The Batman
The Dark Knight
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 25,168
- Reaction score
- 3,253
- Points
- 103
Then I guess you didn't pay attention. The movies made it pretty clear that Scott was their field leader.
And I know you're not actually paying attention to a damn thing I'm saying. For the third time, these elements may be established in the films, but they're done in such an unsatisfying manner that people feel they're essentially non existent. And you can talk about Avengers all you want, but no one criticizes Captain America's or Thor's roles like they do Cyclops
And when he left the team...its because he thought she was dead.
And when they had a romance...it was under Scott's nose.
Thank you for repeating what I just told you as if I didnt understand.
The movies pretty clearly did so as well.
In your opinion.
So none of the characters in the X-Men franchise were "awesome"?
Trying reading what I said. I said Star Wars tried to make much of their characters awesome, for lack of a better word. That dosen't imply that I think that Wolverine is the only impressive character in the films.
How was he undermined from the start?
I feel that Jim Caviezel was right when he passed on the role. The only times they felt like doing anything significant character wise is in regards to his relationship with Wolverine and Jean. Again....this is only my opinion on the matter.
"It feels nonexistent"? Thats absolute nonsense.
To you. And I'm sure the Batboards feel the same way about your posts when you go over there to criticize TDKR.
No, it's a mark of people's inability to properly interpret a film and remember the specifics of a film.
Once again...that's your opinion.
Scott isnt defined with his relationship with Wolverine, either...what's your point?
I feel that film Cyclops is. That's my point. How you feel about that does not matter to me.
Then again...you weren't paying attention. At all.
Then again...that's your assumption.
"He dosen't agree with me, so he wasn't paying attention!" Please.
And if she was with Scott in part because he was dependable? So what?
YOUR opinion is that she was with Scott "in part" because of his dependability.
I believe that that was the ONLY reason she was with Scott. Or, it could be interpreted that way, because their relationship was not done in a satisfying manner.