Rogue is a useless character...

gambit_890 said:
I grew up watching the cartoon and loved Rouge not just because of her powers but her personality, which I hope we will see when Gambit finally enters the picture. I do have to disagree; Anna Paquin is not the best choice for the role. She may have the potential to become a great actress, but the Rouge part is not going to help her any for she was not made for that role.

same here. i lked rogue for more reasons than just her powers. i liked her southern charm and sass in the animated series, and i liked her darker personality and her sarcasm and wit in the evolution series. i think too many characters were downplayed in both movies. i'd like to see more personality from all the characters. (except wolverine, magneto and prof. x. i think they got those characters perfect)
 
"rogue's powers weren't the source of magneto's revolution, they were the key. big difference. he needed her powers to operate his machine."

But still it'a an unrealistic and bad scientific theory. Absorbing powers being the key to operate a machine is nothing but make-believe.

"it would be difficult for magneto to hold kitty captive as a hostage if she could just phase through anything he locked her in. if kitty were tied to magneto's machine, she'd simply phase out of the locks."

Well I'm sure they would've had Magneto use something like a machine or his powers that would stop Kitty from using her phasing powers to get out of whatever she had been locked in. Now to answere the rest of your questions...

"what if wolverine had stabbed kitty through the chest? could kitty heal herself like rogue did?"

She would've had to react quickly and phase through the claws. That would've had audiences thinking, "Oh no what if she didn't phase through it in time?" That's if they were gonna have her go to him like that though.

"if kitty were trapped in wolverine's burning truck, she would have just passed through the seatbelt to safety."

Well this would've still been at the point where Kitty's powers had just manifested. If she had been trapped it would've been b/c she didn't have complete control of it or she wouldn't have understood yet how her powers work.

"rogue's role was very important in the first movie."

I don't care. I still think there would've been a way to make Kitty's role important in the first movie. Not just for being a scared girl looking for acceptance b/c of what she became, but also some kind of a plot device for Magneto.

"if you want to take her out and put kitty in, you're asking for an entirely different movie."

How can you be so sure it would've been an entirely different movie? I don't recall the filmmakers saying it would've been very different if Kitty had been the one.


"i've got my issues with x1, but it is still a good movie. if you don't like it and you refuse to change your mind about it, fine, that's your opinion and i respect it."

Fine but good movie does not rule out character and story screw ups.

"but x1 worked for the most part as it was, with rogue, not kitty. if the writers thought kitty would make the movie work, they would have put her in it.

What law said X1 had to be the way it was anyway? None obviously. It was nothing but imaginations from a gay and stubbern guy who didn't do his homework here and didn't care about anybody but his favorite characters. That's why I say Bryan Stinker just made these movies for himself. The writers (Tom De Santo and David Hayter I think) thought it was gonna work with Kitty Pryde until Bryan Stinker showed up.:down :o
 
gambit_890 said:
I grew up watching the cartoon and loved Rouge not just because of her powers but her personality, which I hope we will see when Gambit finally enters the picture. I do have to disagree; Anna Paquin is not the best choice for the role. She may have the potential to become a great actress, but the Rouge part is not going to help her any for she was not made for that role.

What you say is so true. The other reasons why I loved comic/cartoon Rogue was also left out of the movieverse. Her tough and sassy personality also made her a real supervixen that wouldn't let people mess with her. Than the fact that she was once a villain fighting against the x-men and all other marvel heros made her history very dynamic and interesting. I even had a good idea on how this could've easily been explained in 3 different films.
 
Yellow Ranger said:
i think too many characters were downplayed in both movies. i'd like to see more personality from all the characters.

That's why Matthew Vaughn (who originally was set to helm X3) once said one of the major problems he had with the first 2 films were that many characters were treated too simplistically. He was so right about that too.
 
Mistopurr83 said:
"rogue's powers weren't the source of magneto's revolution, they were the key. big difference. he needed her powers to operate his machine."

But still it'a an unrealistic and bad scientific theory. Absorbing powers being the key to operate a machine is nothing but make-believe.

"it would be difficult for magneto to hold kitty captive as a hostage if she could just phase through anything he locked her in. if kitty were tied to magneto's machine, she'd simply phase out of the locks."

Well I'm sure they would've had Magneto use something like a machine or his powers that would stop Kitty from using her phasing powers to get out of whatever she had been locked in. Now to answere the rest of your questions...

"what if wolverine had stabbed kitty through the chest? could kitty heal herself like rogue did?"

She would've had to react quickly and phase through the claws. That would've had audiences thinking, "Oh no what if she didn't phase through it in time?" That's if they were gonna have her go to him like that though.

"if kitty were trapped in wolverine's burning truck, she would have just passed through the seatbelt to safety."

Well this would've still been at the point where Kitty's powers had just manifested. If she had been trapped it would've been b/c she didn't have complete control of it or she wouldn't have understood yet how her powers work.

"rogue's role was very important in the first movie."

I don't care. I still think there would've been a way to make Kitty's role important in the first movie. Not just for being a scared girl looking for acceptance b/c of what she became, but also some kind of a plot device for Magneto.

"if you want to take her out and put kitty in, you're asking for an entirely different movie."

How can you be so sure it would've been an entirely different movie? I don't recall the filmmakers saying it would've been very different if Kitty had been the one.


"i've got my issues with x1, but it is still a good movie. if you don't like it and you refuse to change your mind about it, fine, that's your opinion and i respect it."

Fine but good movie does not rule out character and story screw ups.

"but x1 worked for the most part as it was, with rogue, not kitty. if the writers thought kitty would make the movie work, they would have put her in it.

What law said X1 had to be the way it was anyway? None obviously. It was nothing but imaginations from a gay and stubbern guy who didn't do his homework here and didn't care about anybody but his favorite characters. That's why I say Bryan Stinker just made these movies for himself. The writers (Tom De Santo and David Hayter I think) thought it was gonna work with Kitty Pryde until Bryan Stinker showed up.:down :o


..ok! :up:
 
First of all, the machine did not operate on Rogue's powers - it operated on Magneto's. This was plainly stated and frankly OBVIOUS. When he used it on Senator Kelly, it nearly killed him. So, his plan was to transfer his powers to Rogue and use her, WITH HIS POWERS, to operate the machine on a much larger scale so as to not kill him.

How could anybody miss that? And just how could Kitty fill that role?
 
gambit_890 said:
I grew up watching the cartoon
The cartoon was based on a comicbook. The movies were based on a comicbook. The movie has no need to acknowledge the cartoon in any way.

What's worse is how fans of the comicbook today have no clue who Rogue was back in her early days. That character was the basis for the movie Rogue, not some sassy extrovert that she was re-written as later.
 
She wasn't even all that attractive back when she was introduced. They changed her into the sexy-flirty cartoon character she's been lately because Jim Lee was unable to draw an average-looking superheroine.
 
WarBlade said:
The cartoon was based on a comicbook. The movies were based on a comicbook. The movie has no need to acknowledge the cartoon in any way.

What's worse is how fans of the comicbook today have no clue who Rogue was back in her early days. That character was the basis for the movie Rogue, not some sassy extrovert that she was re-written as later.

You Know what gambit_890 ment. What are you jealous because now body quotes you.
 
Uhh, you just quoted him....

And what did gambit_890 ''mean'' that warblade missed, exactly? everything warblade said was right...
 
Cyclops said:
First of all, the machine did not operate on Rogue's powers - it operated on Magneto's. This was plainly stated and frankly OBVIOUS. When he used it on Senator Kelly, it nearly killed him. So, his plan was to transfer his powers to Rogue and use her, WITH HIS POWERS, to operate the machine on a much larger scale so as to not kill him.

How could anybody miss that? And just how could Kitty fill that role?

yeah, i totally understand that concept. i was just trying to show mistopurr83 how important rogue was in the first movie. i say rogue was the key not because the machine needed her powers to work, but because magneto needed her power so that he wouldn't die. mistopurr83 'explained' how kitty would fit more convincingly than rogue in his/her last post to me. please read it, it's quite funny....... something about using rogue is an unrealistic scientific theory. :)
 
Oh, Mistopurr's always been funny. The most single-minded one-trick pony I have ever seen on a message board.
 
WarBlade said:
I like the movie Rogue. She's a much more logical extension of her comicbook origin than she became in the comicbooks throughout the 80's.

What exactly do you mean by 'logical' anyway? How do the rules of logic apply to character development? Why is it more logical that Rogue just have her absorbing powers, than for her to permanently absorb extra powers? And if it is, why should we care?

Don't you really mean "I didn't like Rogue after she gained Ms. Marvels powers, so it's right that she doesn't have them in the movie"?

WarBlade said:
That Rogue is a pale shadow of what she once was


Well, that's your opinion, but I find it surprising. Most people who approve of Movie Rogue do so out of an appreciation that films have to depart significantly from comic books, you're the first person I've heard arguing that giving Rogue extra powers was a bad idea in the comic books.

You make it sound as if Rogue had some sort of long and glorious history prior to the incident with Ms. Marvel, instead of just making a small number of appearances in obscure titles.

WarBlade said:
and is built for children who think more power is what makes a character great.

I think you're being unfair here, both on the writers and the people who liked Rogue as she appeared in the X-Men comics.

What I thought could be very effective about Rogue after she joined the X-Men was the combination of her powers and her character. Due to Carol Danver's psyche, being forced to leave the only family she had ever known, and the inevitable isolation caused by the nature of her powers, she was mentally weak, yet at the same time impervious to physical harm. I liked the contrast between her mental fragility and her physical invulnerability.
 
Yellow Ranger said:
yeah, i totally understand that concept. i was just trying to show mistopurr83 how important rogue was in the first movie. i say rogue was the key not because the machine needed her powers to work, but because magneto needed her power so that he wouldn't die. mistopurr83 'explained' how kitty would fit more convincingly than rogue in his/her last post to me. please read it, it's quite funny....... something about using rogue is an unrealistic scientific theory. :)

That's b/c it's my opinion, deal with it. Rogue's powers are meant to kill others, not to help them live. That's the other unrealistic thing. It just doesn't make sense. I never said Kitty Pryde would've been "more" important by the way. I was giving you a good reason why Kitty could've been used as an important character just as much. The problem with you and Cyclops is you can't comprehend on something I'm trying to explain the best I can.
 
Pazarius said:
What exactly do you mean by 'logical' anyway? How do the rules of logic apply to character development?
I mean that if someone could no longer touch anyone else, they lose a huge part of what makes them human and their personality would be adversely effected. Movie Rogue like the original comicbook Rogue is shown to suffer through that and come out of it a stronger and determined person. The comicbook however showed the suffering and then twisted her into her own opposite: A wise-cracking extrovert. That Rogue makes absolutely no sense personality-wise and I feel would come off on screen as absurd as a yellow spandex suit with long 'ears' and boot appendages.

Why is it more logical that Rogue just have her absorbing powers, than for her to permanently absorb extra powers? And if it is, why should we care?
Hmm, did I speak to that? No I didn't.

Don't you really mean "I didn't like Rogue after she gained Ms. Marvels powers, so it's right that she doesn't have them in the movie"?
No, I really mean exactly what I posted.

Well, that's your opinion, but I find it surprising. Most people who approve of Movie Rogue do so out of an appreciation that films have to depart significantly from comic books, you're the first person I've heard arguing that giving Rogue extra powers was a bad idea in the comic books.
Again, I did not argue that at all.

You make it sound as if Rogue had some sort of long and glorious history prior to the incident with Ms. Marvel, instead of just making a small number of appearances in obscure titles.
No, but if that's your impression then you've mis-read more than what you've practically told me you've mis-read.

I think you're being unfair here, both on the writers and the people who liked Rogue as she appeared in the X-Men comics.
Unfair? How?

I like Rogue as she appeared in the comicbooks. I just don't like Rogue as she appeared in the comicbooks after she stepped through the Seige Perilous. This is the point that you don't seem to grasp: She had a history with the X-Men that was a different Rogue from the character she was rewritten into later on. The Rogue that you probably like is nothing to me and as much like the Rogue I remember as Halle Berry's Catwoman is to fans of the Bat-universe.

What I thought could be very effective about Rogue after she joined the X-Men was the combination of her powers and her character. Due to Carol Danver's psyche, being forced to leave the only family she had ever known, and the inevitable isolation caused by the nature of her powers, she was mentally weak, yet at the same time impervious to physical harm. I liked the contrast between her mental fragility and her physical invulnerability.
Then you'd like Rogue, the real Rogue as she was when she flew around in the green hooded jumpsuit. Jim Lee's Supermodel-glamourgirl-extrovert-Rogue was a ridiculous and unnecessary change IMO.
 
Mistopurr83 said:
That's b/c it's my opinion, deal with it. Rogue's powers are meant to kill others, not to help them live. That's the other unrealistic thing. It just doesn't make sense. I never said Kitty Pryde would've been "more" important by the way. I was giving you a good reason why Kitty could've been used as an important character just as much. The problem with you and Cyclops is you can't comprehend on something I'm trying to explain the best I can.

i can deal with your opinion just fine, you don't seem to be able to deal with anyone else's. rogue's powers are meant to kill? ok, i'll give you that. magneto did manipulate rogue's powers to kill humans, but he was doing it to help mutants. it's all in how you look at it. rogue didn't want to kill anyone, by the way, magneto did. you think it's unrealistic for something to be meant to "kill others and not help them live"? smallpox is a real disease and it doesn't help people live at all. it only kills. aids is real and it doesn't help people live. it only kills. same goes for cancer, tumors, nuclear war, hurricanes and so on. so see, it is very realistic for something to exist that only kills and doesn't help anyone.......but i'm sure you think kitty pride phasing through walls and floors is realistic. i didn't say you were trying to make kitty seem "more important" i said that you were trying to make her "more convincing" than rogue. if you are trying to explain yourself the best you can, then i apoligize for arguing with you. i understand what you are trying to say, but it still doesn't make sense. the problem with you is that you can't comprehend what i'm explaining as best (and as simply) i can.....
 
WarBlade said:
The cartoon was based on a comicbook. The movies were based on a comicbook. The movie has no need to acknowledge the cartoon in any way.

What's worse is how fans of the comicbook today have no clue who Rogue was back in her early days. That character was the basis for the movie Rogue, not some sassy extrovert that she was re-written as later.

i agree with everything you've said. although i did like the animated series rogue, i like the 'darker', more distant almost bitter rogue even more. both versions make sense, in my opinion.
in the animated series and later versions of rogue, she uses charm, sass and wit to try and hide her depression and pain, and the added stress of keeping up this 'act' adds to the realism of her character. when she can't pretend to be happy anymore and that mask falls off, you can see her really break down. that seems realistic to me. some people, when deprerssed, use humor to try to hide their depression from others.
on the other hand, the darker rogue doesn't try to hide anything from anybody, nor does she try to mask her pain. and that totally seems realistic to me. how many people do you know who walk around with f**k off written in their face? i know a lot of them. that's how i see the darker rogue.
like i said, i like them both and i can relate to both of them, but the darker rogue is just a cooler character.
 
"What's worse is how fans of the comicbook today have no clue who Rogue was back in her early days. That character was the basis for the movie Rogue, not some sassy extrovert that she was re-written as later."

THANK YOU!!!
 
I think Jubilee should have been the core new character to the team in the X-Men movies instead of Rogue. I like Rogue in the comics, but she isn't interesting enough in my opinion to hold much attention.
Jubilee's powers would have been so much more appealing and eye catching than movieverse Rogue. They could have introduced her the same exact way too.... where Jube's parents are murdered and Jubilee hitchhikes to Canada and runs into Wolverine.... forming a bond with him. Magneto could have used her energy to charge a mutant energy wave very similar to how he did with Rogue... the difference would be that Jubilee would be more true to the comics and that her powers would have more kick and pizzaz to them. What is Rogue going to do to a sentinel or armed soldier or henchman if she has to get close to them without getting blasted? She wouldn't even be able to damage a robot without her strength or flight... Jubilee would blast, roll, cover, and blast some more.:up:
 
intensity said:
I think Jubilee should have been the core new character to the team in the X-Men movies instead of Rogue. I like Rogue in the comics, but she isn't interesting enough in my opinion to hold much attention.
Jubilee's powers would have been so much more appealing and eye catching than movieverse Rogue. They could have introduced her the same exact way too.... where Jube's parents are murdered and Jubilee hitchhikes to Canada and runs into Wolverine.... forming a bond with him. Magneto could have used her energy to charge a mutant energy wave very similar to how he did with Rogue... the difference would be that Jubilee would be more true to the comics and that her powers would have more kick and pizzaz to them. What is Rogue going to do to a sentinel or armed soldier or henchman if she has to get close to them without getting blasted? She wouldn't even be able to damage a robot without her strength or flight... Jubilee would blast, roll, cover, and blast some more.:up:

yeah, i could see that. cool idea. jubilee's powers are prettier than rogue's. i'm all for the idea of rogue not having super-strength and flight, but in all incarnations of her character, she was a at least good fighter. i'm worried about how movie rogue will suddenly develop some sort of fighting style that she can use in the field. it's not like she can absorb a sentinels powers. x3 seems to be being more true to the characters and their powers. i hope rogue fights like a brawler in the movie, not karate or anything like that.
 
WarBlade said:
Hmm, did I speak to that? No I didn't.
Again, I did not argue that at all.

You made a series of vague statements complaining about how Rogue had changed in the comic books, I assumed you were (like a lot of people on this thread) referring to the whole 'should Rogue have all her comic book powers debate'. Assuming this, your post didn't make much sense, but then quite a few posts don't on these boards.

The following two sentences seemed to confirm that you were complaining about Rogue being given Ms. Marvel's powers.

WarBlade said:
Her power is to absorb/copy the power of another and I would prefer to have seen that retained on the page
WarBlade said:
I don't need (nor want) her flying around and lifting cars. That Rogue is a pale shadow of what she once was and is built for children who think more power is what makes a character great.

I'll apologise for misinterpreting your post as it’s the polite thing to do. But would you re-read your own post and tell me if you honestly think it was perfectly clear what you were talking about?

WarBlade said:
I like Rogue as she appeared in the comicbooks. I just don't like Rogue as she appeared in the comicbooks after she stepped through the Seige Perilous. This is the point that you don't seem to grasp: She had a history with the X-Men that was a different Rogue from the character she was rewritten into later on. The Rogue that you probably like is nothing to me and as much like the Rogue I remember as Halle Berry's Catwoman is to fans of the Bat-universe.

Now you're the one labouring under a misapprehension. I'm not a fan of the modern comics who is largely ignorant of what came before; I'm a fan of the early 80's comics who is largely ignorant of what came after.
 
Pazarius said:
I'll apologise for misinterpreting your post as it’s the polite thing to do. But would you re-read your own post and tell me if you honestly think it was perfectly clear what you were talking about?
Yes, it's quite clear. Unfortunately you've just chopped the first sentence up to give it a whole new meaning when you removed the point about the absorption being relegated to a second class plot device. The second quoted statement should also be quite clear: I have no taste for a movie representation of Rogue that has her zipping around the sky and throwing cars.

Now you're the one labouring under a misapprehension. I'm not a fan of the modern comics who is largely ignorant of what came before; I'm a fan of the early 80's comics who is largely ignorant of what came after.
Really? That's surprising. Most people of that generation of readers that I've met tend to prefer the earlier renditions and roll there eyes up at the later stuff. I tend to find that people who question me on my Rogue viewpoint and extole the virtues of the 'modern Rogue' are generally the younger crowd who's knowledge of the character often starts around the Jim Lee inspired version of the cartoon. Likewise, apologies for the confusion.
 
intensity said:
I think Jubilee should have been the core new character to the team in the X-Men movies instead of Rogue. I like Rogue in the comics, but she isn't interesting enough in my opinion to hold much attention.
Jubilee's powers would have been so much more appealing and eye catching than movieverse Rogue. They could have introduced her the same exact way too.... where Jube's parents are murdered and Jubilee hitchhikes to Canada and runs into Wolverine.... forming a bond with him. Magneto could have used her energy to charge a mutant energy wave very similar to how he did with Rogue... the difference would be that Jubilee would be more true to the comics and that her powers would have more kick and pizzaz to them. What is Rogue going to do to a sentinel or armed soldier or henchman if she has to get close to them without getting blasted? She wouldn't even be able to damage a robot without her strength or flight... Jubilee would blast, roll, cover, and blast some more.:up:

That's an interesting point. Those are great ideas on how Jubilee could've easily been in that "new comer" role too. It worked with her in that role in TAS and in the 90's comics. Since Jubilee's parents were murdered that's one thing that could've made her role very dramatic in X1. Thanx to you I can now see why Jubilee would've been good enough to play that role in X1. Before that I could only imagine how it would've been if Kitty Pryde had played the scared new comer role.
 
Cyclops said:
She wasn't even all that attractive back when she was introduced. They changed her into the sexy-flirty cartoon character she's been lately because Jim Lee was unable to draw an average-looking superheroine.
Soo not true ROGUE'S PERSONALITY was hot back in the day even her body-
back when she wore the black bodysuit/torn green top and that spikey hair from hell.
I was just reading some phoenix (a.d.) books - I think around the Trial of Magneto/Nimrod storylines and her honesty and I dont give a crap about making out with any hot guy I beat (up)humor was hilarious..I've loved her ever since.

I for one would like to see her in an xmovie as a 24 year old not a teenager. Does anyone think Kelly Clarkson would be great if she can act?
Then they can explore the whole gambit thing...
 
Are you sure? "Cause more often than not, the pre-Jim-Lee Rogue I read was a moody, mopy brooder who was only a bit extroverted when the Carol Danvers in her took over.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

  • C. Lee
    Superherohype Administrator

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,771
Messages
21,808,655
Members
45,627
Latest member
WolverineHunt01
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"