Sequels unfairly killing off their characters

[Dope Nose]

 

[The Shredder]

(SPOILER ALERT for SAW IV)

For some reason, I didnt like seeing Eric Matthews get it in Saw 4. I kinda think of him in the same way as Hank Pym. And what I mean by that is I consider him a character that's not overly likable, but an interesting character nevertheless and preferably I probably would have rather his death remained somewhat ambiguous (which basically happened in SAW 3) to a certain degree much like the whole debate with Dr. Gordon.

 

[Warhammer]

Another excellent point

essentially Cyclops did not die from the Pheonix but of complete disrespect from everyone involved in making all three X-men movies

Its like everyone wants Elizabeth and Will to die in Pirates (haha or just me, they got in the way of cool movies) but because they are written as intricate to the plot they couldn't die, Cyclops hadn't been written as important or anywhere near it in all three X-men movies, i mean effin Toad was a more important character

Exactly.

What's so unfair about his death? One, assuming this is the last Pirates movie, he's been in all of them, and played a considerable role. To say nothing of the fact that he ultimately gave his life honorably, saving Elizabeth after having betrayed her, Will and Jack in the second movie.

I had no problem with him dying, but one complaint that I can give is that he had a horrible death.

And stop including Ratner in the blame for Cyclops death! Had Vaughn directed X3, Cyclops still would have died. Get over it!

Some fail to realize that Ratner or any other director wouldn't have been like "Oh man. The fans of the comic book are going to be furious because Cyclops died. Gee golly, let me change that death right away!" The man was doing his job, directing the film. It wasn't his job to save Cyclops. And of course, my argument about James Marsden's scheduling conflicts goes into this as well, for if Ratner decided to keep Cyclops alive, Marsden wouldn't have been there.

I can't believe we all forgot Neo and Trinity in "The Matrix Revolutions".

Trinity had a cool death in Reloaded, then got one of the worst deaths ever in Revolutions. I also believe that it would've been better if Morpheus was the one who sacrificed himself for Neo. Here is where I got the influence from.

 

[Rac]

But if Singer would have directed X3 Cyclops would still be alive. It's not his fault. Or it is, 'cause Marsden was so good buddies with him and Marsden wasn't kissing Fox's arse.

 

[Warhammer]

You're exactly right about Singer keeping Cyclops. In fact, I bet he would've made Cyclops more significant than Wolvie.

 

[the a1ant]

mortal kombat annihilation. johnny cage would kicked so much ass!

I remember being so pi$$ed off about that. I was even more annoyed when I noticed a lot of the actors had been recast, lol. I guess this was before my internet days, because I remember being totally shocked at that.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

So now we're blaming Ratner and the X3's crew's incompotence on Singer? Warhammer, you must be some Ratner fan or something.

I hated how they killed Franka in Supremacy as well.

 

[Cmill216]

mortal kombat annihilation. johnny cage would kicked so much ass!

Johnny Cage was one of the more popular Mortal Kombat characters, so they decided to kill him off in the sequel...in the first five minutes.

 

[Warhammer]

So now we're blaming Ratner and the X3's crew's incompotence on Singer? Warhammer, you must be some Ratner fan or something.

Here we go again. Single me out and throw out the labels. If you actually went back and read what was posted, not one person in here said that Singer's fault that Cyclops was killed off. L0ngsh0t and I CLEARLY stated (more than once) that because of Singer's lack of use of Cyclops, he became excess baggage. Thus, Cyclops being killed became an option, because he really served no point in the films, other than merely being there. Ratner was simply doing his job (as KenK said, if Matthew Vaughn had directed, Cyclops still would've been killed off). If you are going to blame anyone, blame the writers Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg. It's their fault for killing off Cyclops, but had Singer fully used Cyclops, I highly doubt they would've just decided to kill him off. And I didn't even mention the Superman Returns fiasco, because I did more than once already.

I've noticed that you constantly rant against Ratner like he spoiled your birthday party or something. This isn't the first time you accused me of being a Ratner-fanboy, like you seriously hate the man or something...

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I've noticed that you constantly rant against Ratner like he spoiled your birthday party or something. This isn't the first time you accused me of being a Ratner-fanboy, like you seriously hate the man or something...

I rant against Ratner because he is a small director with a big ego, and that he has no artistic vision and he contributed to the fall of what could have been a great set of comic book movies (Xmen, of course). It isn't all his fault, but he is still the primary one as he accepted the job, made or called for no changes to the script (that I know of), and brought NOTHING to the movie besides his subpar directing skills.

I accused you of being a Ratner fanboy after you drew first blood and ranted against me when I shared my opinion of Ratner on the RH3 thread. You called me a whiny fanboy (which I still don't understand as I hate the man) so I called you a whiny fanboy back.

 

[mclay18]

Major Scarlet (Rose Byrne) in 28 Weeks Later.

And the actor that seems to get roles that constantly have her playing a protagonist (or good supporting character) who unfortunately gets killed or get a bad fate before the end of the films is Catherine McCormack. Cases in point: Braveheart, A Sound of Thunder and 28 Weeks Later.

 

[BMM]

If you are going to blame anyone, blame the writers Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg. It's their fault for killing off Cyclops, but had Singer fully used Cyclops, I highly doubt they would've just decided to kill him off...

I don't think one can even blame the writers. Apparently, Cyclops was originally meant to not be in the movie, as mandated by the studio. The possibility of killing him off between X2 and X-Men 3 was even discussed... and that would have been truly pathetic.

Alien 3 killing off Michael Biehn's character "Hicks" before the movie even began.

I was disappointed with the deaths in Alien 3, as well as the offscreen death of Sarah Connor prior to the events of Terminator 3.

 

[KenK]

I rant against Ratner because he is a small director with a big ego, and that he has no artistic vision and he contributed to the fall of what could have been a great set of comic book movies (Xmen, of course). It isn't all his fault, but he is still the primary one as he accepted the job, made or called for no changes to the script (that I know of), and brought NOTHING to the movie besides his subpar directing skills.

I accused you of being a Ratner fanboy after you drew first blood and ranted against me when I shared my opinion of Ratner on the RH3 thread. You called me a whiny fanboy (which I still don't understand as I hate the man) so I called you a whiny fanboy back.

What was he supposed to do when he was brought on six weeks before filming began? So much had already been done. Sets had already been built for f***'s sake! Fox wasn't going to approve any major, or even minor changes that would have made the script any better that close to filming. Especially in regards to characters Fox wanted killed off.

And I'm tired of people throwing around this "Ratner has no artistic vision" argument, when comparing X3 to Singer's X-Films. There's nothing particularly that striking about the world Singer created in the first two films. It's just the real world as anyone else would see it. There's nothing particularly stylized about it, outside of the X-Men themselves. If anything, Ratner was vocal in his desire to keep as close to what Singer had done and maintain the tone of the first two films, which I think he did.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Halloween: Resurrection: Killing off Laurie Strode, the main character, after she finally got to kill Michael in the previous movie... and only so we can get a dumb reality show plot and Busta Rhymes doing karate moves on Michael Myers.

As I recall from one of the interviews (before I gave up on horror films), Laurie's death was the eventual result of a contractual stipulation that Jamie Lee Curtis had for the previous film. She agreed to do a 30-second minimum cameo in the next installment after "H20", and that deal evolved into the film's opener. And from a story point, it was also intended to complete the "Laurie Strode" story, bringing it back to where the original film left off.

X3: One of the biggest WTH moments of 2006. Cyclops getting his not even 30 minutes into the movie.

This wasn't so much of a problem with the writers or Ratner, but rather a scheduling conflict between James Marsden and X3's production. Originally, James was to reprise Cyclops full-on, as he had for the first two. However, when reshoots for "Superman Returns" took longer than expected, he had to reduce his screen time. The "death by Phoenix" scene was Ratner's way of explaining his absence.

Darth Maul and Jango Fett, two kickass, promising villains who are only allowed minimum screentime because they both get killed.

Lucas has admitted (on the "Sith" DVD commentary, I believe) that had he known how popular Maul would become, it'd have been that character who Anakin & Obi-Wan faced in both "Clones" and "Sith". Count Dooku was created, in part, to fill that void. As for Jango, he was deliberately killed to set up Boba's vengeance, which is played up largely in both "The Empire Srikes Back" and the Expanded Universe books.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation...Johnny Cage would've kicked so much ass!

Johnny's death in the film is based on his character's demise at the hands of Kintaro for the second game's storyline. The filmmakers intended to revive him in a third installment, but MK:A flopped, so this never happened.

As for the original topic of senseless deaths in film sequels (before this became a "How much can you crap on X3?" contest), here's one that puzzled me a bit...

Eddie Brock in "Spider-Man 3". I know about and understand the story reasons for doing so (addictions to power, control, etc.), but that part of the film just felt a tiny bit flat. I mean, Venom was underused to begin with (shame on Avi Arad for pressuring Raimi), and while I like the film's version of the character, his death just seemed rather forced. In my opinion, Marvel should have included Eddie in the film, but saved Venom for a future sequel (maybe featuring the church transformation right before the credits).

 

[L0ngsh0t]

So now we're blaming Ratner and the X3's crew's incompotence on Singer? Warhammer, you must be some Ratner fan or something.

I hated how they killed Franka in Supremacy as well.

Well I'm not a big fan of Ratner, I think he is okay, makes some passable movies... however he gets way way way way to much blame, way to much blame for a movie that he was not even involved in pre production on, he had about 6 months to shoot and edit a film that a good production would have taken a minimum of a year, if not a year and a half...did Rat make a good movie? No, but hey, its no worse than the crap that came before him

and so because of that I blame singer for the horridnous of the X-men franchies, all of it, Rat gets none of it, cause he basically took 5 million dollars to say point and shoot for Singers movies in which every joe on the planet would have taken who want a bigger profile. But is it Ratners fault Cyclops is such a ****ty character? no, is it Ratners fault Rouge as virtually nothing to do but get caught and be a helpless damzel in distress that has about 1/3 of her ability from the comics? No, is it Ratners fault Wolverine is a whipped *****? No...is it even Ratners fault that every effing died in X3? No, Fox wanted to bill it as the end to a franchise so they could milk every dollar out of it, Ratner just point and shot

again, I by no means think he made a good X-men movie, but imo he may have made the best one...just cause out of all the ludicrosity...we actually got something that was absent in the first two movies...X-men using their powers! funny the last thing I thought I would have been worried about was X-men using their powers, but funny the brainchild that Singer is decided against having anything cool, or any use of mutant powers in a movie about mutants....is X3 great? far from it, I give it maybe at best a 5/10 but that is still a higher grade than I give the crap singer made....Singer killed the X-men, Ratner just took a s--- load of money to assist him in it

 

[Brick]

I'm pretty sure the biggest, dumbest, and most maligned case of this would be ALIEN 3. Newt, Hicks. 'Nuff said.

 

[tecnowraith]

Ok how about Xander Cage getting kill in the xXx sequel begining and their reasoning for bring in cube's character?

 

[Drizzle]

In my opinion, Marvel should have included Eddie in the film, but saved Venom for a future sequel (maybe featuring the church transformation right before the credits).

That would have been the biggest cliffhanger in the history of anything.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

What was he supposed to do when he was brought on six weeks before filming began? So much had already been done. Sets had already been built for f***'s sake! Fox wasn't going to approve any major, or even minor changes that would have made the script any better that close to filming. Especially in regards to characters Fox wanted killed off.

No one forced Ratner to take the job. Had he cared at all about the material and the craft, he could have refused the job, made a stand, given Fox the message on how to properly handle and maintain their properties and licensed properties. You can't rush something like they did, and the end result which is X3 drives the point home succinctly. Ratner should have been aware enough and humble enough to know that the getting the job done properly was WAAAAAY out of his capability.

And I'm tired of people throwing around this "Ratner has no artistic vision" argument, when comparing X3 to Singer's X-Films. There's nothing particularly that striking about the world Singer created in the first two films. It's just the real world as anyone else would see it. There's nothing particularly stylized about it, outside of the X-Men themselves. If anything, Ratner was vocal in his desire to keep as close to what Singer had done and maintain the tone of the first two films, which I think he did.

You can get tired all you want, but it sounds to me like you really can't recognize a good director. Next to X3, Singer's skill is even more apparent. Singer utilizes subtlety very well, and uses it to supplement any kind of tension building he is doing. He also is impeccable at introducing characters, whereas Ratner has no grasp on how to do this artistically. Also, the look of the film itself. Singer builds an impressive and lifelike world, and the "seams" are nearly invisible. In X3, during the protest scene, it was so laughably fake and unconvincing. Signs that were obviously printed by a set producer instead of someone using some old poster with a sharpie like you see in real life. That's a mere example, but I think it illustrates my point. Just compare it to the scene in Superman Returns at the end at the hospital with all of the people there to support Superman. World of difference.

I also think Singer can really get the most out of a performer, and he is very good at his casting. Look at the stars he's made, and I think the acting talent in X1 and X2 is impressive, especially for the caliber of actors he has. I didn't see this same drive in X3. I don't think Ratner has the ability at all to get good performances out of his actors. He gets merely adequate performances at best. Hugh Jackman for example seems completely unable to find his character throughout the whole movie.

 

[AhabTheArab]

man you guys are ****ing nuts.

 

[Warhammer]

I rant against Ratner because he is a small director with a big ego, and that he has no artistic vision and he contributed to the fall of what could have been a great set of comic book movies (Xmen, of course). It isn't all his fault, but he is still the primary one as he accepted the job, made or called for no changes to the script (that I know of), and brought NOTHING to the movie besides his subpar directing skills.

What kind of reason is that?

I accused you of being a Ratner fanboy after you drew first blood and ranted against me when I shared my opinion of Ratner on the RH3 thread. You called me a whiny fanboy (which I still don't understand as I hate the man) so I called you a whiny fanboy back.

You know, I'd actually like to see the post where I specifically pointed you out and called you a whiny fanboy. PLEASE show me. All I remember is you going beast mode on me, for which I was told not to reply to. You pointed me out and called me something then, and you did it again in this thread. Matter of fact, if it wasn't for you, we all wouldn't be arguing. Nobody was arguing, then you had to come looking for trouble.

No one forced Ratner to take the job. Had he cared at all about the material and the craft, he could have refused the job, made a stand, given Fox the message on how to properly handle and maintain their properties and licensed properties. You can't rush something like they did, and the end result which is X3 drives the point home succinctly. Ratner should have been aware enough and humble enough to know that the getting the job done properly was WAAAAAY out of his capability.

Are you being serious? Do you honestly not see your own bias in this post? Your bias is so strong towards Ratner that you completely negated the KenK's point about Brett Ratner coming in so late in the film, and even turned that legitimate reason into being Ratner's fault.

You can get tired all you want, but it sounds to me like you really can't recognize a good director. Next to X3, Singer's skill is even more apparent. Singer utilizes subtlety very well, and uses it to supplement any kind of tension building he is doing. He also is impeccable at introducing characters, whereas Ratner has no grasp on how to do this artistically. Also, the look of the film itself. Singer builds an impressive and lifelike world, and the "seams" are nearly invisible. In X3, during the protest scene, it was so laughably fake and unconvincing. Signs that were obviously printed by a set producer instead of someone using some old poster with a sharpie like you see in real life. That's a mere example, but I think it illustrates my point. Just compare it to the scene in Superman Returns at the end at the hospital with all of the people there to support Superman. World of difference.

I also think Singer can really get the most out of a performer, and he is very good at his casting. Look at the stars he's made, and I think the acting talent in X1 and X2 is impressive, especially for the caliber of actors he has. I didn't see this same drive in X3. I don't think Ratner has the ability at all to get good performances out of his actors. He gets merely adequate performances at best. Hugh Jackman for example seems completely unable to find his character throughout the whole movie.

Seriously, you know and I know that Bryan Singer is a better director than Brett Ratner. Yes, even with Brett Ratner coming in so late into production, what he did manage to do was bad. We know that Brett Ratner isn't that great of a director, but you are just overkill right now. You are so incredibly biased and spiteful against Brett Ratner, your argument is ridiculous and asinine. You need to chill out, seriously. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

How about we all just stop bickering and get back onto the topic of the thread, ok?

 

[DACrowe]

1. Cyclops getting killed off in the first 15 minutes of the lousy X3.


After that in no particular order:

-Claiming Brody and his youngest son were eaten in one of the Jaws sequels was beyond pathetic
-Killing off Laurie Strode in Halloween 8
-Killing off Rachel in Halloween 5
-Killing off Jamie Lloyd and Dr. Loomis in Halloween 6 (ugh!)
-Killing off Randy in Scream 2
-Killing off Cotton AT THE FREAKING BEGINNING of Scream 3
-Killing off Norrington after complete underuse in Pirates 3
-Killing off Bourne's main squeeze in Bourne Supremacy
-Killing off Hicks, Newt AND Ripley in Alien 3. I just pretend it ended after Aliens.
-Though both sucked, killing off Johnny Cage in in Mortal Kombat 2 when he was the only good part of 1 was lame and annoying and just made the movie ****ty that much faster.

I personally wonder if Rachel will be added to this list after The Dark Knight...

 

[Majik1387]

-Killing off Jamie Lloyd and Dr. Loomis in Halloween 6 (ugh!)

Loomis died? I thought it was left open at the end.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

1-Killing off Hicks, Newt AND Ripley in Alien 3. I just pretend it ended after Aliens.

Disagree. Ripley NEEDED to die in the third film. It was the only way, truly, to close out that franchise (despite it's continuation). You can't just leave her to go off in space and go back to being a pilot or Captain or something. She needed to die, her character was too wrapped up in the Alien franchise at that point. It would be like doing the final Batman story ever and having him just retire and become Bruce Wayne again...wouldn't work.

 

[Castlewood]

Hell, the only good X-Men movie was the second one.