Now what the hell would've been so hard about getting relationships right?

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

^ As a fan, I don't even think I would be interested in it if they followed the comics exactly now that I am over the age of 10.

 

[Abaddon]

They'd have to cut corners nomatter what,so itd never be exact.

 

[Mistopurr83]

^ As a fan, I don't even think I would be interested in it if they followed the comics exactly now that I am over the age of 10.

I never said anything about them following the comics exactly. I said I'd rather see them follow the comics accurately and "accurately" does NOT = exactly! Nell you just can't comprehend.

 

[Mistopurr83]

What movies are those? Please share. your not thinking realistic. I love Brain Singers Vision of X-Men because he made the Characters believeable to this world. Nothing over the top just perfect. Most of the X characters would look so stupid if they kept it to the T and if they follow the Comics fully the Movies would interest people besides the Fans.

No one here cares if you love reality. I also think your wrong about what you say. Have you not seen any comic adaptations that were faithful? What you said indicates you haven't.

 

[Sun_Down]

The things that matter were faithfully adapted. Some of the details were changed, but not so much that you could call the X-Men films "unfaithful", not by a long shot. Who really gives a damn if Kitty and Bobby get together instead of Kitty and Piotr? Honestly, who cares? It doesn't take away from the story, it didn't alter the themes of prejudice and alienation, it's just a different interpretation. An interpretation, might I add, of a very minor facet of the films.

You people say that you "just want a faithful movie" and act like you've somehow been wronged. But you're really just complaining for the sake of complaining.

 

[Abaddon]

So the characters of Storm,Cyclops,and Rogue were all faithfully adapted in your opinion?

 

[rjb182]

Well, Storm was just powered-down some and largely ignored, not really changed in my opinion.

Cyke was also ignored quite a bit and I'm not thrilled with the actor, but in terms of character, I think he's the same...

Rogue is, obviously, quite different.

 

[Sun_Down]

So the characters of Storm,Cyclops,and Rogue were all faithfully adapted in your opinion?

Yes. Take Cyke, the character who everyone seems to ***** about. In the movies, he was an uptight control freak who constantly sits on his hands and waits for Xavier's approval. That sounds quite a bit like Scott Summers to me. And I'll say it again : these are not comics! You can't slowly flesh out a character every month for 40 years. There would be no way to go into every detail of each character's histories the way you seem to want. Details were changed to fit the medium, but the characters were, at the core, the same. In the grand scheme of things, all you're doing is nitpicking and you know it. If you don't like the movies...

Deal.

With.

It.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Well Cyke is also a no-nonsense leader, and he DOESNT hang on Xavier's word to do his job. In the comics when Logan and Cyke first meet and Cyke forms the new team Logan acts up, and Cyke immediately lays down the law. I would have really liked to see that. But no, Cyke is made to look dumb to make Logan look cool. In fact there's dialogue devoted to that exact purpose- like when Cyke messes up the jet landing and Logan jumps on him, there was no purpose for that scene except to hype up Singer's Mary Sue Logan. I really like the movies, but I didnt like that.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well Cyke is also a no-nonsense leader, and he DOESNT hang on Xavier's word to do his job. In the comics when Logan and Cyke first meet and Cyke forms the new team Logan acts up, and Cyke immediately lays down the law. I would have really liked to see that. But no, Cyke is made to look dumb to make Logan look cool. In fact there's dialogue devoted to that exact purpose- like when Cyke messes up the jet landing and Logan jumps on him, there was no purpose for that scene except to hype up Singer's Mary Sue Logan. I really like the movies, but I didnt like that.

...except for the fact that Wolverine goes at Cyclops all the time in the comics, cartoons, and every other form of medium the X-Men have appeared in as well... in fact, Cyclops goes back at Wolverine quite well. In the scene in Xavier's office, when Wolverine lashes out towards Cyclops, he's ready to blast Wolverine through the walls... in the scene in Wolverine's room, Cyclops goes at Wolverine "Better be careful, I might not be there next time" What they did between Cyclops and Wolverine was perfect. Wolverine definatley came out as the *******.

And yes they got Cyclops and Rogue correct. I will agree that Storm's portrayal wasn't accurate. But Cyclops is very much like his comic book self, and I think is one of the most accuratley represented characters. Quantity of screentime does not equal quality of screentime.

Rogue is spot on too. In the comics, Rogue is very uncomfortable about her powers, and thinks of them as a curse, and wants to be cured of them. And her being unconfident as she is in the movies is a very common thing for her. Sure, when she's all sassed up like in the 90's, she's really confident. But I've also seen many times, outside of the 90's era, where she breaks down and cries over her powers. And her reaction to Iceman over not wanting to hurt him is exactly how she reacted towards Gambit in the comics.

For those who think the movies were inaccurate to the comics, I think you need to go back and actually *read* the comics, not just flipping through all the pretty pictures.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I never said anything about them following the comics exactly. I said I'd rather see them follow the comics accurately and "accurately" does NOT = exactly! Nell you just can't comprehend.

They were accurate.

 

[thegameq]

They were accurate.

Do you think these X-films are all they could have been? Are you a fan of the comics? Make no mistake, I'm not ignorant to the myriad difficulties of bringing a complicated CB like the X-Men to the big screen, but there could have been more and it could've been better.....again, it's like it's more like someone's..... attempt at an X-Men movie.

The other thing you have to understand is that everybody knows by now---especially the fans--that you can make a CB movie faithful to the source material and have it be successful. No, it won't appeal to everyone, the scifi/fantasy genre never does. There's really no excuse anymore other than the so many that have already been mentioned--and that's just what they are, EXCUSES. As much as I enjoy the X-films, I can't consider them X-men movies because they don't come across as such. Again, they come off as someone's best try at making an X-Men movie. Almost like some kind of...quasi-scifi flick with one foot in fantasy and the other in reality.

Come on man, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you or anyone else on this board, but you must understand the fustration the fans feel. Especially knowing X-Men could've been done properly. But it just wasn't.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!! STOP USING THE POWER RANGERS AS A COMPARISON TO AN CB X-MEN FILM!! SUPERMAN AND SPIDERMAN DID NOT COME OUT LIKE THE POWER RANGERS AND NEITHER WOULD AN X-MEN FILM!! (not aimed at you Nell) COME UP WITH A BETTER EXCUSE!

 

[Mistopurr83]

They were accurate.

NO THEY WEREN'T!!! That's nothing but your MO. You don't even know the meaning of the word, "accurate." God Nell, your quite the critic!

 

[Mistopurr83]

Do you think these X-films are all they could have been? Are you a fan of the comics? Make no mistake, I'm not ignorant to the myriad difficulties of bringing a complicated CB like the X-Men to the big screen, but there could have been more and it could've been better.....again, it's like it's more like someone's..... attempt at an X-Men movie.

The other thing you have to understand is that everybody knows by now---especially the fans--that you can make a CB movie faithful to the source material and have it be successful. No, it won't appeal to everyone, the scifi/fantasy genre never does. There's really no excuse anymore other than the so many that have already been mentioned--and that's just what they are, EXCUSES. As much as I enjoy the X-films, I can't consider them X-men movies because they don't come across as such. Again, they come off as someone's best try at making an X-Men movie. Almost like some kind of...quasi-scifi flick with one foot in fantasy and the other in reality.

Come on man, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you or anyone else on this board, but you must understand the fustration the fans feel. Especially knowing X-Men could've been done properly. But it just wasn't.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!! STOP USING THE POWER RANGERS AS A COMPARISON TO AN CB X-MEN FILM!! SUPERMAN AND SPIDERMAN DID NOT COME OUT LIKE THE POWER RANGERS AND NEITHER WOULD AN X-MEN FILM!! (not aimed at you Nell) COME UP WITH A BETTER EXCUSE!

Your absolutely right about what you say. You made a lot of good points there thegameq. Besides, users like Nell and Sundown are just saying the things they say in order to make excuses for something they like. I don't even think users like them read an x-men comic before the movies. I bet they just saw the movie first and than did research on the comic characters on sites like uncannyxmen.net.

Another thing is when you make characters like Pyro, Mystique, Deathstrike, Rogue, Ice Man and others into something they NEVER were in the comics... That is NOT what I call staying faithful or accurate! A faithful or accurate adaptation would've been something more like this. The X-Men films starting out the same way the comics did, not wearing uniforms/outfits they never had on, getting romantic relationships right, not screwing up the ages of the characters and telling story arcs in a similar way. That is accuracy! The x-men films turing out so unfaithful lies on the fault of one man who didn't do his homework here. All he decides to do is watch some episodes of the 90's cartoon (the only faithful x-men adaptation made so far) and then decides to do just this and that from there. So don't bother saying the x-movies are faithful/accurate b/c if you do, that is total ******ation.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

mistopurr, never make assumptions about my X-Men fandom ever again. I have been a fan of the X-Men since long, LONG before the movies ever came out. I've been wanting X-Men movies my entire life. But I "get" the X-Men, and I realize that there is more to the X-Men than just being a bunch of superheroes with super powers. There is a true meaning there, to not only each character, but to the mythos as a whole. X-Men in general (no matter the form) suffers when it strays from it's themes of oppression, and the political commentary. When they go into space, and alternate realities, and all of that kind of stuff, it suffers. And I feel that way about the comics, cartoons, video games, and if the movies end up taking that direction in future movies.

Don't you ever question my love of these characters again.

Do you think these X-films are all they could have been? Are you a fan of the comics? Make no mistake, I'm not ignorant to the myriad difficulties of bringing a complicated CB like the X-Men to the big screen, but there could have been more and it could've been better.....again, it's like it's more like someone's..... attempt at an X-Men movie.

The other thing you have to understand is that everybody knows by now---especially the fans--that you can make a CB movie faithful to the source material and have it be successful. No, it won't appeal to everyone, the scifi/fantasy genre never does. There's really no excuse anymore other than the so many that have already been mentioned--and that's just what they are, EXCUSES. As much as I enjoy the X-films, I can't consider them X-men movies because they don't come across as such. Again, they come off as someone's best try at making an X-Men movie. Almost like some kind of...quasi-scifi flick with one foot in fantasy and the other in reality.

Come on man, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you or anyone else on this board, but you must understand the fustration the fans feel. Especially knowing X-Men could've been done properly. But it just wasn't.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!! STOP USING THE POWER RANGERS AS A COMPARISON TO AN CB X-MEN FILM!! SUPERMAN AND SPIDERMAN DID NOT COME OUT LIKE THE POWER RANGERS AND NEITHER WOULD AN X-MEN FILM!! (not aimed at you Nell) COME UP WITH A BETTER EXCUSE!

Now to this:

First off, yes, I am a fan of the comics. I am by no means an expert on the comics, but I am a fan of the comics. And yes, I do feel that the X-Men movies were all that they could have been.

Because as a fan, I take it as a sign of respect towards the fans, and towards the mythos, that someone like Bryan Singer came along and saw these characters as *more* than just comic book characters. He saw these guys as something to be taken seriously. And yes, it would have looked like Power Rangers if it was taken out of the comics. People always bring up Spiderman as a comparrison as to why the costumes could have worked, but there is a difference here; the character of Spiderman was done in all CGI, it wasn't a guy in a bright red spider costume. There is also the fact that Spiderman isn't as serious of a superhero as the X-Men are. Spiderman is a superhero who's purpose more is towards the bright colors and fancy powers, whereas the purpose of the X-Men is more of a social commentary, with superheroes to make it more interesting. Bryan Singer even said that he tried costumes more accurate to the comics, and they just didn't work.

Someone coming in and taking these characters seriously, and portraying them in a way that can be taken seriously by everyone is a sign of respect, as far as I'm concerned. It's a director understanding that these characters aren't just comic book characters, and that these movies aren't just comic book movies. These are stories with a true message fueling them, not just "super hero has to fight super villian to save cty"... no, it's something that everyone can relate to on some level. And it's something that is very real in our world, something that has happened, something that is still happening.

The X-Men is about things like the Holocaust, the Jim Crow Laws of the south, genocide, segregation, the camps that Japanese Americans were placed in during World War 2, the destruction of the Native Americans... it is abot every kind of prejudice that this world has ever faced. And that is something that is much deeper than "Spiderman gets bit by a spider and gets super powers, and Norman Oswell's company goes bankrupt, he's exposed to a toxin, his company gets stolen from him, and he goes crazy"

No, the X-Men is about a man who survived one of the greatest horrors this world has ever faced, the Holocaust. A man who has seen first hand the destruction that can be caused through human intolerance. And a man who is a double minority; he is not just Jewish, but he is also a mutant. And the world looks dubiously towards mutants because of the potential threat they can cause. And this is a man who knows first hand what can happen because of those dubious views upon a group of people, and will not sit idly by while his people gradually lose all of their rights, and become oppressed yet again.

X-Men is also about another man, a pacifist, who believes that through hard work, patience, peace, and diplomacy, that mankind can come to accept mutants as equals, and that the 2 forms of humanity can live together in prosperity.

X-Men is about a group of young men and women who go to an institution to learn how to best utilize their powers, not just for themselves, but also for the benefit of all of mankind. It is also about another group of young men and women who are going to take action, and stand up for what they believe in, and fight for their acceptance and equality, even if their actions are a bit radical, they aren't going to sit around and accept their fate.

And Bryan Singer got that. He saw that, and that's what he made them about in the movies. Exactly what they should have been about. Unlike characters like Spiderman, the X-Men aren't about super powers and colorful costumes. They are about something much deeper than that, with special powers and colorful costumes to make it a bit interesting.

Being more "accurate", as you say, towards the comics (which, by more accurate, you just mean the stuff like powers and costumes, not the things that the X-Men is truly about, the things that truly are accurate) would mean sacrificing the emotion and heart of the storyline, sacrificing the substance, for the flash. And that is not what the X-Men is about. That would have turned X-Men into a typical summer action film, just like Fantastic 4 or Daredevil, that you all seem to despise so much. But instead we got someone who, despite not being a fan initially, saw deeper than Cyclops blasting a hole through a mountain, saw deeper than Rogue flying around throwing tanks at Sentinels, and dug deep to find out just what X-Men was truly about. And he saw it. And he got it. And he brought it to life, just the way it should have been brought to life.

I honestly feel that people who think these movies weren't accurate don't truly comprehend the true meaning behind the mythos, and the true essence that ever character possesses, beyond a costume and a power. Yes, there were some inaccuracies, such as the characterization of Storm, Iceman, and Lady Deathstrike, but other than that, everything these movies have portrayed has been spot on to what the comic books are all about.

Too bad we never see Cyclops blast a hole through a mountain and bark out orders like a madman. He is still portrayed as a leader. He is still portrayed as someone who looks towards Xavier like a father, and someone who will step up and take Xavier's role should anything ever happen to him. He is portrayed as someone with an undying love towards Jean Grey, and just because some of you can't see beyond Wolverine's screentime doesn't mean that's not how he's portrayed. He is shown as somebody who is loyal to his teammates, or rather, his family.

Too bad we don't see Rogue flying around throwing tanks. She is portrayed as someone who is very scared because of her powers, something very accurate to the comics. She is portrayed as someone afraid to hurt the ones she loves because of her powers, and as such, she is afraid to get close, just like in the comics. And this next movie seems to have her questioning herself, and whether or not she should "cure" herself... just like the comics.

If you think these movies weren't accurate, then you can't see the forest for the trees. You don't know these characters beyond their costumes and their powers. And you don't comprehend that X-Men is more than a superhero story, but a story about true to our world realities, with a message deeper than "the good guy always stops the bad guy".

 

[Mistopurr83]

Nell what are you trying to do write a novel? I'm not even gonna bother reading that. The longer you make your posts the more boring they get so quit trying to overanalyze your MO. Also, no matter what you say your not gonna change minds like mine.

 

[Sun_Down]

Besides, users like Nell and Sundown are just saying the things they say in order to make excuses for something they like. I don't even think users like them read an x-men comic before the movies. I bet they just saw the movie first and than did research on the comic characters on sites like uncannyxmen.net.

I've never read a comic before the movies because I disagree with you? Then I wonder where those hundreds of X-Men comics in my basement came from. I wonder where that autographed copy of X-Men #1 that I got when I was five came from. I wonder what happened to every cent I ever got in allowance as a kid or why I still spend $20 a week in my local comic book store. I always thought I was a comic book fan of nearly 15 years, but I guess because I'm grateful for the X-Men film franchise, I'm not. I guess because I don't ***** and moan like a child, I am just a bandwagoner. Thank you Mistopurr for opening my eyes.

I wash my hands of this thread. If you want to continue your pointless complaining, go right ahead without me. I'm sure the FOX execs will be listening intently.


And Nell, great post.

 

[Mistopurr83]

I've never read a comic before the movies because I disagree with you? Then I wonder where those hundreds of X-Men comics in my basement came from. I wonder where that autographed copy of X-Men #1 that I got when I was five came from. I wonder what happened to every cent I ever got in allowance as a kid or why I still spend $20 a week in my local comic book store. I always thought I was a comic book fan of nearly 15 years, but I guess because I'm grateful for the X-Men film franchise, I'm not. I guess because I don't ***** and moan like a child, I am just a bandwagoner. Thank you Mistopurr for opening my eyes.

I wash my hands of this thread. If you want to continue your pointless complaining, go right ahead without me. I'm sure the FOX execs will be listening intently.

I said that about you b/c of the way you defend the films. I don't know you in real life so I don't know if I should believe you. I could care less about Fox listening to this thread or not anyway. For god sakes all they'd rather do is ignore everyone on the forums.

 

[rjb182]

Nell2ThaIzzay, I just wanted to say, awesome post. You've summed up the whole heart and soul of the X-Men. Well done.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Nell2ThaIzzay, I just wanted to say, awesome post. You've summed up the whole heart and soul of the X-Men. Well done.

Thanks.

It's just a shame that people like mistopurr won't read it, and will remain ignorant on the topic, and assume that I'm some bandwagon fan based on the movies just because I agree with how they were done, and my fandom of these characters I have loved my entire life will be continued to be questioned because of his ignorance...

 

[thegameq]

Your absolutely right about what you say. You made a lot of good points there thegameq. Besides, users like Nell and Sundown are just saying the things they say in order to make excuses for something they like. I don't even think users like them read an x-men comic before the movies. I bet they just saw the movie first and than did research on the comic characters on sites like uncannyxmen.net.

Another thing is when you make characters like Pyro, Mystique, Deathstrike, Rogue, Ice Man and others into something they NEVER were in the comics... That is NOT what I call staying faithful or accurate! A faithful or accurate adaptation would've been something more like this. The X-Men films starting out the same way the comics did, not wearing uniforms/outfits they never had on, getting romantic relationships right, not screwing up the ages of the characters and telling story arcs in a similar way. That is accuracy! The x-men films turing out so unfaithful lies on the fault of one man who didn't do his homework here. All he decides to do is watch some episodes of the 90's cartoon (the only faithful x-men adaptation made so far) and then decides to do just this and that from there. So don't bother saying the x-movies are faithful/accurate b/c if you do, that is total ******ation.

I think what you see on these boards alot is clearly people own preference when it comes to these types of films. Scifi/fantasy is not meant to be realistic. Which kind of begs the question, why watch if you don't enjoy the fantastic or the inplausible? You can portray the universe or the events in which the movie takes place as simple "matter of fact" ala Star Trek and comics in general. Remember, in the comics, the superhero world/aspect isn't portrayed as golly-gee-whiz-bang-wow! It's portrayed as a matter of fact--these people and the things they can do exist. They are a part of everyday life. It kind of makes sense that Marvel would choose to "ground" it's universe in real-life as opposed to other comics during its infancy. This is where the characterisations are so important. Rather than portray the characters as "up, up and away" superhero types, the characters are portrayed as real people with the same issues as ordinary people. Now you are probably saying, "that's what Singer was attempting", and I'll give him credit for it. But both he, the studio and Marvel were clearly afraid to let the source material stand for itself. The same way Raimi let Spider-man stand on the support of the source material (characterisation; Pete's dual life and the obvious real world mortality of being Spider-man), is the same way Singer could have done his film. The Spiderman films, IMO, never came across as gawdy or campy. Funny and humorous at times (like the comics), but not gawdy or campy. Just like the comics, Pete's life clashed with his role as Spiderman.

In X-Men you have Superheros who are feared. Do they save the world or say to hell with it? Factor in the close nit family scenario, and the rich characters in X-men. Give a huge dose of why people are afraid of them (their often strange and unconventional powers and those who chose to use their gift for personal gain) and voila! Don't run from the CB heritage, embrace it. Tell the story the with the same respect for the material the writers had when they wrote it. Take the Potter franchise. It's obvious that when JK Rowlings wrote her books, they weren't written as some "tongue-in-cheek", not to be taken seriously, peace of literature. She wrote the magical world in which Potter and co. inhabit as a "matter of fact". Magic does exist, albeit hidden from muggles. Fantastic to those who don't see or experience it every day (muggles, the students and the audience). But just another day around magic for the magical inhabitants.

That is the approach, that should've/could've been taken with the X-films. Let the material stand the way it was meant to. And if you don't, the only reason you won't is because you either don't know how for lack of vision or don't want to, for lack of faith in the source material.

What I find interesting, is that there a few CB films that would've been much better had the director/studio let their own movies run their true course. Daredevil and the Hulk come to mine. Two films I really liked, but were hampered by...interference. The Hulk didn't need to fight his father--much less the absorbing man. Ditch the whole convoluted absorbing man, abusive dad thing and the Hulk is easily back on track. I did appreciate Ang Lees attempt to put as Jekyll and Hyde spin on the Hulk though. But the absorbing man gimmick........? The same thing with Daredevil. Take away the "Batman scenario" and just let the films story run its course; Daredevil tries to take down King Pin and has to balance that with his real world job and the legalities that come with it and life. End of story. A violent crime story. You get the feeling with some of these films that the director was reeled in somewhat by the studios.

Again, would such films appeal to everyone? Surprise! No. They never do. And if you find yourself watching a movie you really don't like? The movie and its like are not for you.

 

[thegameq]

mistopurr, never make assumptions about my X-Men fandom ever again. I have been a fan of the X-Men since long, LONG before the movies ever came out. I've been wanting X-Men movies my entire life. But I "get" the X-Men, and I realize that there is more to the X-Men than just being a bunch of superheroes with super powers. There is a true meaning there, to not only each character, but to the mythos as a whole. X-Men in general (no matter the form) suffers when it strays from it's themes of oppression, and the political commentary. When they go into space, and alternate realities, and all of that kind of stuff, it suffers. And I feel that way about the comics, cartoons, video games, and if the movies end up taking that direction in future movies.

Don't you ever question my love of these characters again.



Now to this:

First off, yes, I am a fan of the comics. I am by no means an expert on the comics, but I am a fan of the comics. And yes, I do feel that the X-Men movies were all that they could have been.

Because as a fan, I take it as a sign of respect towards the fans, and towards the mythos, that someone like Bryan Singer came along and saw these characters as *more* than just comic book characters. He saw these guys as something to be taken seriously. And yes, it would have looked like Power Rangers if it was taken out of the comics. People always bring up Spiderman as a comparrison as to why the costumes could have worked, but there is a difference here; the character of Spiderman was done in all CGI, it wasn't a guy in a bright red spider costume. There is also the fact that Spiderman isn't as serious of a superhero as the X-Men are. Spiderman is a superhero who's purpose more is towards the bright colors and fancy powers, whereas the purpose of the X-Men is more of a social commentary, with superheroes to make it more interesting. Bryan Singer even said that he tried costumes more accurate to the comics, and they just didn't work.

Someone coming in and taking these characters seriously, and portraying them in a way that can be taken seriously by everyone is a sign of respect, as far as I'm concerned. It's a director understanding that these characters aren't just comic book characters, and that these movies aren't just comic book movies. These are stories with a true message fueling them, not just "super hero has to fight super villian to save cty"... no, it's something that everyone can relate to on some level. And it's something that is very real in our world, something that has happened, something that is still happening.

The X-Men is about things like the Holocaust, the Jim Crow Laws of the south, genocide, segregation, the camps that Japanese Americans were placed in during World War 2, the destruction of the Native Americans... it is abot every kind of prejudice that this world has ever faced. And that is something that is much deeper than "Spiderman gets bit by a spider and gets super powers, and Norman Oswell's company goes bankrupt, he's exposed to a toxin, his company gets stolen from him, and he goes crazy"

No, the X-Men is about a man who survived one of the greatest horrors this world has ever faced, the Holocaust. A man who has seen first hand the destruction that can be caused through human intolerance. And a man who is a double minority; he is not just Jewish, but he is also a mutant. And the world looks dubiously towards mutants because of the potential threat they can cause. And this is a man who knows first hand what can happen because of those dubious views upon a group of people, and will not sit idly by while his people gradually lose all of their rights, and become oppressed yet again.

X-Men is also about another man, a pacifist, who believes that through hard work, patience, peace, and diplomacy, that mankind can come to accept mutants as equals, and that the 2 forms of humanity can live together in prosperity.

X-Men is about a group of young men and women who go to an institution to learn how to best utilize their powers, not just for themselves, but also for the benefit of all of mankind. It is also about another group of young men and women who are going to take action, and stand up for what they believe in, and fight for their acceptance and equality, even if their actions are a bit radical, they aren't going to sit around and accept their fate.

And Bryan Singer got that. He saw that, and that's what he made them about in the movies. Exactly what they should have been about. Unlike characters like Spiderman, the X-Men aren't about super powers and colorful costumes. They are about something much deeper than that, with special powers and colorful costumes to make it a bit interesting.

Being more "accurate", as you say, towards the comics (which, by more accurate, you just mean the stuff like powers and costumes, not the things that the X-Men is truly about, the things that truly are accurate) would mean sacrificing the emotion and heart of the storyline, sacrificing the substance, for the flash. And that is not what the X-Men is about. That would have turned X-Men into a typical summer action film, just like Fantastic 4 or Daredevil, that you all seem to despise so much. But instead we got someone who, despite not being a fan initially, saw deeper than Cyclops blasting a hole through a mountain, saw deeper than Rogue flying around throwing tanks at Sentinels, and dug deep to find out just what X-Men was truly about. And he saw it. And he got it. And he brought it to life, just the way it should have been brought to life.

I honestly feel that people who think these movies weren't accurate don't truly comprehend the true meaning behind the mythos, and the true essence that ever character possesses, beyond a costume and a power. Yes, there were some inaccuracies, such as the characterization of Storm, Iceman, and Lady Deathstrike, but other than that, everything these movies have portrayed has been spot on to what the comic books are all about.

Too bad we never see Cyclops blast a hole through a mountain and bark out orders like a madman. He is still portrayed as a leader. He is still portrayed as someone who looks towards Xavier like a father, and someone who will step up and take Xavier's role should anything ever happen to him. He is portrayed as someone with an undying love towards Jean Grey, and just because some of you can't see beyond Wolverine's screentime doesn't mean that's not how he's portrayed. He is shown as somebody who is loyal to his teammates, or rather, his family.

Too bad we don't see Rogue flying around throwing tanks. She is portrayed as someone who is very scared because of her powers, something very accurate to the comics. She is portrayed as someone afraid to hurt the ones she loves because of her powers, and as such, she is afraid to get close, just like in the comics. And this next movie seems to have her questioning herself, and whether or not she should "cure" herself... just like the comics.

If you think these movies weren't accurate, then you can't see the forest for the trees. You don't know these characters beyond their costumes and their powers. And you don't comprehend that X-Men is more than a superhero story, but a story about true to our world realities, with a message deeper than "the good guy always stops the bad guy".

Good post!...I understand what your saying. But, there is/was no need to focus for the most part on the social commentary of X-Men and less so on the fantastic nature of the CB. The two exist side by side in the CB without a problem. The same could have been done with the films. It all depends on how the fantastic side of the X-books are portrayed. What Singer did with X-Men is what I and my friends had feared; focus moreso on the stuff your typical audience can identify (racism, bigotry, prejudice, yada, yada, yada) with so as to appeal to the non fan.Throw in some nods towards the fans in an attempt to please them. Again, let the material stand the way it was meant to. Treat the material the same way the writers treat it. Look at the material the same way the fans do. We don't view it as wow-golly-gee-whiz-bang! We view it as, holy *****!! What a great story! What great characters?

I've heard someone on these boards describe the X-films as a made for the scifi channel movie. I won't be that cruel, but I can understand why they would say that.

Nell, describe to me what would be so terrible about a CB adaptation of the X-Men. Please don't start describing men and women in tights or scenes out of the power rangers. As a fan your imagination and vew of the X-Men must be broader and more creative and sophisticated than that. As much as I like the X-Men, the tights just don't work for their endeavors. Something more akin to the Unlimited costumes or the Batman hard suit.

Also, did you enjoy the Spiderman films? Did you appreciate the fact that Raimi took a CB approach or would you have wanted to see something different? Not trying to paint you into a corner or anything, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I enjoyed the Spiderman movies, yes, but Spiderman is also meant to be more of a "wiz-bow-bam!" type of character.

And even though Spiderman did keep it's fantastical and comic book elements, I also felt that those movies were taken very seriously as well.

I guess it's like this... my love of these characters is beyond a "comic book" that I enjoy. This universe, the X-Men universe, is my favorite fiction, period. I love these characters, and I have since I was a child. I grew up with them, and the X-Men is something very important and dear to me (as it is with all of us)

So when I see someone, like Bryan Singer, come along, who's not a fan from the beginning, but cares enough to see past the flashy powers, and costumes, and all of that stuff, and actually take these characters seriously, and dig beneath the surface to find out what these characters are truly about, I take that as a sign of respect for the source material, and for the fans.

I also don't feel that the movies are as off base from the comics as some people think. Is it "grounded in reality"? Yes. But by that, that just means we don't have goofy looking costumes, and the overall power of these mutants has been scaled down slightly, so as to not make it completely over the top.

But we still have all the things that make the X-Men a fantastical comic book that we all enjoy: We have a team of mutants with super powers, those super powers which have been on display quite well. We have the technology like the Blackbird, Cerebro, Danger Room, and doomsday machines. We may even have Sentinels. I mean, when I saw X-Men for the first time in theatres in 2000, I walked out thinking "My entire life I've been waiting for an 'X-Men' movie... after seeing this, it was well worth the wait"

I mean, it just felt X-Men to me. The characters were nailed perfectly (except for a number of exceptions that can be counted on one hand, one of which is being rectified in this movie). When I saw X2, I thought the same thing, but double!

As someone who has grown up with the X-Men, I watch these movies, and there are so many moments that I watch and I just think "Yup, that's the X-Men right there!"

Yea, sure, there are some beloved things that we all wanna see that we're not gonna be able to see; Gambit, Genosha, Muir Island (depending out how Moira is handled in this film. I'd love to see Muir Island, but I doubt it will happen), but that's what happens when you have to condence 40 years worth of material into 3 movies, spanning 5 1/2 hours.

And things like the Savage Land, Asteroid M, Onslaught, Apocalypse, Mr. Sinister, and other great pieces of the X-Men comics I don't feel could be adapted while keeping the overall themes alive, which in my opinion are the most important, getting the characters and the meaning correct. And none of that stuff is really vital to telling the story of the X-Men.

I think the X-Men movies were handled perfectly. Yes, there are a few things I don't like... but in any adaptation that's gonna happen. There's things my mom doesn't like about the Lord of the Rings movies, but she loves them. She is as big a LOTR fan as I am X-Men fan, and she's thrilled. Some sacrifices do have to be made, and I've come to accept those inaccuracies, or mistakes, as neccesities to translate the material. And it helps that in my mind, Singer got 95% of it right anyways.

 

[FieryBalrog]

...except for the fact that Wolverine goes at Cyclops all the time in the comics, cartoons, and every other form of medium the X-Men have appeared in as well... in fact, Cyclops goes back at Wolverine quite well. In the scene in Xavier's office, when Wolverine lashes out towards Cyclops, he's ready to blast Wolverine through the walls... in the scene in Wolverine's room, Cyclops goes at Wolverine "Better be careful, I might not be there next time" What they did between Cyclops and Wolverine was perfect. Wolverine definatley came out as the *******.

And yes they got Cyclops and Rogue correct. I will agree that Storm's portrayal wasn't accurate. But Cyclops is very much like his comic book self, and I think is one of the most accuratley represented characters. Quantity of screentime does not equal quality of screentime.

Rogue is spot on too. In the comics, Rogue is very uncomfortable about her powers, and thinks of them as a curse, and wants to be cured of them. And her being unconfident as she is in the movies is a very common thing for her. Sure, when she's all sassed up like in the 90's, she's really confident. But I've also seen many times, outside of the 90's era, where she breaks down and cries over her powers. And her reaction to Iceman over not wanting to hurt him is exactly how she reacted towards Gambit in the comics.

For those who think the movies were inaccurate to the comics, I think you need to go back and actually *read* the comics, not just flipping through all the pretty pictures.

When Logan gets in Cyke's face, Cyke isn't looking over his shoulder for Daddy X's approval to lay down the law. He does in the movies though and looks like a lapdog. He may be Xavier's most loyal X-man, but he's also a field leader who makes his own decisions and keeps the team in line. Logan shouldnt be teaching Scott strategy (like he does in the final scene when he corrects Cyke on the tactical decision of who goes up to the torch).

Again I like the movies, but because Logan was Singer's pet Mary Sue, he was made to look good at Cyke's expense. And this is coming from someone who doesn't really like Cyclops and whose second favorite character is Wolverine.

There's comic Cyke:

He's a hardass. He's uptight, and introverted, but he's clearly the alpha male in charge. And Logan knows it.



Oh and I agree with you about the costumes. X-men have never been about costumes and they work fine in uniforms (like they first started in), leather or otherwise. They dont care about dual identities and the meaning of the costume like Batman or Spiderman (Spiderman also has serious themes, they're just different, and the costume is part of it). The X-men's costumes (with a few exceptions, like the Phoenix costume because of its implications) have always been eye candy and thats why they change all the time for purely aesthetic reasons. Batman can't just change his costume on a whim like that because it would be changing who he is.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

omfg, people really need to get over the whole "Wolverine corrected Cyclops" bit...

Throughout that entire sequence, Cyclops is acting as the leader of the X-Men. People wanna take the belly flop, the "Storm, fry him", and Wolverine correcting him, and nit pick that because they need to have absolutley some kind of evidence to back up their whine fest. But in the process of that, they forget that it was actually Cyclops who led the team to Liberty Island, went over the game plan with the hologram thingy in the war room to make sure everyone was on the same page, led the team out of the jet and onto the island, led them through the Statue of Liberty, and was the one who made many decisions to lead them to victory.

Back at the mansion, before hand, he was also the one who tried to go over Xavier's rule by saying Wolverine would be a detriment to the team. But when Xavier says something, it goes, no matter what Cyclops' feelings are towards the situation.

Oh yea, and Cyclops was also the first to realize about Magneto's plan, coming to the realization "Wait, you said that Magneto's machine draws the power directly from him..." and it was Xavier and Wolverine that finished the thoughts started by Cyclops, and the team came to the realization of what Magneto was going to do with Rogue.

But no, people have to *****, because they can never be happy, and so they overlook all of the accuracies to the character to ***** about that one minor inaccuracy and make it look like the creative team didn't do Cyclops justice

It's really annoying...