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

[thegameq]

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.

Okay. I think I understand now. I guess it's an example of how everyone sees and appreciates things differently. For me, the creative/artistic/scifi-fantasy aspect is what I enjoy most about the comics...and other forms of scif-fantasy entertainment. The amount of care that goes into products like the X-Men comics and other high quality scifi-fantasy, I profoundly and deeply appreciate as an artist myself. Then to see so much of that hard work (so much of what makes the X-Men so great) be stripped down and away truly irks me and I imagine many others. Perhaps worse so, is the fact that it wasn't done so much for condensing, but for appeal.

My complaint against the X-films is not that their bad. It's just that the films aren't the X-Men so many have come to love and expected. Every fan with common sense knows they aren't going to get a "verbatim", so to speak, translation of the comic to film. But most expected a movie that at least upheld the creative/fantasy/matter of fact aspect of the comic.

I don't know....I thought with Spiderman, Hollywood had finally got it right and learned to make these movies the way the were meant to be--the way the writers and fans envision them. Now, with the latest X-film and Batman Begins I fear these films and the scifi-fantasy genre in general will take a step backwards. Films like Spiderman, LOTR, HP, KK, etc. will continue to be the exception and not the new standard as they should be.

 

[FieryBalrog]

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...

Oh come off it. Excuses are just excuses. Cyclops was clearly put down to build Wolverine up (the only reason the Jet-landing mistake exists is for this purpose) , and again, I prefer Wolverine over Cyclops every day and twice on Sundays but even I can see it happening. Thats why not a single casual viewer cares a whit for Cyclops's character and would probably cheer if Wolverine took over leading the team.

 

[hulkamania]

I just want to see the mutant powers. I don't care for much else... Wolverine and Colossus are my favorite characters, so I was little upset that Piotr and Kitty aren't together... The Cyclops thing does suck, but what's done is done...

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Oh come off it. Excuses are just excuses. Cyclops was clearly put down to build Wolverine up (the only reason the Jet-landing mistake exists is for this purpose) , and again, I prefer Wolverine over Cyclops every day and twice on Sundays but even I can see it happening. Thats why not a single casual viewer cares a whit for Cyclops's character and would probably cheer if Wolverine took over leading the team.

Have you ever read a comic book?

Cyclops and Wolverine have fueded with each other as long as I can remember.

Those scenes were put in the movie to showcase this fued!

The only scene that I will agree to that was put there to poke fun at Cyclops was in X2, when Wolverine, Rogue, Iceman, and Pyro were in the car, and Pyro hit the radio which was blasting Backstreet Boys.

That's it though.

 

[Angry Sentinel]

Have you ever read a comic book?

Cyclops and Wolverine have fueded with each other as long as I can remember.

Those scenes were put in the movie to showcase this fued!

The only scene that I will agree to that was put there to poke fun at Cyclops was in X2, when Wolverine, Rogue, Iceman, and Pyro were in the car, and Pyro hit the radio which was blasting Backstreet Boys.

That's it though.

If all those other scenes were just to showcase the fueding Nell, then why is Cyclop's movie character mostly remembered as the 'DICK'?.... My point has always been that these other 'elements' in that movie, undermine Cyke's portrayal (all the other character elements that the movie did try to showcase were overshadowed by giving Wolverine the edge in those fueds), and that this was done intentionally. Why do I say intentionally? Well, it sure as hell didn't come from the comics, Cyclops was always clearly given the edge in all these 'fueds'. And everytime I see this conversation, no-one has been able to effectively show me any reasoning behind making this change, except for the obvious one...

Wolverine/ Hugh Jackman = More star power/ better acting chops.
Cyclops/ James Mardsen = Less star power/ lesser acting chops.

That is a business equation that amounts to MORE MONEY!

Through all my discussions on this topic I have come to see this much, that the Cyke portrayal was probably more hindered (overshadowed) by the inaccurate Wolverine portrayal.

With respect to all the other comments made, I actually agree with the consensus on this thread. Both aspects (Sci-fi/ social topics/ideals) exist in the comics, where as only one was truly highlighted in the film. In truth, this was probably the best way to draw all the non-sci-fi, mainstream audience into this genre and will only help this group of people in further accepting the sci-fi aspects in the future.... So in a way despite some of our dislike for this fact, someday this could turn into the goose that FIRST laid the golden egg.


[Jackie Chan 'Uncle']And another thing[Jackie Chan 'Uncle']...

We have completely ignored this thread's original topic. It was supposed to be about the reasoning behind changing the relationships. Personally I don't see any excuse for it except artistic choice (or as CB fans like to say 'Re-imagining').

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I still disagree.

I don't have time to really back up my points right now, as I have to leave for school, but I disagree that the fued was put in to raise Wolverine's status and lower Cyclops'. The way I see it, they both got their shots in, they both got each other. And if audiences think that Cyclops is the dick, that's their own inability to comprehend what is laid out right before them, because Wolverine is obviously made out to be the dick. Cyclops tried to be polite to Wolverine, but he was the one who had to be a dick towards Cyclops from the beginning, and he was the one who had to try to take is girl. Cyclops definatley wasn't the dick, and anyone who interprets that story arc as Cyclops coming off as the dick can't comprehend.

And your star power arguement is wrong too. In X-Men, where most of the fueding took place, Hugh Jackman was just as much of a nobody in Hollywood standards as Marsden was. It wasn't until X2 that Jackman had become a household name, and there wasn't much Cyclops vs. Wolverine fueding in that movie. And what little bit there was, Cyclops had more of an upper hand (except for the Backstreet Boys sequence)

 

[The Batman]

Neil is simply not getting it....

In the comics, when logan and scott bicker, they're equals.

In the movies, when logan and scott bicker, logan gets the upper hand with some witty one liner. Scott is merely there to build up wolverine. thats why jim caviezel ended up not taking the role of cyclops, because he state that the charatcer was nothing more than a foil for wolverine. and hes right.

I have read the comics, particualry the claremont ones, and the movies feel nothing like them. Face it, aspects of the films are innacurate...

 

[The Batman]

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.

You got the character of Cyclops so wrong....

 

[Angry Sentinel]

Edit...The way I see it, they both got their shots in, they both got each other. And if audiences think that Cyclops is the dick, that's their own inability to comprehend what is laid out right before them, because Wolverine is obviously made out to be the dick.

Sure they both get their shots off, and sure the 'fued' is representated, but you have not answered why it is that Wolverine gets the wittier line, the 'cool' line, the finishing blow... regardless of the fact that this is not how it was done in the comics. Whose lines did you find truly got a rise out of you? How's the old saying go...he who laugh's last, laughs best! Even though Wolverine was clearly in the wrong, the light that the writing helped cast him in makes him more desirable.

Additionally, you have admitted that having the Backstreet Boys playing on Scott's radio was definitely a dig... Why is this necessary, the character wasn't even in the movie? Who won that 'fued'? When did Scott get his 'shot off'? Why do we not see scenes with Scott laughing at some picture wolvie took with a thong on? It's not a perception problem. This was an intentional moment to carry over that same spirit from the first film.

In X-Men, where most of the fueding took place, Hugh Jackman was just as much of a nobody in Hollywood standards as Marsden was

Com-on Nell, now you're just splitting hairs. My entire comment said... 'Star power/ Acting chops'. Hugh Jackman was an unknown but he had a much better resume than James Mardsen. Otherwise why wasn't James cast as Wolverine and Hugh cast as Cyclops... slap some mutton chops on on Jimmy and a visor on a clean shaven Hugh and there isn't that much difference other than acting talent. They knew exactly what they were doing and who the spotlight would be on.

Edit...
In the comics, when logan and scott bicker, they're equals.

In the movies, when logan and scott bicker, logan gets the upper hand with some witty one liner. Scott is merely there to build up wolverine. thats why jim caviezel ended up not taking the role of cyclops, because he state that the charatcer was nothing more than a foil for wolverine. and he's right.

And in the comics, Scott is predominately the one that is portrayed as being wittier, smarter, and 'kewler' at the end of any given 'feud'...please show me where this happens in the movie.

 

[Sun_Down]

You got the character of Cyclops so wrong....

That's your opinion, which is fine, but I'm really sick of you immature little kids spouting your immature little opinions and trying to pass them off as fact. Don't tell me I don't know a character because I perceive him differently. Is Cyke all of those things I said? Yes. Is he also a lot more? Yes. He's a complex character with 43 years of history. I know that, you know that. And I'm sick of all you frickin' children (I don't care how old you are, you ARE children) trying to tell me that I'm not an X-Men fan because I don't agree with your opinions. I can agree to disagree and be civil, but you have absolutely NO right to tell me that I'm somehow less of a fan, or some sort of bandwagoner.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't like the way Cyke acts in the movies or the way him and Wolverine bicker, then don't watch the movies. It's just that simple. Go watch Batman Begins and enjoy your undue sense of self-satisfaction by yourself.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

That's your opinion, which is fine, but I'm really sick of you immature little kids spouting your immature little opinions and trying to pass them off as fact. Don't tell me I don't know a character because I perceive him differently. Is Cyke all of those things I said? Yes. Is he also a lot more? Yes. He's a complex character with 43 years of history. I know that, you know that. And I'm sick of all you frickin' children (I don't care how old you are, you ARE children) trying to tell me that I'm not an X-Men fan because I don't agree with your opinions. I can agree to disagree and be civil, but you have absolutely NO right to tell me that I'm somehow less of a fan, or some sort of bandwagoner.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't like the way Cyke acts in the movies or the way him and Wolverine bicker, then don't watch the movies. It's just that simple. Go watch Batman Begins and enjoy your undue sense of self-satisfaction by yourself.

I agree, I'm sick and tired of being told I'm not a real fan and don't know these characters because I think the movies got them right, despite the fact that I've been a fan of these characters my entire life.

Where did Cyclops get Logan?

-About ready to blast Wolverine's block off in Xavier's office... however, since Wolverine was a guest in Xavier's house, Cyclops showed restraint, and maturity
-"You'd better be careful, I might not be there next time"
-"Oh, and Logan... stay away from my girl"
-"I'm sorry Professor, but he'll endanger the mission...", "No, you're the one who stabbed Rogue through the chest"
-Wolverine: "Your bike's empty" Cyclops: "Fill 'er up!"

Vs. Wolverine's digs:

-"You're a dick"
-"You call that a landing"
-Backstreet Boys (though that wasn't Wolverine's doing, I will admit that was a comedic moment at Cyclops' expense)
-"Hey, I wasn't the one who gave the train station a new sunroof" (which Cyclops immediatley snapped back at him with above quote, so this doesn't really count)

Cyclops got plenty of digs in at Wolverine.

In fact, I count 5 - 3 in Cyclops' favor... 5 - 4 in Cyclops' favor if you want to count the "sunroof" comment.

If you want to count deleted scenes from X-Men, both characters have digs at each other, which would make it 6 - 5 in favor of Cyclops.

If you don't agree that his portrayal was accurate, that's fine, your opinion. I highly disagree, but that's a different matter.

The point is, don't just ignore what is in the movie in your arguement of inaccuracy.

 

[Angry Sentinel]

Edit... That's your opinion, which is fine,

Agreed...

If you, or anyone else, doesn't like the way Cyke acts in the movies or the way him and Wolverine bicker, then don't watch the movies. It's just that simple. Go watch Batman Begins and enjoy your undue sense of self-satisfaction by yourself

Now, why would I NOT watch a movie I like???!!!

Just because I don't agree with some other 'fan' that they got a character depiction correct or incorrect has nothing to do with how good the movie is. It's simply a discussion of opinions, remember??? Or does your adult mind not allow you to make that distinction? Interesting, that you would refer to two adults discussing a difference of opinion as children, when you're the one telling people what movies they should watch just because those individuals don't agree an opinion about a character depiction. Not about the quality of the movie, just about a character depiction??

Next time you want to tell me what I should watch, consider doing it with your foot outside your mouth.

 

[Mistopurr83]

Neil is simply not getting it....

In the comics, when logan and scott bicker, they're equals.

In the movies, when logan and scott bicker, logan gets the upper hand with some witty one liner. Scott is merely there to build up wolverine. thats why jim caviezel ended up not taking the role of cyclops, because he state that the charatcer was nothing more than a foil for wolverine. and hes right.

I have read the comics, particualry the claremont ones, and the movies feel nothing like them. Face it, aspects of the films are innacurate...

You are absolutely right!

 

[Angry Sentinel]

I agree, I'm sick and tired of being told I'm not a real fan and don't know these characters because I think the movies got them right, despite the fact that I've been a fan of these characters my entire life.

Where did Cyclops get Logan?

-About ready to blast Wolverine's block off in Xavier's office... however, since Wolverine was a guest in Xavier's house, Cyclops showed restraint, and maturity
-"You'd better be careful, I might not be there next time"
-"Oh, and Logan... stay away from my girl"
-"I'm sorry Professor, but he'll endanger the mission...", "No, you're the one who stabbed Rogue through the chest"
-Wolverine: "Your bike's empty" Cyclops: "Fill 'er up!"

Vs. Wolverine's digs:

-"You're a dick"
-"You call that a landing"
-Backstreet Boys (though that wasn't Wolverine's doing, I will admit that was a comedic moment at Cyclops' expense)
-"Hey, I wasn't the one who gave the train station a new sunroof" (which Cyclops immediatley snapped back at him with above quote, so this doesn't really count)

Cyclops got plenty of digs in at Wolverine.

In fact, I count 5 - 3 in Cyclops' favor... 5 - 4 in Cyclops' favor if you want to count the "sunroof" comment.

If you want to count deleted scenes from X-Men, both characters have digs at each other, which would make it 6 - 5 in favor of Cyclops.

If you don't agree that his portrayal was accurate, that's fine, your opinion. I highly disagree, but that's a different matter.

The point is, don't just ignore what is in the movie in your arguement of inaccuracy.

First.. I have never challenged your fandom.

Secondly...Count them as you like, I could sit down and flesh out each one of those scenes and ask the same question I asked before? Which one left you with the 'greater' feeling of victor?

The fact remains that the writing and directing of the movie showed Wolverine with the 'better', 'wittier', 'kewler' delivery. And it's not just because Cyclops depiction is so flawed, but ALSO because, unlike the comics, he's 'fueding' with a hunky, Fonzy, bad boy...instead of a dysfunctional, gnarled old man. By changing the portrayal of Wolverine's character they actually changed the dynamic of this 'fued". Storytelling is all about perception, and they skewed this one in favor of Wolverine.

Lastly... I am not ignoring what is in the movie. Just because it's in there doesn't mean they got it right.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

First.. I have never challenged your fandom.

Secondly...Count them as you like, I could sit down and flesh out each one of those scenes and ask the same question I asked before? Which one left you with the 'greater' feeling of victor?

The fact remains that the writing and directing of the movie showed Wolverine with the 'better', 'wittier', 'kewler' delivery. And it's not just because Cyclops depiction is so flawed, but ALSO because, unlike the comics, he's 'fueding' with a hunky, Fonzy, bad boy...instead of a dysfunctional, gnarled old man. By changing the portrayal of Wolverine's character they actually changed the dynamic of this 'fued". Storytelling is all about perception, and they skewed this one in favor of Wolverine.

Lastly... I am not ignoring what is in the movie. Just because it's in there doesn't mean they got it right.

My fandom comment was directed towards The Batman, not you. Perhaps I could have made it clearer, and if you thought it was geared towards you, I apologize. You've been a very respectable debate opponent

I don't feel that Wolverine got made to look like the "better" of the 2. Like I listed off, there are more instances where Cyclops gets the final word in over Wolverine... not the other way around. If you can't see it, or don't want to see it as what it is, then I guess that's your interpretation. But I don't feel that there were any problems with their fued. I found it to be very accurate, and I never once felt that Cyclops was used as Wolverine's foil.

 

[The Batman]

That's your opinion, which is fine, but I'm really sick of you immature little kids spouting your immature little opinions and trying to pass them off as fact. Don't tell me I don't know a character because I perceive him differently. Is Cyke all of those things I said? Yes. Is he also a lot more? Yes. He's a complex character with 43 years of history. I know that, you know that. And I'm sick of all you frickin' children (I don't care how old you are, you ARE children) trying to tell me that I'm not an X-Men fan because I don't agree with your opinions. I can agree to disagree and be civil, but you have absolutely NO right to tell me that I'm somehow less of a fan, or some sort of bandwagoner.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't like the way Cyke acts in the movies or the way him and Wolverine bicker, then don't watch the movies. It's just that simple. Go watch Batman Begins and enjoy your undue sense of self-satisfaction by yourself.

Whine all you want, but its true. You got the character wrong. It happens. Cyke does alot more than wait for Xavier's apporval.

 

[The Batman]

And neil, considering how my comment wasnt directed at you, i dont know why you felt the need to respond to me...

 

[Sun_Down]

Now, why would I NOT watch a movie I like???!!!

Just because I don't agree with some other 'fan' that they got a character depiction correct or incorrect has nothing to do with how good the movie is. It's simply a discussion of opinions, remember??? Or does your adult mind not allow you to make that distinction? Interesting, that you would refer to two adults discussing a difference of opinion as children, when you're the one telling people what movies they should watch just because those individuals don't agree an opinion about a character depiction. Not about the quality of the movie, just about a character depiction??

Next time you want to tell me what I should watch, consider doing it with your foot outside your mouth.

Those comments weren't directed at you. So I'd suggest not flying off the handle about a post that didn't involve you.

Whine all you want, but its true. You got the character wrong. It happens. Cyke does alot more than wait for Xavier's apporval.

And didn't I say that there's a lot more to Cyke? Yes, I did. He looks up to the man like a father, but is not incapable of defying him. He can be the perfect solider-boy, but can also stand up for his own opinions. Don't insult my fandom just because you're pissed off about the movies, and don't talk down to me because you're too immature to form a civil sentence.

This thread has gotten way off-topic and I'm gonna be the bigger man and walk away from it.

 

[The Batman]

please do, so we dont have to listen to anymore of your whining. You're taking things way too seriously.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

And neil, considering how my comment wasnt directed at you, i dont know why you felt the need to respond to me...

How can you say your comment wasn't directed at me when you said "Neil simply isn't getting it"?!

And BTW, it's NELL, N - E - L - L, not Neil...

 

[FieryBalrog]

Have you ever read a comic book?

No, never.

Only from X-men vol. 1 #1.

Cyclops and Wolverine have fueded with each other as long as I can remember.

Those scenes were put in the movie to showcase this fued!

The jet-landing mistake exists to make Cyclops look dumb. Thats it.

The only scene that I will agree to that was put there to poke fun at Cyclops was in X2, when Wolverine, Rogue, Iceman, and Pyro were in the car, and Pyro hit the radio which was blasting Backstreet Boys.

That's it though.

Its part of a trend.

 

[Mistopurr83]

Cylcops listening to Nsync sure is an insult to the comic Cyclops. It's another way of making him look bad in the films. It's true that they screwed up the feud between Cylcops and Wolverine. They also make it seem like Jean likes Wolverine better than Cyclops. Also, near the end where Cyclops cried on Wolverine's shoulder really made me cringe. It was so unCyclops-like. Talk about film makers who don't care about a character who's always been the one incharge of a team. Marsden himself doesn't seem to care about the character either.

 

[usagicassidy]

You know, I never once thought that the Backstreet Boys joke was meant for Cyclops in any way. In fact, I didn't even think "Cyke was listening to BB" when I saw it. I thought it was just the radio, and in that case, it's not Cyclops' fault at all.

 

[Angry Sentinel]

They were in HIS car... running from an eminent threat... and they took the time to stop and turn on the radio???? It was an obvious moment of levity, and the BUTT of the levity, as always, was Cyclops. Again I ask why? Why take this shot at a guy who isn't even in the movie? I'll tell you, because it was the same humor and emotional slapstick that they got in the first movie (which in their minds worked well) that they wanted to take advantage of again in the second movie. They probably even felt it was clever considering Scott wasn't even in the movie... ("we don't even need him in the scene to get these jokes to work"). To me, this scene alone proves that what was done in the first movie was done intenionally. And having Wolverine being the one to make the 'WTF' face underscores their need to make him the Xmen's 'FONZY.

 

[moonstar]

Quote: Wolverine/ Hugh Jackman = More star power/ better acting chops.
Cyclops/ James Mardsen = Less star power/ lesser acting chops.

Number 1. Marsden doesnt sing and dance and wasn't quite old enough looking to take advantage of the Leading man roles Hugh Jackman got offered due to his success as Wolverine.
So no he didn't get the breaks and wasn't featured as much as wolvie in X1. They focused on logan because he was probably the most recognizable Xman.

As for the acting James Marsden is amazing and anyone who says different is on crack.
He conveyed all of the characters' qualities and concerns even though most of his face was covered! So he couldn't even use his face ( an actor's main tool!) and still he could convey great emotion.

The only scene that didn't ring true was the crying at the end of X2. The way they tried to squeeze in the P saga in .5 seconds without building up the why behind Jean's sacrifice which made the balling a little ridiculous. I don't know if that was bad writing , acting or directing or an unfortunate combination of all those elements.


Quote: [They also make it seem like Jean likes Wolverine better than Cyclops. Also, near the end where Cyclops cried on Wolverine's shoulder really made me cringe. It was so unCyclops-like. Talk about film makers who don't care about a character who's always been the one incharge of a team. Marsden himself doesn't seem to care about the character either.]

I really don't see any chemistry between Famke and hugh or James when she's actually in a scene with them. I don't know why this is. She just never seems to b there with them in that moment mayb this is intentional as she's distracted by the voices in her head..dunno...Rebecca has the most chemistry of the women

The filmakers better not have taken the chance of pissing us hardcore Cyke fans off again by cutting him out of the movie. He is the heart and brains of the team. If they do I don't really care about any sequels Gambit or not.

They need to show J&S's relationship as well as feature Scott using his powers in an impressive way. Most of the pain u feel for Jeans death is actually for Cyke so omitting him is anticlimactic.I love Wolvie but Im tired of him taking over xmovies- give him his own vehicle.

I think Marsden's done amazing with what he's been given and obviously cares about the character : his timing is dead on. He actually seems like the only actor who's done the homework of reading the books and actually [getting] the character.The voice,the face,the posture i could go on He has a big career ahead of him-mayb superman can do for his career what xmen unfortunately didnt.