from scratch , featured far more complex VFX shots , didn't have blue screen shoot and didn't get the support from the military.
All of which leads to a huge budget.

Here's an interesting thought.
Batman Begins was made for 150 million. TF was made for 150 million. One could say that Chris Nolan just had so much money but coudln't do anything whereas Bay could do much more. But on the other hand , Bay 's movie didn't have an entire city block build , nor did bay's movie had to design a car from scatch nor did bay's movie had to design several costumes.

Don't get me wrong. I no way am i a fan of SR. I think Singer blew it big time. But IMO one can't use movies like TF , ROTK and 300 as examples in this case

You raise some good and valid points. But the ways these films were made so cheaply should be applied to more movies.

Let's see more movies with sponsorship, as long as it's not too intrusive. Let's see more green screen shooting for fantasy movies. And, if CGI metal is easier than flesh, let's see Metallo in a Superman movie and Sentinels in an X-Men movie. Let's also see more movies shot in twos or threes to save money on costs and sets.

 

[Still A ThorFan]

What did you think of “X-Men 3”?

It was weird because I worked on it and I storyboarded a lot of it. I think given the amount of time they had to make the film, it was pretty good. My version would’ve been different, very different. Far more emotional, far more about the characters. My version would’ve been at least half an hour longer. I couldn’t believe how short it was. I thought it was OK. It wasn’t as good as X1 or X2. It lost its soul.

 

[Docker2.0]

Holy crap , ave admitting that Singer did actually something wrong with SR.


j/k ave. j/k.

AFter reading so many posts of yours where you defend SR , it was kinda weird to see something some criticism

Ha! Agreed! I don't have a problem with him hating X3, it's just that dude bashes X3 like crazy for the exact same reasons he loves SR. Other than that, I have no problems with dude. He seems like a good poster.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Holy crap , ave admitting that Singer did actually something wrong with SR.


j/k ave. j/k.

AFter reading so many posts of yours where you defend SR , it was kinda weird to see something some criticism

LOL, I have plenty of criticisms about SR, i just found much more good in the movie than bad, hence why i praise it more often that i criticise it.

What did you think of “X-Men 3”?

It was weird because I worked on it and I storyboarded a lot of it. I think given the amount of time they had to make the film, it was pretty good. My version would’ve been different, very different. Far more emotional, far more about the characters. My version would’ve been at least half an hour longer. I couldn’t believe how short it was. I thought it was OK. It wasn’t as good as X1 or X2. It lost its soul.

I do think he would have made a better movie, but as i said earlier, it doesnt really matter now.

Ha! Agreed! I don't have a problem with him hating X3, it's just that dude bashes X3 like crazy for the exact same reasons he loves SR. Other than that, I have no problems with dude. He seems like a good poster.

So SR was 99 mins long, killed off characters cheaply and unneccessarily, had little to no character development/scene's, and completely changed the characters from the comics?

Funny, i dont remember any of that in SR. LOL I would love to know how you came to that conclusion.

 

[X-Maniac]

What did you think of “X-Men 3”?

It was weird because I worked on it and I storyboarded a lot of it. I think given the amount of time they had to make the film, it was pretty good. My version would’ve been different, very different. Far more emotional, far more about the characters. My version would’ve been at least half an hour longer. I couldn’t believe how short it was. I thought it was OK. It wasn’t as good as X1 or X2. It lost its soul.

I'm assuming you are quoting Matthew Vaughn here, but where from?

You made it sound like you were saying it.

Can you please make it clearer who is saying what, and where they said it?

 

[Still A ThorFan]

These are Mathew Vaughn's word from a Metro International interview.

 

[DawnWarrior]

It’s possible that Vaughn is being a tad unfair. First he says, “I didn't have the time to make the movie that I wanted to make.” Then he says, about Ratner’s version, “I could have made something a hundred times better than the film that was eventually made.” Maybe he COULD have, but he left the project because he knew he wouldn’t get the chance. I mean, when Ratner took over, he probably had to scuttle some good ideas to satisfy the studio himself (to make the film under two hours, make it the last one, etc.). If Vaughn hadn't left the project and had to buckle under this same pressure from FOX, then it's hard to say if his version would have been any better than Ratner's, or if Ratner could have made a better film if he'd had more freedom.

 

[DawnWarrior]

X-Men 3 did not ruin anything. It was a blast. I really don't give a crap if the movie ruinede the franchise for someone else then me. For me I loved it and all the hatred will never change that. I'm happy I'm on the loving side, cause it really is depressing when one ends up on the hating side. All in all it's my opinion that decides whether something is good or bad, that's just the way opinions go.

So i feel for the ones hating the movie, but other then that I don't care. I hope they can be happy for us that liked the movie, but I fear the hate is in the way. But I hope I'm proven wrong. Peace out and speak your mind

I'm with you on this, though I didn't enjoy X3 quite as much as you. Still, I think it is important to find some enjoyment out of this stuff, especially the super-hero movies that are less than perfect; some of fanboys, occasionally myself included, have to nitpick and tear through everything. I wish I had seen Spider-Man 3 on opening night instead of the following week, because I kept hearing people complain about it, and it hurt my ability to enjoy the film when I saw it myself. The Daredevil, Hulk, and Punisher movies get branded as "CRAP" a lot in these circles, but they're far from unwatchable, and have a lot of good stuff in them, even if they aren't the greatest super-hero movies ever made.

 

[Docker2.0]

I'm with you on this, though I didn't enjoy X3 quite as much as you. Still, I think it is important to find some enjoyment out of this stuff, especially the super-hero movies that are less than perfect; some of fanboys, occasionally myself included, have to nitpick and tear through everything. I wish I had seen Spider-Man 3 on opening night instead of the following week, because I kept hearing people complain about it, and it hurt my ability to enjoy the film when I saw it myself. The Daredevil, Hulk, and Punisher movies get branded as "CRAP" a lot in these circles, but they're far from unwatchable, and have a lot of good stuff in them, even if they aren't the greatest super-hero movies ever made.

Great post! I'm glad someone can see that superhero flicks are not really designed to be Mozart classics. Some are designed to be popcorn flicks and should be enjoyed as such. It's fan that people say that SM1 is one of the greatest films created but it's also campy as well. But yet some other superhero movies get blasted becuase they ain't perfect. Great post non the less!

 

[X-Maniac]

I don't really see X3 as popcorn, I guess it depends on your definition. It's sci-fi action adventure, but less moody in tone than the first two X-movies so I guess it is more popcorn than X1 and X2 with some cheesy dialogue and a more superficial presentation. But there is depth in it too, and it's up to the viewer to connect some of the dots, although I agree it needed more and/or longer scenes of character and feeling. I don't know why many such scenes were cut out - like Storm talking of her origins on the balcony, Angel talking with his father after rescuing him. Those were the sorts of scenes that were desperately needed.

Even though SR is technically a better-made movie with far more thought and craft, I still prefer X3. It's more entertaining, more dynamic, more exciting. I expected SR to be more like X2 in weaving together character moments and exciting action....but it didn't do that. Singer didn't seem the right director somehow -- I'd have imagined Peter Jackson would do something much grander.

There's no doubt Bryan is a talented director....and although I like X3, I have never been interested in Ratner's other movies and probably never will be. I think he did a reasonable job on X3 in the time available, with some excellent action scenes.