If Harisson Ford got to play Indiana Jones for the first time in like 15 years and Daniel Craig (who looks so rugged) is still accepting roles as James Bond. I don't see why Hugh and Halle can't do 2 more films in the next 5 years. Its up to Fox whether they see this or not. We would probably get X-Men 6 by next year if only Bryan Singer didn't direct Superman Returns and Fox didn't decide to do spin-offs. Anyway the cast looks good for their age. Shawn/Anna/Daniel/Ellen are more fitting to their characters since they look like grown-ups now.
Patrick and Ian are old, but they have been like that since the 1st film. And I do think eventually, they have to give them ending, to give more room for other characters.
As much as I love Halle Berry, her depiction of Storm is probably one of this franchise's biggest problems in the characterization department. It's also what is truly holding the series back since Storm is such a major player in the X-Men cannon. Plus, Scott was MIA long before his ass got vaporized in X3. Which has left us with Logan as the leader--which is why this OT cast has been out of balance pretty much since day one.
If there's an opportunity to re-envision these characters via a new series timeline why not jump on that opportunity?
Doesn't it bother any of you that of all of Marvel's "Big Name" comic series that the X-Men is among the worst performers? It should be as big--if not bigger--than The Avengers. And the reason why it isn't is because they have not been following the formula as laid out in the comics: those character dynamics WORK. Until they get it right, FOX's X-Men will always be a second-tier Marvel film franchise.
I just can't understand why some of you want this particular formula to continue.
About Halle Berry, I was merely responding about your post regarding their age.
And about depictions, they could be fixed easily with a good writer. And just because their depiction of one character is wrong, it doesn't mean its time to hit the reset button. They could also introduce new characters and have an interpretation of that character similar to the comic-books.
And about this....
Doesn't it bother any of you that of all of Marvel's "Big Name" comic series that the X-Men is among the worst performers? It should be as big--if not bigger--than The Avengers. And the reason why it isn't is because they have not been following the formula as laid out in the comics: those character dynamics WORK. Until they get it right, FOX's X-Men will always be a second-tier Marvel film franchise.
Yes it bothers me a little, every X-Men should at least earn 250 million but X-Men is not even among the worst performers at the box-office. There's Ghost Rider, Hulk, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Captain America, Thor, Fantastic Four, Blade, Punsiher.... and of course with spin-offs, they aren't really gonna get bigger money, because casual viewers are less interested with spin-offs unless its The Hobbit or Star Wars.
There Is big difference between recasting,which keep the james Bond films
going for 40 years,and rebooting saying films people enjoyed never happened,
which Is what a reboot Is.
Rebooting has meant now the James Bond series started in 2006.Superman
started this year.Star Trek started In 2009.The batman series won't start till 2015.SPider-man started In 2012.If
wolverine's time travel mission does indeed create a reality where magneto never becomes a villain and cyclops and jean never died
then X-Men films started In 2011.
With Star Trek as I true long time fan I call BS on those alternate timeline.If they were really trying to connect to Trek everything In Trek history prior to
Nero arrival should remain the same.It wasn't.
If DOFP does indeed create a new timeline then yes the trilogy and the wolverine are Ilrelvent to films In future now.
Some are convently forgeting that X-Men become the top selling COmic book when characters like Wolverine,Storm,COlossus,and Nightcrawler joined the time.So the obsession some have of original lineup baffles me.
With every comic book adaptan we can argue about faithfulness.It's not just the X-Men films.But,what Is that going to accomplise.
So if they indeed do a trek 2009 at end of DOFP those who voted yes have won In this thread.But,don't try to tell me X-Men,X2,and the wolverine as well
as last stand aren't being erased.It's just like after seeing Star Trek Into darkness It's clear the new films should be treated as outright reboots laregly unconnected to Star Trek I followed except using same names and ripping dialogue and in case of into darkness also ripping some of wrath of Khan but doing it infear.People here who weren't Trek fans prior to trek 2009 probally loved that film and that's fine.It's many of the pre2009 fanbase who don't like
that film.
Personally I think if studios go reboot road they need to let go of everybody assoiated with films they now want to say never happened.Star Trek laregly did that but others keep same producers,use some of same writers and even use some of same crew and even actors.To proreboot people if they reboot hugh Jackman,lauren Shueller Donnor,and Bryan Singer should all go.Just like
Judi dench should not have played M In first 3 Rebooted Bond films.Much of crewshould not have returned post DAD.David Goyer should not be writing man of steel sequel since he wrote Batman begins.The producers involved with Nolan trilogy should not be involved with man of steel sequel.The amazing spider-man films should have no one Involved who was with rami trilogy.It's bad idea for Arnold to play terminater in terminator reboot.Since Simon Kinberg was involved with first FF film he should not be Involved with reboot.
I don't think DOFP erasing the original trilogy and the Wolverine films means its reboot time. Those films still happened, but just in a different timeline. The characters may have not the knowledge of those events (in those films) happening but the viewers has a knowledge for the events of the earlier films. And the events of those films led to DOFP and DOFP leads to the new timeline, there's still a connection.
Its only a reboot for me, when everything is start from scratch.
About Halle Berry, I was merely responding about your post regarding their age.
And about depictions, they could be fixed easily with a good writer. And just because their depiction of one character is wrong, it doesn't mean its time to hit the reset button. They could also introduce new characters and have an interpretation of that character similar to the comic-books.
Noooooo... We've had a different Storm in every X-Men film to date! Movie-Storm is effing bi-polar psylockolussus. It's too late to fix it with another writer for this particular actress. It's been 13 years and it's entirely too far along at this point.
And let's be honest: their previous depictions of pretty much every character (save Wolverine, Xavier and Magneto) has been wrong. Have we EVER recognized Rogue? When is the real Rogue going to show up? Will the real Cyclops please stand up? Why did Carrie--I mean, Jean--just go psycho for no apparent reason? Bobby is very EMO.
They got this series off on the wrong foot from the moment they made Bobby, Rogue, Pyro, etc., teenagers in the first film. Then they took Scott out of the picture so that Logan and Jean could be the main love interests. In other words? LOTS of liberties have been taken. And it's okay. We've loved (bits of) it. And we've supported it. But why is it sooo bad that this thing is rebooted to "fix s***" as Bryan put it ("S***" he actually messed up in the first place )?
As much as I love Halle Berry, her depiction of Storm is probably one of this franchise's biggest problems in the characterization department. It's also what is truly holding the series back since Storm is such a major player in the X-Men cannon. Plus, Scott was MIA long before his ass got vaporized in X3. Which has left us with Logan as the leader--which is why this OT cast is out of balance.
If there's an opportunity to re-envision these characters via a new series timeline why not jump on that opportunity?
I think this also plays into what you had said earlier about the division of movie-verse and comics portrayals and which ones people favor. Myself I am certainly in the latter group and it's been my biggest knock on this series since the very first movie. Even then I felt that the balance of the story was uneven, but forgave it for it being the first and an entry point for general audiences. X2 is where I feel the series really fell apart. Too much of the focus was on Jean and Logan, with Logan once again filling shoes that should have been Scott's based on the comic interpretation. Storm also is more of a background character as well and I feel Halle's portrayal has never really been up to snuff. Whereas I know most people tout it as their favorite Superhero Movie, I find that it exacerbated problems that started in the first movie, leaving The Last Stand in a bit of a corner because of it from the jump. Add into it Singer's departure from the series at that point and it continues to give a muddled perspective for those like myself who truly want as close to an adaptation of the characters and dynamics of these people without having to sacrifice any character for the sake of the others.
At the same time I find myself not wanting this movie to "fix" things for the sake of fixing them. Scott's dead, Jean's dead, Xavier is so far the only one with a "Get out of Death Free" card, and to me many of the characters are so unrecognizable that I need them to show off their powers for me to "know" that the relative mute who turns into a metal version of himself is Colossus and the somber yet snarky teenager who can shoot ice from his hands is the "boisterous" Iceman. And even then you have some guy who shoots blazing hula hoops when he's not channeling Iron Man's unibeam and are supposed to accept him as Havok. But that's what this series of films are for the time being, and as such I don't think should be excised from the franchise just because of it.
All in all, I don't think there's anything DoFP can do to "fix" this series. It only slightly resembled the universe I grew up reading and enjoying with barely any of the characters I loved getting the kind of respect I had hoped they would. It's on this merit that I don't want DoFP to "reboot" anything. The chance for rebooting I think should have happened with First Class and yet it wasn't taken. For everything else, I would rather see the slate wiped completely clean and started fresh instead of trying to renovate something that can't fit what I had always envisioned the X-Men to look like on the silver screen. It's a selfish point of view, but at least it's honest.
I don't think DOFP erasing the original trilogy and the Wolverine films means its reboot time. Those films still happened, but just in a different timeline. The characters may have not the knowledge of those events (in those films) happening but the viewers does. And the events of the film led to DOFP and DOFP leads to the new timeline, there's still a connection.
Its only a reboot for me, when everything is start from scratch.
We've had a different Storm in every X-Men film to date! Movie-Storm is effing bi-polar psylockolussus. It's too late to fix it with another writer for this particular actress. It's been 13 years and it's entirely too far along at this point.
And let's be honest: their previous depictions of pretty much every character (save Wolverine, Xavier and Magneto) has been wrong. Have we EVER recognized Rogue? When is the real Rogue going to show up? Will the real Cyclops please stand up? Why did Carrie--I mean, Jean--just go psycho for no apparent reason? Bobby is very EMO.
About Cyclops, Iceman and Rogue, that can easily be fixed with a good writer, people do change through time and their personality in the movies could change in an instant. Look what happened to Mystique. We saw her as silent femme fatale, then she's suddenly a sweetheart in First Class. Plus there's no guarantee that when they reboot the film, we would automatically see a Cyclops that is closer to the comics and a Rogue that is closer to the comics.
And about Storm, okay she's been different in every film that she's in. But who knows maybe in DOFP or X5, she will be closer to the Storm of the comics.
There Is big difference between recasting,which keep the james Bond films
going for 40 years,and rebooting saying films people enjoyed never happened,
which Is what a reboot Is.
Rebooting has meant now the James Bond series started in 2006.Superman
started this year.Star Trek started In 2009.The batman series won't start till 2015.SPider-man started In 2012.If
wolverine's time travel mission does indeed create a reality where magneto never becomes a villain and cyclops and jean never died
then X-Men films started In 2011.
With Star Trek as I true long time fan I call BS on those alternate timeline.If they were really trying to connect to Trek everything In Trek history prior to
Nero arrival should remain the same.It wasn't.
If DOFP does indeed create a new timeline then yes the trilogy and the wolverine are Ilrelvent to films In future now.
Some are convently forgeting that X-Men become the top selling COmic book when characters like Wolverine,Storm,COlossus,and Nightcrawler joined the time.So the obsession some have of original lineup baffles me.
With every comic book adaptan we can argue about faithfulness.It's not just the X-Men films.But,what Is that going to accomplise.
So if they indeed do a trek 2009 at end of DOFP those who voted yes have won In this thread.But,don't try to tell me X-Men,X2,and the wolverine as well
as last stand aren't being erased.It's just like after seeing Star Trek Into darkness It's clear the new films should be treated as outright reboots laregly unconnected to Star Trek I followed except using same names and ripping dialogue and in case of into darkness also ripping some of wrath of Khan but doing it infear.People here who weren't Trek fans prior to trek 2009 probally loved that film and that's fine.It's many of the pre2009 fanbase who don't like
that film.
Personally I think if studios go reboot road they need to let go of everybody assoiated with films they now want to say never happened.Star Trek laregly did that but others keep same producers,use some of same writers and even use some of same crew and even actors.To proreboot people if they reboot hugh Jackman,lauren Shueller Donnor,and Bryan Singer should all go.Just like
Judi dench should not have played M In first 3 Rebooted Bond films.Much of crewshould not have returned post DAD.David Goyer should not be writing man of steel sequel since he wrote Batman begins.The producers involved with Nolan trilogy should not be involved with man of steel sequel.The amazing spider-man films should have no one Involved who was with rami trilogy.It's bad idea for Arnold to play terminater in terminator reboot.Since Simon Kinberg was involved with first FF film he should not be Involved with reboot.
Let's say this rumored ending [BLACKOUT]where Cyclops and Jean never died[/BLACKOUT] comes true. How can you possibly be offended by that? SCOTT SHOULD NEVER HAVE DIED IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE.
I don't get why you are defending past bad studio decisions and are so against efforts to right those wrongs now with this film. You're saying you're long time fan who calls BS. Yet, you want to uphold a film franchise where an iconic character like Cyclops is dead because of a REAL LIFE vindictive film producer had an axe to grind with Bryan Singer?
I don't understand why someone, given the information we have, would believe they're actually being invalidated in any respect with this move. Those movies still exist. You can still pop them in and love those characters and stories. Even if filmmakers were to say "Well, that never happened, so this...", those things still, from a story, character and franchise standpoint, obviously did happen. They had to happen in order for DAYS OF FUTURE PAST to do anything to "erase" them. They just happened prior to the events of DAYS OF FUTURE PAST.
Cyclops and Jean Grey appearing alive at the end of the movie, meaning the events of the trilogy never happened. That theory is now being supported by a recent interview with James Marsden where he acknowledges that he WAS on the flight with Halle Berry.
That is why I believe they are being invalidated.
The past movies absolutely did not have to happen for X-Men: Days Of Future Past to happen. Despite the common cast from the main trilogy, this movie has absolutely nothing to do with the past movies. The events of the past movies are not what led to Days Of Future Past, an isolated event in 1973 did. The main trilogy do not lead into Days Of Future Past, and Days Of Future Past is wiping out the main trilogy, and all the other movies that came before it, and saying they don't count anymore.
I think I've figured out why some of us are at odds with each other regarding this topic. There is basically two groups forming here:
1.) There is a group of users here who are clearly more attached to the movie-verse than the comics. This group of posters acknowledge that the movie series has not been perfect but they feel that FOX's films retain enough good elements to be acceptable. They cannot see anyone else playing these characters than Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Patrick Stewart, etc.,--or at the very least--are unwilling to embrace new actors take on these iconic roles. They'd rather "live with" what has been given to us. This group reminds me of the Trekkies who were offended in 2008/2009 when the iconic characters of Spock, Kirk, Uhura, etc., were recast with new actors. They also felt that the 1960s series of Star Trek was invalidated by JJ Abrams' 2009 film--even though the filmmakers carefully orchestrated a separate timeline so that both series could exist honorably.
2.) Then there are those of us (myself included) who are more dedicated and attached to the characters as depicted in the comics' source material. We are probably the more critical bunch because we feel that the imperfections of the movie universe are too great to be completely ignored. We're thankful that this comic ever saw the light of day on the silver screen but we know it hasn't quite reached its greatest potential. And while we've enjoyed certain actor performances from the OT and FC films, we are more concerned with the the characters being portrayed accurately and fairly--and if these current actors are recast in favor of better casting choices we embrace that. As a group, I think we are more open-minded to the possibilities of seeing something better for not only this film franchise--but most importantly--Marvel's X-Men.
Neither group is wrong for their position. But I also don't think either group will ever see eye to eye on this topic because our priorities for this franchise are so different.
Marvel (and to be fair DC Comics, as well) has had "events" that have rebooted their universes many times. They have else-worlds, 616, Ultimate universes, etc., where beloved characters are reimagined. But consider the Ultimate Marvel universe for a moment: its arrival did not "invalidate" the classic 616. It is its own thing. Either you read it or you don't.
Therefore it's not about what's "new" or "casting aside" great actors like Patrick Stewart or Ian McKellan. That's a pretty cold and one dimensional interpretation of what's going on here. I'm sure everyone hear applauds those actors' portrayals of the characters. But the truth is--those actors are getting up there in age. They cannot play these characters forever.
What is sooo sad to me is that you'd rather see the entire franchise die off (or stand still) just so that no one else takes on the characters' roles. No offense but...that's actually kinda selfish, isn't it? It seems to me that you're less concerned about getting a great X-Men film based on the comics and more devoted to an interpretation of the X-Men that is especially fashioned for the general movie-going audiences by FOX Studios. Would you agree with that assessment? I ask that because you've said on several occasions here that if DoFP erases certain aspects of the OT films you're going to stop watching/supporting what comes next. Really? That is so...unfortunate.
It's not about the actors. Stan Lee & Co. wasn't thinking about them when they created these characters. No. Rather, it's about the longevity of Marvel's X-Men. The bottom line is that Xavier, Storm, Logan, Scott, Jean, etc., are bigger than their film counterparts--and they are ageless.
No, I wouldn't "rather see the franchise die off instead of seeing another actor's take on these characters", I'd rather see this franchise die off with integrity and dignity than to be run into the ground and become nothing more than a mass produced assembly line of movies that get made because they "have to" rather than because there's a good story to tell.
Reboots are the utter bane of creative growth. Reboots are an absolutely atrocious trend in Hollywood that I cannot stand in the least bit. The X-Men got adapted to the big screen, some things worked, some things didn't, but we don't need to keep rehashing the same crap over and over and over again. There are other properties out there, other ideas that have yet to be created or adapted, but instead studios keep doing the same **** over and over again.
You say I'm selfish for wanting one and only one adaptation of the X-Men, but I think people who demand reboots are rather selfish for wanting the movies to be done and redone over and over and over again until something comes along that makes THEM happy, instead of letting a movie series exist for itself and move on to something else.
No, I don't need nor want a new take on Star Trek. No I don't need nor want a new take on RoboCop. Or Terminator. Or Spiderman. Or X-Men. Or anything else they reboot. Those movies were already made, and they were great for what they were, but we don't need a "new take". Those stories had their time, now it's time to move on to new stories.
As a writer myself, I would be absolutely insulted if someone came along and took my work, whether it be a book, or a TV show, or a movie, and said "nope, now we need a new take on it". ******** we need a new take on it, it's my god damned story and I wrote it how I wanted it to be. It's not YOUR place to dictate what new take needs to happen for MY story.
And I find it incredibly insulting and disrespectful when someone comes along and says "Oh, we need a new take on this classic story that has been timeless for decades, but we need to redo it because it needs a new take"
No, **** that. Terminator was great the first time around. I don't want YOUR take. It already exists. Create a new damned story instead of stealing someone else's.
No, I would not in the least bit agree with your assessment, Lightning. Because that's not my issue at all. I want faithful adaptations of the source material just like anyone else. The difference is, for the most part I believe we got that. And now recently, because I believe the X-Men movies were faithful to the comic books, my comic fandom has come into question, and I've had to validate my comic fandom and had to battle against accusations of my comic fandom.
The difference? There are particular elements of the X-Men comics that make them stand out above the rest, and in my opinion, make them more than just generic superheroes. There are levels of depth and complexity that make it an incredible world with depth, heart, and character, and touches on real world issues that are smart, intelligent, and people the world over can relate to.
I feel that the movies have focused on those themes, and as such, the movies have been more than just generic comic book movies, but rather, intelligent movies that are based on fantastical characters and a world full of fantasy and science fiction, but also held together with true depth, true character, true heart, and intelligence.
But there are also particular elements of the X-Men comics that aren't smart, that don't have any depth, that try to pass off being convoluted as "depth", and are just nothing more than a bunch of buff dudes and scantily clad women shooting laser beams at each other as they fly through space.
That does not make for good stories, that does not make for intelligent, meaningful storytelling. It's juvenile. And those are the types of X-Men stories that I do not enjoy, and have no desire to see in the movies.
Whether it happens in comics, books, TV shows, movies, rebooting is atrocious storytelling. It's a lazy copout. "Oh, that never happened, THIS is the real version". Boo. Shame on you for resorting to that. And shame on the filmmakers for resorting to that with this franchise.
The franchise can continue without being "rebooted" and saying that everything that has already happened doesn't count. You can continue the franchise, continue the stories, and guess what? STILL UPDATE THE CAST IN THE PROCESS without throwing out everything that's come before.
When Star Trek wanted to continue past the original cast, they created The Next Generation, which was an entirely new cast but still in the same continuity. Then they did it again with Deep Space Nine, and then again with Voyager. It is completely possible.
This very franchise already did it once with X-Men: First Class. An entirely new cast, playing the same characters (and some new) within the same continuity. There was plenty of potential to see new versions of beloved characters that may not have gotten the focus they deserved in the previous movies. Younger versions of Cyclops, Jean, and Storm, that don't require those actors that are "getting up there", and younger versions that don't need Wolverine around to hog the spotlight. Another beloved character, Gambit, has also been established in the continuity around the same period of time and could also play a role, thus expanding the franchise.
If they wanted to continue off of the present / future time period, Days Of Future Past is introducing a whole slew of new characters in Bishop, Blink, Warpath, Sunspot, and all have young up and coming actors in the roles. Other younger characters, like Kitty Pryde, Iceman, Angel or Colossus all have younger actors that can play the role, one of them being a current big name in Ellen Page.
There are also a slew of characters that have yet to be touched in the franchise that can be used to expand the franchise. Characters like Psylocke, who is a fan favorite. Jubilee has had minor cameos in the previous movies, she could be recast and given an expanded role.
The franchise, the characters, and the stories can absolutely be expanded and continued and built upon. But no... fans aren't content with that. Fans won't be happy until those 2 movies from so many years back that they weren't happy with are kicked out of existence. THAT'S why this is so particularly selfish. The franchise can continue to expand and build, and even the characters that are perceived to have gotten shafted can be given a second life, ALL WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE ESTABLISHED CONTINUITY, but no, that's not enough. It's not enough until they get exactly what they want, which is those 2 movies never happened, and everyone who liked them and want them kept in continuity be damned. We don't matter. It's only they who matter.
Well, you got what you wanted. X-Men 3, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, they are gone. They no longer count. They no longer apply.
But don't expect me to be happy about it, and don't you dare bring my fandom into question because I think this franchise is taking a horrendous turn creatively.
I think this also plays into what you had said earlier about the division of movie-verse and comics portrayals and which ones people favor. Myself I am certainly in the latter group and it's been my biggest knock on this series since the very first movie. Even then I felt that the balance of the story was uneven, but forgave it for it being the first and an entry point for general audiences. X2 is where I feel the series really fell apart. Too much of the focus was on Jean and Logan, with Logan once again filling shoes that should have been Scott's based on the comic interpretation. Storm also is more of a background character as well and I feel Halle's portrayal has never really been up to snuff. Whereas I know most people tout it as their favorite Superhero Movie, I find that it exacerbated problems that started in the first movie, leaving The Last Stand in a bit of a corner because of it from the jump. Add into it Singer's departure from the series at that point and it continues to give a muddled perspective for those like myself who truly want as close to an adaptation of the characters and dynamics of these people without having to sacrifice any character for the sake of the others.
At the same time I find myself not wanting this movie to "fix" things for the sake of fixing them. Scott's dead, Jean's dead, Xavier is so far the only one with a "Get out of Death Free" card, and to me many of the characters are so unrecognizable that I need them to show off their powers for me to "know" that the relative mute who turns into a metal version of himself is Colossus and the somber yet snarky teenager who can shoot ice from his hands is the "boisterous" Iceman. And even then you have some guy who shoots blazing hula hoops when he's not channeling Iron Man's unibeam and are supposed to accept him as Havok. But that's what this series of films are for the time being, and as such I don't think should be excised from the franchise just because of it.
All in all, I don't think there's anything DoFP can do to "fix" this series. It only slightly resembled the universe I grew up reading and enjoying with barely any of the characters I loved getting the kind of respect I had hoped they would. It's on this merit that I don't want DoFP to "reboot" anything. The chance for rebooting I think should have happened with First Class and yet it wasn't taken. For everything else, I would rather see the slate wiped completely clean and started fresh instead of trying to renovate something that can't fit what I had always envisioned the X-Men to look like on the silver screen. It's a selfish point of view, but at least it's honest.
Let's say this rumored ending [BLACKOUT]where Cyclops and Jean never died[/BLACKOUT] comes true. How can you possibly be offended by that? SCOTT SHOULD NEVER HAVE DIED IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE.\
No, it doesn't bother me, because I couldn't care less about financial success.
I care about creative success.
And the X-Men franchise, at its worst, is far better creatively than the Marvel Cinematic Universe at its best.
There has yet to be a movie from Marvel studios that is even MEMORABLE, let alone something I would call "good". Every film from Marvel so far has been a couple hours of fun while you're in it, but immediately forgotten the second I walk out of the theater or turn off the DVD. There is NOTHING memorable about them, and not one shred of the MCU is something that I want the X-Men films to follow creatively.
Noooooo... We've had a different Storm in every X-Men film to date! Movie-Storm is effing bi-polar psylockolussus. It's too late to fix it with another writer for this particular actress. It's been 13 years and it's entirely too far along at this point.
And let's be honest: their previous depictions of pretty much every character (save Wolverine, Xavier and Magneto) has been wrong. Have we EVER recognized Rogue? When is the real Rogue going to show up? Will the real Cyclops please stand up? Why did Carrie--I mean, Jean--just go psycho for no apparent reason? Bobby is very EMO.
They got this series off on the wrong foot from the moment they made Bobby, Rogue, Pyro, etc., teenagers in the first film. Then they took Scott out of the picture so that Logan and Jean could be the main love interests. In other words? LOTS of liberties have been taken. And it's okay. We've loved (bits of) it. And we've supported it. But why is it sooo bad that this thing is rebooted to "fix s***" as Bryan put it ("S***" he actually messed up in the first place )?
I think this also plays into what you had said earlier about the division of movie-verse and comics portrayals and which ones people favor. Myself I am certainly in the latter group and it's been my biggest knock on this series since the very first movie. Even then I felt that the balance of the story was uneven, but forgave it for it being the first and an entry point for general audiences. X2 is where I feel the series really fell apart. Too much of the focus was on Jean and Logan, with Logan once again filling shoes that should have been Scott's based on the comic interpretation. Storm also is more of a background character as well and I feel Halle's portrayal has never really been up to snuff. Whereas I know most people tout it as their favorite Superhero Movie, I find that it exacerbated problems that started in the first movie, leaving The Last Stand in a bit of a corner because of it from the jump. Add into it Singer's departure from the series at that point and it continues to give a muddled perspective for those like myself who truly want as close to an adaptation of the characters and dynamics of these people without having to sacrifice any character for the sake of the others.
At the same time I find myself not wanting this movie to "fix" things for the sake of fixing them. Scott's dead, Jean's dead, Xavier is so far the only one with a "Get out of Death Free" card, and to me many of the characters are so unrecognizable that I need them to show off their powers for me to "know" that the relative mute who turns into a metal version of himself is Colossus and the somber yet snarky teenager who can shoot ice from his hands is the "boisterous" Iceman. And even then you have some guy who shoots blazing hula hoops when he's not channeling Iron Man's unibeam and are supposed to accept him as Havok. But that's what this series of films are for the time being, and as such I don't think should be excised from the franchise just because of it.
All in all, I don't think there's anything DoFP can do to "fix" this series. It only slightly resembled the universe I grew up reading and enjoying with barely any of the characters I loved getting the kind of respect I had hoped they would. It's on this merit that I don't want DoFP to "reboot" anything. The chance for rebooting I think should have happened with First Class and yet it wasn't taken. For everything else, I would rather see the slate wiped completely clean and started fresh instead of trying to renovate something that can't fit what I had always envisioned the X-Men to look like on the silver screen. It's a selfish point of view, but at least it's honest.
For all the **** that people give me about what they assume is some sort of unfandom for the comics, I sometimes wonder if those same people ****ting on me even read the comics they claim to champion so heavily.
I never defended anything about last stand.Why else do you think I supported idea of treating last stand and origins like superman returns did to III and IV.I also don't want the ultimate version of Cyclops and the Cyclops of recent years on the big screen.And I don't want X-Men turned into a Avengers lite just like i don't like Star Trek turned into Star Wars
lite.I don't want films I like like X-Men,X2,and the Wolverine to be erased.especilly since I
value them more than I do Avengers films.
If they create a new timeline In DOFP It's timefor them to admit they are erasing all the
non-First Class films.And a reboot needs to completly divorce themselves from those involved with original films.You want to say those films didn't happen?Which a reboot does.Fine then everyone involved should have to be replaced.
I think this also plays into what you had said earlier about the division of movie-verse and comics portrayals and which ones people favor. Myself I am certainly in the latter group and it's been my biggest knock on this series since the very first movie. Even then I felt that the balance of the story was uneven, but forgave it for it being the first and an entry point for general audiences. X2 is where I feel the series really fell apart. Too much of the focus was on Jean and Logan, with Logan once again filling shoes that should have been Scott's based on the comic interpretation. Storm also is more of a background character as well and I feel Halle's portrayal has never really been up to snuff. Whereas I know most people tout it as their favorite Superhero Movie, I find that it exacerbated problems that started in the first movie, leaving The Last Stand in a bit of a corner because of it from the jump. Add into it Singer's departure from the series at that point and it continues to give a muddled perspective for those like myself who truly want as close to an adaptation of the characters and dynamics of these people without having to sacrifice any character for the sake of the others.
At the same time I find myself not wanting this movie to "fix" things for the sake of fixing them. Scott's dead, Jean's dead, Xavier is so far the only one with a "Get out of Death Free" card, and to me many of the characters are so unrecognizable that I need them to show off their powers for me to "know" that the relative mute who turns into a metal version of himself is Colossus and the somber yet snarky teenager who can shoot ice from his hands is the "boisterous" Iceman. And even then you have some guy who shoots blazing hula hoops when he's not channeling Iron Man's unibeam and are supposed to accept him as Havok. But that's what this series of films are for the time being, and as such I don't think should be excised from the franchise just because of it.
All in all, I don't think there's anything DoFP can do to "fix" this series. It only slightly resembled the universe I grew up reading and enjoying with barely any of the characters I loved getting the kind of respect I had hoped they would. It's on this merit that I don't want DoFP to "reboot" anything. The chance for rebooting I think should have happened with First Class and yet it wasn't taken. For everything else, I would rather see the slate wiped completely clean and started fresh instead of trying to renovate something that can't fit what I had always envisioned the X-Men to look like on the silver screen. It's a selfish point of view, but at least it's honest.
Well one thing that I can say about is, the X-Men movies will never get a chance to stay true to the comics because they are limited. 1 movie is less than 2hr/30 mins and the comics have been going for like 60 years. There will always be characters that won't get much introduction and backstory. The comics can retell every great X-Men story in like 50 issues and give the characters their own series for a much needed back story, but the movies? They don't have the luxury for that.
Even in the other CBM, they are still limited and only a handful of characters got enough development.
Yes. Yes it does. And there's nothing wrong with that, as I mentioned. I even put myself in a group. Reread my post. Then reread your posts from the last few pages of this thread.
I'd rather see this franchise die off with integrity and dignity than to be run into the ground and become nothing more than a mass produced assembly line of movies that get made because they "have to" rather than because there's a good story to tell.
Aaaaannnnd...that didn't already happen with X-Men: The Last Stand and Origins? Come on Nell. You were here on this board in 2006. I am quite sure you recall the rush that FOX made to beat Singer/WB/Superman with Ratner & Co. I'm also sure you remember the many bad creative decisions that were made to accommodate that rush.
No, I would not in the least bit agree with your assessment, Lightning. Because that's not my issue at all. I want faithful adaptations of the source material just like anyone else. The difference is, for the most part I believe we got that. And now recently, because I believe the X-Men movies were faithful to the comic books, my comic fandom has come into question, and I've had to validate my comic fandom and had to battle against accusations of my comic fandom.
But don't expect me to be happy about it, and don't you dare bring my fandom into question because I think this franchise is taking a horrendous turn creatively.
For all the **** that people give me about what they assume is some sort of unfandom for the comics, I sometimes wonder if those same people ****ting on me even read the comics they claim to champion so heavily.
I certainly hope you're not including me in the group of people trying to challenge your fandom or your position, because quite frankly I'm not. I can appreciate your position, it's a passionate one obviously. You make points I agree with but also make some I don't. That's fair I think, but I don't go out of my way to try and ostracize you for them. Your views differ from mine. I leave it at that. So please don't try and assume my position or any kind of inferred attack on you, because it's not.
To your comments though, yes, I read the comics growing up. And some of them were as shallow as you've commented on in a previous post. My concerns though is characterization. I personally don't feel that what we've been shown syncs up with what I've read. It's just my interpretation of the characters. Doesn't make it any more or less true or real for anyone else. I stated my opinion was a selfish one, because it's what I want. You want something different. Doesn't make you wrong, or me right.
Well one thing that I can say about is, the X-Men movies will never get a chance to stay true to the comics because they are limited. 1 movie is less than 2hr/30 mins and the comics have been going for like 60 years. There will always be characters that won't get much introduction and backstory. The comics can retell every great X-Men story in like 50 issues and give the characters their own series for a much needed back story, but the movies? They don't have the luxury for that.
Even in the other CBM, they are still limited and only a handful of characters got enough development.
You're right. For movies as a visual medium, there are tried and true formulas behind what make them work. And with the wide number of characters that are present in the X-Men universe it would be impossible to do all of them justice all at the same time. Much like any other superhero movie, there is just too much information to cram into one 2+ hour movie.
At the same time they can be true to the characters that they DO show in their films and it's one of the things that I think that so far they could have done differently but chose not too. These characters are one studio's interpretation of who these people are. They don't match my own personal interpretation. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm merely saying that I don't agree with their interpretation, which is also fine. All of these movies have their fans and in that regard I at least applaud Fox for bringing to those people characters they can connect with. I'm just not one of them.
For all the **** that people give me about what they assume is some sort of unfandom for the comics, I sometimes wonder if those same people ****ting on me even read the comics they claim to champion so heavily.
I personally never said you weren't a fan. I said you were obviously more devoted to the movie-verse's depiction of these characters than the comic versions. And I'm saying that because you are defending certain studio decisions that are universally despised by diehard readers of the comics.
And there is nothing wrong with that at all Nell. I know of fans who believe that Halle Berry's Storm is spot-on (even though I know you personally do not believe that at all). But I think it's important that you own it.
No, it doesn't bother me, because I couldn't care less about financial success.
I care about creative success.
And the X-Men franchise, at its worst, is far better creatively than the Marvel Cinematic Universe at its best.
There has yet to be a movie from Marvel studios that is even MEMORABLE, let alone something I would call "good". Every film from Marvel so far has been a couple hours of fun while you're in it, but immediately forgotten the second I walk out of the theater or turn off the DVD. There is NOTHING memorable about them, and not one shred of the MCU is something that I want the X-Men films to follow creatively.
You and me do have some different oporions.You like last stand and origins
more than I do but I agree with many of the points you make with regard to rebooting X-Men and what the rumored ending would mean to past films.
People on this board bash Star Wars prequels and last Indiana Jones film.Hell some even bashed avatar.They all made fortune at Box office.Iron Man 3 may have made a billion dollors at box office but as far as I am concerned It's one of worst comic book movies ever made.
You had more nazis In First Class than In Captain America.
The core of X-Men is battling for acceptence,trying to control their powers,and protecting a world that hates and fears them.It's not cosmic
stories,or ailen Invasions.Everything that goes on In Comics shouldn't be adopted for big screen.Some disagree with me but i am no fan of rogue and Gambit as couple.But,then again I was never a fan of Spider-man marrying mary jane eather.
Things change when you adopted something Into a movie.Plays,Novels,Tv shows,and yes COmics are changed.We could fight all the time on changes.
X-Men Is hardly only one changed.
At the same time they can be true to the characters that they DO show in their films and it's one of the things that I think that so far they could have done differently but chose not too. These characters are one studio's interpretation of who these people are. They don't match my own personal interpretation. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm merely saying that I don't agree with their interpretation, which is also fine. All of these movies have their fans and in that regard I at least applaud Fox for bringing to those people characters they can connect with. I'm just not one of them.
I personally believe that Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan were brilliant in their roles. And ditto for Hugh Jackman. I don't recognize anyone else in FOX's X-Men. Not because of the way they look--but due to the way their characters were consistently (or, in Halle's case, inconsistently) written and directed.
Yes. Yes it does. And there's nothing wrong with that, as I mentioned. I even put myself in a group. Reread my post. Then reread your posts from the last few pages of this thread.
Aaaaannnnd...that didn't already happen with X-Men: The Last Stand and Origins? Come on Nell. You were here on this board in 2006. I am quite sure you recall the rush that FOX made to beat Singer/WB/Superman with Ratner & Co. I'm also sure you remember the many bad creative decisions that were made to accommodate that rush.
I was here in 2006, and I also know that the element of vindictiveness is one that bitter fans made up, and not really based out of reality.
Why am I defending it? Because while X-Men: The Last Stand took a few bad turns, it also did many things better than the original 2 movies did. It took the series to new places that it hadn't been previously, for better and for worse. That's why I defend it. It may not have been my ideal film, but it's still a valid part of the canon. And I've grown quite tired of people who are upset with a few things about it dismissing the entire film as if there is absolutely nothing good that came from it.
I think it's more faithful than people are willing to acknowledge, and I think that many aspects of it are a much preferred direction than what happened in the comics.
Can we just close this ****ing thread already? Absolutely nothing is getting "discussed" around here, and it's just constantly going around and around in a big circle of insults and repeated arguments where no one is listening to another. It's pointless for this to even exist by now.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
We've had a different Storm in every X-Men film to date! Movie-Storm is effing bi-polar psylockolussus. It's too late to fix it with another writer for this particular actress. It's been 13 years and it's entirely too far along at this point. 
)?
That is so...unfortunate. 
