Sequels Singer Approached For X4?

[Ultimate_Superman]

What was so messed up with X3 you ask?

- Bad editing and pacing
- No real character moments
- The film only slows down once or twice, then it's only for a milisecond and were back to cut neck action sequence
- Horrible treatments of everyone and their character except for Beast, Magneto, Xavier and Wolverine (when he's actually being Wolverine.)


Don't get me wrong. Enjoyable fun time, but it's the most flawed of the films.

Not to mention killing off Cyke because they were mad he left and did Superman Returns after said he would do both movies. Also how they threaten to kill off Iceman if he did the role of Jimmy like how he was suppose to.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Not to mention killing off Cyke because they were mad he left ad did Superman Returns and after said he would do both movies. Also how they threaten to kill off Iceman if he did the role of Jimmy like how he was suppose to.

That kinda stuff I was including in the bad treatment of everyone and their character deal.

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

It still pisses me off about that though. He flat out told them he would do both movies but they were so upset with him doing SR they killed him off and then made the same threat to anyone else who jumps ship. Its a shame I thought Shawn would have made a great Jimmy. At least SV got his brother.

 

[X-Maniac]

It still pisses me off about that though. He flat out told them he would do both movies but they were so upset with him doing SR they killed him off and then made the same threat to anyone else who jumps ship. Its a shame I thought Shawn would have made a great Jimmy. At least SV got his brother.

Where is this evidence of a threat that anyone who did SR would be killed off? And would the actors care that much to be bullied into doing X3 because their characters would be killed off??? Surely they just take the part they want, they don't owe anything to the X-Men. You talk as though they have to give a kidney to the X-franchise.

 

[04nbod]

if cyclops is the kidney- who is the heart of the x mrn francise?

 

[Majik1387]

^Prof X

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

- No real character moments

Sorry, this is just wrong.

-Flashback to Jean's childhood
-Flashback to Angel cutting off his wings
-Cyclops distraught in his room over losing Jean, and her still haunting him
-Cyclops' interaction with Wolverine before leaving the mansion
-Beast's meeting with Leech
-Mystique becoming cured
-Jean and Wolverine in the infirmary
-Kitty Pryde & Iceman
-Pyro & Iceman at the cure clinic
-Wolverine's speech to the X-Men before heading into the final battle

 

[Jennifer Walters]

The last one is a laugh, Nell. Don't kid me. That's not a WOLVERINE character moment that's Cyclops possessed in Wolverine.

And a majority of the others fly in the face of things that were set up in X1 and X2.

 

[X-Maniac]

The last one is a laugh, Nell. Don't kid me. That's not a WOLVERINE character moment that's Cyclops possessed in Wolverine.

And a majority of the others fly in the face of things that were set up in X1 and X2.

They were character moments. Nell was not arguing whether they were 'true' to the characters or previous movies, he was stating that they were character scenes and not scenes of frenetic action.

Whether it's a Wolverine-Cyclops hybrid or against X1 and X2 is not relevant to the argument and what Nell said.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

The last one is a laugh, Nell. Don't kid me. That's not a WOLVERINE character moment that's Cyclops possessed in Wolverine.

And a majority of the others fly in the face of things that were set up in X1 and X2.

Exactly. It's just a case of people willing to accept mediocre over greatness, which is their right obviously. But in the end I'm happy with the first two X-Men films as I consider them true X-Men movies.

I feel Singer understood the characters better and understood great storytelling that leaves a lasting impression. However, I look on the bright side too, Spider-Man 3 is coming out next year and it will show everyone how to close a trilogy properly.

 

[X-Maniac]

Exactly. It's just a case of people willing to accept mediocre over greatness, which is their right obviously. But in the end I'm happy with the first two X-Men films as I consider them true X-Men movies.

I feel Singer understood the characters better and understood great storytelling that leaves a lasting impression. However, I look on the bright side too, Spider-Man 3 is coming out next year and it will show everyone how to close a trilogy properly.

That's a rather condescending attitude. To say that everyone who likes X3 accepts mediocrity, and to imply that only Singer is capable of 'greatness.'
Singer's version of Superman is torn apart on the SR forums with huge posts and arguments about where it was totally unrelated to the source material or previous incarnations. In his X-Men movies he also failed to capture the accuracy of many characters. While the stories sort of hold together as stories, they are not as character-accurate as Spider-Man or Batman Begins or V for Vendetta in bringing the comic to the screen.

Singer might make good (though somewhat cold and sterile) character-centred mood dramas, but he's not the only one who can ever touch an X-movie.

While Ratner may seem to lack patience and attention to detail, he does not lack the sense of the big-scale 'wow' factor and the comicbook essence. Singer is not God, or a god, or even a demigod, and Superman Returns proves beyond a doubt that he was given far too much credit which he now has to correct in a sequel that is what the first movie should have been (more action, lower budget, more sci-fi, using the Krypton sequence). What he does is create a lot of 'in name only' characters who veer away from the source material. If SR was such a fabulous success all round then Warner would say 'We're going to focus even more on the soul-searching character drama and show Jimmy Olsen staring at the walls of his oneroom apartment and talking to a pot plant, Jason being alienated in the school playground and Superman sobbing at the FOS'.

 

[WorthyStevens]

In his X-Men movies he also failed to capture the accuracy of many characters. While the stories sort of hold together as stories, they are not as character-accurate as Spider-Man or Batman Begins or V for Vendetta in bringing the comic to the screen.

And Ratner with his team of 'writers' did capture accuracy?

Singer stayed more true to the characters than those jokers did, with the exception of a character or two.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

And Ratner with his team of 'writers' did capture accuracy?

Singer stayed more true to the characters than those jokers did, with the exception of a character or two.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. X-Maniac defends Ratner as if Ratner can and could do no wrong, which is obviously his right as a fan and as a human being in general.

But in general I feel Singer did make some changes that deviated somewhat from the source material, he got the characters right and their theme right. The changes he did make didn't ruin the film nor did it ruin any kind of continuity, which is why I feel Singer gets a pass as a director that has earned his respect.

He pays attention to detail and understands that there's more to a particular character than "wow big bang action". While action is nice in some cases, I also want a great story that can move me emotionally too.

That's something Ratner, Penn, and Kinberg can and will never do, as they're too busy being yes-men instead of making a great film and fighting studio suits to make quality product.

Anyone who enjoys X3 has a right to enjoy it. But I feel the ones who are praising it and accept mediocrity, are the ones who wanted more action and felt Singer made it too boring. I appreciate directors like Raimi, Jackson, Cameron, and Singer who know what it takes to make a brilliant concept and bring it to life.

 

[X-Maniac]

And Ratner with his team of 'writers' did capture accuracy?

I never said that. I'm saying Singer is not a God.

Singer stayed more true to the characters than those jokers did, with the exception of a character or two.

This is debatable. Singer's Storm was an appalling and risible interpretation of the comic character. And you know full well about the complaints levelled against Rogue, Iceman, Sabretooth, Deathstrike, Mastermind, Stryker... Cyclops felt almost there, but far too boyish, easily smothered by Jackman's testosterone-fuelled Wolverine.

Ratner has failings of course, I have acknowledged those (lack of patience and attention to detail). Some of what we saw in X3 is a directorial style in making it more action-adventure than character drama and I feel it suited a climactic third instalment in which tensions erupt into a larger conflict. If those who made X3 were all so terrible, then why did we get such accurate depictions of Beast, Juggernaut (even the corny humour, which i didn't like, is accurate to the cartoon and comics in places) and such a wonderfully realistic Angel. Also, Kitty Pryde was excellent and like some versions of the comicbook. And Storm finally flew. Singer's Storm was accurate only twice - when telling Wolverine to fight with them in X1 and when attacking Toad in X1. The X2 Storm just was not Storm at all - some dialogue in an attempt at characterisation-by-contrast (very nice scene but so wrong for Storm) and an uber-powerful tornado sequence that looked visually stunning but went against the fear and timid character and took her power to Phoenix levels and made you wonder why she'd never shown that power before!

 

[Child-of-Light]

i totally agree x men 3 was a disapointment for me i was looking forward to a phoenix but all i got out of it was a phoenix without fire and didnt even fly hardly tehy made her seem so weak too it also didnt have the good chracter adn deep emotion adn a more real life situatioun like the first two

I still fail to see where Ratner was so "creative" and handled the action so well. To me, for such a big battle and considering the possiblities, the battle was pretty dull, common and lacking creativity. Jean's neighborhood was good, but the final battle could be way more creative and overall better. I don't think he handled the action that well. Sure, the movie does have much more action than the last installments, but to me, quantity does not equal quality. Many action parts, few of them worthy of saying wow.

 

[Child-of-Light]

i agree with both of you adn the spidy part i agree with too

Exactly. It's just a case of people willing to accept mediocre over greatness, which is their right obviously. But in the end I'm happy with the first two X-Men films as I consider them true X-Men movies.

I feel Singer understood the characters better and understood great storytelling that leaves a lasting impression. However, I look on the bright side too, Spider-Man 3 is coming out next year and it will show everyone how to close a trilogy properly.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. X-Maniac defends Ratner as if Ratner can and could do no wrong, which is obviously his right as a fan and as a human being in general.

But in general I feel Singer did make some changes that deviated somewhat from the source material, he got the characters right and their theme right. The changes he did make didn't ruin the film nor did it ruin any kind of continuity, which is why I feel Singer gets a pass as a director that has earned his respect.

He pays attention to detail and understands that there's more to a particular character than "wow big bang action". While action is nice in some cases, I also want a great story that can move me emotionally too.

That's something Ratner, Penn, and Kinberg can and will never do, as they're too busy being yes-men instead of making a great film and fighting studio suits to make quality product.

Anyone who enjoys X3 has a right to enjoy it. But I feel the ones who are praising it and accept mediocrity, are the ones who wanted more action and felt Singer made it too boring. I appreciate directors like Raimi, Jackson, Cameron, and Singer who know what it takes to make a brilliant concept and bring it to life.

That's fine, you just need to lay off the "those who like X3 accept mediocracy" bullcrap.

I enjoy X3, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I accept mediocracy.

I also feel that you really over exaggerate Singer's "character" films. Did they have more depth? Yes. But they were still summer blockbuster comic book flicks. To be honest, a lot of the character in X-Men: The Last Stand is well on par with anything Singer did.

People forget about Beast reacting to Leech's powers, or Mystique laying naked (very symbolic of her emotional nakedness at the loss of what she was most proud of), Wolverine & Jean in the infirmary, and many others.

They neglect those character moments, because they are mad that character didn't happen in other parts of the moment where it should have happened.

I don't deny that Ratner missed a couple oppourtunities for some real character depth that would have only helped the film. But because he missed it in a few places does not negate the places where he did get it. And they are there, much more than anyone is willing to admit.

You may say that those who accept X3 are just willing to accept mediocracy.

Okay, well then if you say that (and you're so intent on saying it, because you feel you must speak the "truth" - as if your opinion has more truth to it than someone elses...), then I can say that people who don't like this movie, who constantly ***** about it, are just pissed off because a couple things didn't go the way they wanted to, so they refuse to see all of the good this movie offered.

I was disappointed in this film as well, when I first saw it. Because I was so caught up in the few things that were done wrong, that I was blind to all of the massive things done right. But after seeing the movie quite a few times, I realized that it's not worth it to hate the movie for what it wasn't. I'm not going to sit here and judge a movie based on what it could have been, based on whatever ideas that I had for it that weren't met. Instead, I choose to judge the film based on what it was. And I refuse to allow a few mistakes to ruin everything that was done right, and everything that was enjoyable.

You call me "willing to accept mediocracy"... I call you blind, and unwilling to look beyond your own narrow expectations to appreciate the true depth and art of this film.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

That's fine, you just need to lay off the "those who like X3 accept mediocracy" bullcrap.

I enjoy X3, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I accept mediocracy.

I also feel that you really over exaggerate Singer's "character" films. Did they have more depth? Yes. But they were still summer blockbuster comic book flicks. To be honest, a lot of the character in X-Men: The Last Stand is well on par with anything Singer did.

People forget about Beast reacting to Leech's powers, or Mystique laying naked (very symbolic of her emotional nakedness at the loss of what she was most proud of), Wolverine & Jean in the infirmary, and many others.

They neglect those character moments, because they are mad that character didn't happen in other parts of the moment where it should have happened.

I don't deny that Ratner missed a couple oppourtunities for some real character depth that would have only helped the film. But because he missed it in a few places does not negate the places where he did get it. And they are there, much more than anyone is willing to admit.

You may say that those who accept X3 are just willing to accept mediocracy.

Okay, well then if you say that (and you're so intent on saying it, because you feel you must speak the "truth" - as if your opinion has more truth to it than someone elses...), then I can say that people who don't like this movie, who constantly ***** about it, are just pissed off because a couple things didn't go the way they wanted to, so they refuse to see all of the good this movie offered.

I was disappointed in this film as well, when I first saw it. Because I was so caught up in the few things that were done wrong, that I was blind to all of the massive things done right. But after seeing the movie quite a few times, I realized that it's not worth it to hate the movie for what it wasn't. I'm not going to sit here and judge a movie based on what it could have been, based on whatever ideas that I had for it that weren't met. Instead, I choose to judge the film based on what it was. And I refuse to allow a few mistakes to ruin everything that was done right, and everything that was enjoyable.

You call me "willing to accept mediocracy"... I call you blind, and unwilling to look beyond your own narrow expectations to appreciate the true depth and art of this film.

If me wanting better quality over lame dialogue and hating mediocrity makes me blind, then so be it. Obviously I can't change your perception of the film and you can't change mine.

What you feel Ratner got right I feel he got all wrong. There's more to the X-Men than a bunch of action, lame dialogue, and rushed character development that really didn't have any lasting impression at all. When I watch a film that is supposed to be up there with LOTR I want to be moved emotionally and inspired.

For me, X3 didn't do any of the above. I feel with all my heart, soul, and mind that Fox had no intentions on making a great film. Personally the fact that you defend it the way you do shows you accept mediocrity in my opinion. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but your attitude clearly exhibits the willing to accept a half assed ending to a trilogy instead of realizing that for this to be a closer it really didn't do it justice.

You have your opinion and I have mine obviously.

The Beast, Mystique, and Logan/Jean scenes were horrible. The Beast/Leech scene started great and ended too quickly, same with the Mystique being cured as it didn't add any kind of emotion. Seriously do you understand emotional storytelling? Or are you just making up things trying to make it seem like they're so emotional that one will break down crying.

Ratner doesn't understand character development. He's all about action and refusing to allow moments to breath.

I will not accept a mediocre/crappy ending to a trilogy just because a number of people happen to LOVE this film. If you love it then that's your right and I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I'm not going to acknowledge what they got right when I know it could've been better.

I'm happy with the first two X-Men and I take great joy, honor, and pride knowing that Spider-Man 3 will be an excellent closer to a trilogy and that the Batman Begins trilogy will be great. You accept what you want to accept and I'll continue to voice my displeasure over a mediocre product, a mediocre product that is X-Men: The Last Stand.

 

[WorthyStevens]

I never said that. I'm saying Singer is not a God.



This is debatable. Singer's Storm was an appalling and risible interpretation of the comic character. And you know full well about the complaints levelled against Rogue, Iceman, Sabretooth, Deathstrike, Mastermind, Stryker... Cyclops felt almost there, but far too boyish, easily smothered by Jackman's testosterone-fuelled Wolverine.

Ratner has failings of course, I have acknowledged those (lack of patience and attention to detail). Some of what we saw in X3 is a directorial style in making it more action-adventure than character drama and I feel it suited a climactic third instalment in which tensions erupt into a larger conflict. If those who made X3 were all so terrible, then why did we get such accurate depictions of Beast, Juggernaut (even the corny humour, which i didn't like, is accurate to the cartoon and comics in places) and such a wonderfully realistic Angel. Also, Kitty Pryde was excellent and like some versions of the comicbook. And Storm finally flew. Singer's Storm was accurate only twice - when telling Wolverine to fight with them in X1 and when attacking Toad in X1. The X2 Storm just was not Storm at all - some dialogue in an attempt at characterisation-by-contrast (very nice scene but so wrong for Storm) and an uber-powerful tornado sequence that looked visually stunning but went against the fear and timid character and took her power to Phoenix levels and made you wonder why she'd never shown that power before!

Realistic... nah. The filmmaker's ruined his character, just like the Ultimate comic series did.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

If me wanting better quality over lame dialogue and hating mediocrity makes me blind, then so be it. Obviously I can't change your perception of the film and you can't change mine.

That's fine. But you thinking the movie was mediocre with lame dialogue doesn't make it so. Only in your eyes. And you need to learn to understand that.

What you feel Ratner got right I feel he got all wrong. There's more to the X-Men than a bunch of action, lame dialogue, and rushed character development that really didn't have any lasting impression at all. When I watch a film that is supposed to be up there with LOTR I want to be moved emotionally and inspired.

When did I say X-Men was just a bunch of action and 1 liners? My whole purpose for liking them is because they are deeper than that. Singer nailed that. And I will forever be grateful as an X-Men fan for that.

On the same token, they are still superheroes, comic book characters, with fantastic powers. Singer didn't nail that. Ratner did. Therefore, for nailing a different aspect of the X-Men, Ratner's movie was just as valid as Singer's films.

The film is only "supposed" to be up there with Lord of the Rings because you wanted it to be. Except for Kinberg saying Return of the King is one of his favorite movies, and he took some inspiration from that, there was never any implication that this film was supposed to be on that kind of level. As X-Men fans, we, in our minds, made it to be of that level. But X-Men nor X2 were on that level either. And those weren't bad films, or mediocre. Nowhere near it.

You can talk about how X-Men: The Last Stand was supposed to be the "epic" ending, or what have you, but Fellowship of the Rings and The Two Towers were much better set up chapters than X-Men and X2 were for X-Men: The Last Stand... so expecting the movie to be of Lord of the Rings proportions is your own damned fault, not the movie's.

For me, X3 didn't do any of the above. I feel with all my heart, soul, and mind that Fox had no intentions on making a great film. Personally the fact that you defend it the way you do shows you accept mediocrity in my opinion. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but your attitude clearly exhibits the willing to accept a half assed ending to a trilogy instead of realizing that for this to be a closer it really didn't do it justice.

You really need to lay off this whole "accepting mediocracy" kick. Just because you think the movie is mediocre doesn't mean that it is. And because you think it's mediocre and I like it, does not mean I accept mediocracy. On the same token, I could say that you are blind to powerful, epic filmmaking. Of course, that would be just as wrong, also, because what I say is no truer than what you say. But you have to realize that works the other way too. So first of all, if you want to debate, we can debate. But you need to get off that pedastal.

I don't need to "realize" anything. As far as I'm concerned, this was a very legitamate closer. Not only was it a legitamate closer, it was a very powerful one. A very epic one. A closer that did almost everything it was supposed to do. The problem with this film is not how it closed anything, but rather a couple questionable things done in the process.

You have your opinion and I have mine obviously.

Obviously. And if you'd just realize that your's is not the truth, but rather, just your opinion, we could get along a lot better.

The Beast, Mystique, and Logan/Jean scenes were horrible. The Beast/Leech scene started great and ended too quickly, same with the Mystique being cured as it didn't add any kind of emotion. Seriously do you understand emotional storytelling? Or are you just making up things trying to make it seem like they're so emotional that one will break down crying.

I never said these moments will make one break down into tears. But you seem to think that Singer's characterization was so deep that his movies would make you cry...

You also grossly over exaggerate Singer's character. Not because it's bad... but because it's not there as much as you claim it to be. More than Ratner's films? Yes. But Singer's movies aren't character pieces. They are still big time summer blockbuster action comic book flicks, just like X-Men: The Last Stand was. Singer followed up on his character moments a bit better, but his movies weren't these uber character films like you make them out to be.

Ratner doesn't understand character development. He's all about action and refusing to allow moments to breath.

I think he understood character rather well. He understood Wolverine & Rogue's relationship, in a very touching scene as they go off to get cured. He understood Xavier & Magneto's relationship, showing the respect that they have for each other, despite their difference in ideology. He showed the trauma of someone losing everything they are most proud of in the world, by showing an emotionally naked Mystique after she had become cured, and an alone man with nothing left in his life, in Magneto, sitting alone in the park with nothing to comfort him (until of course the chess piece moved). He showed an internal struggle with Beast regarding the cure, with a nod for fans to his "pre-blue" self, and for those not in the know, a scene showing his reaction to being normal. A very traumatic sequence in the infirmary with Jean & Wolverine, showcasing her internal struggle. Now, some of these moments were followed up on as well as they could have been. But they were still there. You say they "sucked". Well, just as you say I'm willing to accept mediocracy, I say you're unwilling to accept good filmmaking because of an inherent bias because it was Ratner, and not Singer, and the fact that you're not willing to give credit because things didn't play out exactly the way you wanted them to.

I will not accept a mediocre/crappy ending to a trilogy just because a number of people happen to LOVE this film. If you love it then that's your right and I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I'm not going to acknowledge what they got right when I know it could've been better.

And that's exactly you're problem. You're so intent on judging this movie for what it wasn't, that you refuse to see what it was. And I guess if you're going to subject yourself to that, then fine. Be my guest. Just don't drag the rest of us down with you with your constant accusations of "accepting mediocracy", as if your opinion is more important, and truthful, than ours.

I'm happy with the first two X-Men and I take great joy, honor, and pride knowing that Spider-Man 3 will be an excellent closer to a trilogy and that the Batman Begins trilogy will be great. You accept what you want to accept and I'll continue to voice my displeasure over a mediocre product, a mediocre product that is X-Men: The Last Stand.

Pshh. The Spiderman movies are fine, but they are really nothing more than mindless summer fun. Spiderman and Spiderman 2 are the exact same movie, with a different villian. Spiderman 3 will be more of the same, with just as much "character cramming" as you and others claim X-Men: The Last Stand to have. Batman Begins is a grossly overrated movie, the only anticipation I have left for the franchise is the way they ended the movie, hyping up The Joker.

But whatever. Gripe, *****, moan and groan about everything this movie wasn't. Be blind to everything that it was. Just as you say:

I take great joy, honor, and pride knowing that I got 3 excellent X-Men films, that have solidyfied themselves as not only the greatest comic book movies ever, severely trumping the overrated Spiderman's and Batman Begins' of the comic book film genre, but also just some great movies period. I take great joy, honor, and pride knowing that the 3rd film did exactly what it was supposed to do, and was a very epic and emotionally powerful film to close out a great trilogy, and I take great joy, honor, and pride knowing that I got over my own narrow thinking of what "could" have been (which, as everyone else, I only hyped up in my own mind), and was able to truly recognize and appreciate everything that it truly is. And because of it, I have a great trilogy of X-Men films.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

That's fine. But you thinking the movie was mediocre with lame dialogue doesn't make it so. Only in your eyes. And you need to learn to understand that.



When did I say X-Men was just a bunch of action and 1 liners? My whole purpose for liking them is because they are deeper than that. Singer nailed that. And I will forever be grateful as an X-Men fan for that.

On the same token, they are still superheroes, comic book characters, with fantastic powers. Singer didn't nail that. Ratner did. Therefore, for nailing a different aspect of the X-Men, Ratner's movie was just as valid as Singer's films.

The film is only "supposed" to be up there with Lord of the Rings because you wanted it to be. Except for Kinberg saying Return of the King is one of his favorite movies, and he took some inspiration from that, there was never any implication that this film was supposed to be on that kind of level. As X-Men fans, we, in our minds, made it to be of that level. But X-Men nor X2 were on that level either. And those weren't bad films, or mediocre. Nowhere near it.

You can talk about how X-Men: The Last Stand was supposed to be the "epic" ending, or what have you, but Fellowship of the Rings and The Two Towers were much better set up chapters than X-Men and X2 were for X-Men: The Last Stand... so expecting the movie to be of Lord of the Rings proportions is your own damned fault, not the movie's.



You really need to lay off this whole "accepting mediocracy" kick. Just because you think the movie is mediocre doesn't mean that it is. And because you think it's mediocre and I like it, does not mean I accept mediocracy. On the same token, I could say that you are blind to powerful, epic filmmaking. Of course, that would be just as wrong, also, because what I say is no truer than what you say. But you have to realize that works the other way too. So first of all, if you want to debate, we can debate. But you need to get off that pedastal.

I don't need to "realize" anything. As far as I'm concerned, this was a very legitamate closer. Not only was it a legitamate closer, it was a very powerful one. A very epic one. A closer that did almost everything it was supposed to do. The problem with this film is not how it closed anything, but rather a couple questionable things done in the process.



Obviously. And if you'd just realize that your's is not the truth, but rather, just your opinion, we could get along a lot better.



I never said these moments will make one break down into tears. But you seem to think that Singer's characterization was so deep that his movies would make you cry...

You also grossly over exaggerate Singer's character. Not because it's bad... but because it's not there as much as you claim it to be. More than Ratner's films? Yes. But Singer's movies aren't character pieces. They are still big time summer blockbuster action comic book flicks, just like X-Men: The Last Stand was. Singer followed up on his character moments a bit better, but his movies weren't these uber character films like you make them out to be.



I think he understood character rather well. He understood Wolverine & Rogue's relationship, in a very touching scene as they go off to get cured. He understood Xavier & Magneto's relationship, showing the respect that they have for each other, despite their difference in ideology. He showed the trauma of someone losing everything they are most proud of in the world, by showing an emotionally naked Mystique after she had become cured, and an alone man with nothing left in his life, in Magneto, sitting alone in the park with nothing to comfort him (until of course the chess piece moved). He showed an internal struggle with Beast regarding the cure, with a nod for fans to his "pre-blue" self, and for those not in the know, a scene showing his reaction to being normal. A very traumatic sequence in the infirmary with Jean & Wolverine, showcasing her internal struggle. Now, some of these moments were followed up on as well as they could have been. But they were still there. You say they "sucked". Well, just as you say I'm willing to accept mediocracy, I say you're unwilling to accept good filmmaking because of an inherent bias because it was Ratner, and not Singer, and the fact that you're not willing to give credit because things didn't play out exactly the way you wanted them to.



And that's exactly you're problem. You're so intent on judging this movie for what it wasn't, that you refuse to see what it was. And I guess if you're going to subject yourself to that, then fine. Be my guest. Just don't drag the rest of us down with you with your constant accusations of "accepting mediocracy", as if your opinion is more important, and truthful, than ours.



Pshh. The Spiderman movies are fine, but they are really nothing more than mindless summer fun. Spiderman and Spiderman 2 are the exact same movie, with a different villian. Spiderman 3 will be more of the same, with just as much "character cramming" as you and others claim X-Men: The Last Stand to have. Batman Begins is a grossly overrated movie, the only anticipation I have left for the franchise is the way they ended the movie, hyping up The Joker.

But whatever. Gripe, *****, moan and groan about everything this movie wasn't. Be blind to everything that it was. Just as you say:

I take great joy, honor, and pride knowing that I got 3 excellent X-Men films, that have solidyfied themselves as not only the greatest comic book movies ever, severely trumping the overrated Spiderman's and Batman Begins' of the comic book film genre, but also just some great movies period. I take great joy, honor, and pride knowing that the 3rd film did exactly what it was supposed to do, and was a very epic and emotionally powerful film to close out a great trilogy, and I take great joy, honor, and pride knowing that I got over my own narrow thinking of what "could" have been (which, as everyone else, I only hyped up in my own mind), and was able to truly recognize and appreciate everything that it truly is. And because of it, I have a great trilogy of X-Men films.

Fair enough.

You like what you like and I'll like what I like. Just like you feel Spider-Man and Batman Begins is overrated, I feel you grossly overrate X3 as you are praising it as if it's on the same level as a Lord of the Rings.

But we all have different likes and dislikes.

Actually expecting a Lord of the Rings like epic closer isn't my fault at all. Blame Ratner, Penn, and Kinberg for saying it's bigger than Return of the King and that it's Return of the King esque, so technically it's both of our fault. One for lying about it and the other for believing the lie.

I'm not dragging anyone down with my opinion. I'm speaking my own opinion and stating facts, don't like it? That's fine, because I'm not forcing you to like what I say and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Just stop expecting people to love it the way you do and stop trying to change peoples perception of the film.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Fair enough.

You like what you like and I'll like what I like. Just like you feel Spider-Man and Batman Begins is overrated, I feel you grossly overrate X3 as you are praising it as if it's on the same level as a Lord of the Rings.

Don't claim something that's not true.

I love X-Men: The Last Stand. I think it's epic and powerful. I love X-Men and X2. All 3 movies are great adaptations of my favorite characters ever.

But no movie, not any of the X-Men films, not anything, is on par with Lord of the Rings. I knew I'd love them, I never expected anything like that. Those movies are the epitome of "perfection" when it comes to film making. None of the 3 X-Men films captured that. They are more personal, because I love the characters more. But I don't think there will ever be another movie / series of movies as good as Lord of the Rings. So no, I don't think that X-Men: The Last Stand, or any X-Men film for that matter, is on the same level. Me liking the movie, and thinking it's epic and powerful does not equate to that.

But we all have different likes and dislikes.

Yup, and that's what you need to accept, and understand that liking something you don't isn't "accepting mediocracy"

Actually expecting a Lord of the Rings like epic closer isn't my fault at all. Blame Ratner, Penn, and Kinberg for saying it's bigger than Return of the King and that it's Return of the King esque, so technically it's both of our fault. One for lying about it and the other for believing the lie.

Nobody ever said it was bigger than Return of the King. Return of the King-esque? Perhaps. I know that Kinberg did compare the film to that a lot. But I dunno that he ever said it was gonna be on that level. At least not seriously.

I'm not dragging anyone down with my opinion. I'm speaking my own opinion and stating facts, don't like it? That's fine, because I'm not forcing you to like what I say and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Just stop expecting people to love it the way you do and stop trying to change peoples perception of the film.

That the film was "mediocre" is not a fact. It's an opinion. One that we all do not share. And if we do not share it, we are not willing to accept mediocracy, nor do we have lower standards because of it.

You're not stating facts. You're stating your opinion. The problem is that you are stating your opinion as fact, and that is in fact, dragging down everyone else with you.

 

[flavio_lebeau]

On the same token, they are still superheroes, comic book characters, with fantastic powers. Singer didn't nail that. Ratner did.

sorry Nell, but I have to disagree on the part where Singer didn't nail the superpowers. When you say the "haters" are neglecting the good parts of X3, I have to say you are neglecting the good parts of the first two movies when it comes to action.

-Storm flying, throwing one single punch and making random lightning wasn't 10% of Storm making tornadoes-bonanza, creating a moody, royal lightning scene and snow-storm. Between flying and tornadoes, it's tornadoes hands down.

-Beast's entire work doesn't come close to Nightcrawler's opening scene.

-Wolverine in the forest is quite the same as wolverine in the mansion.

-Rogue absorbing Colossus for 1 milissecond doesn't reach the feet of Rogue absorbing Logan to save her own life in a dramatic way, or Rogue stopping Pyro, or Rogue helplessy absorbing Magneto's power.

-Cyclops shooting at a lake doesn't even compare to Cyclops fighting the woman he loves, or destroying the ceiling of a train-station.

-Professor transfering his mind to another body (worst plot point ever?) doesn't compare to Professor Xavier threating to kill the whole world.

-THE FREBIRD. That's all I need to tell about Jean. I have no doubt that if we got a Singer's version of Dark Phoenix, he would be more creative than a plot-moving "demolecularizing" power.

-Mystique being one of the most beloved and smartest villains, with great action scenes, owning Wolverine and getting rid of dozen soldiers within seconds is waaaaay better than Mystique kicking 3 guys just to get caught again and then spend the rest of her scenes making jokes.

-IMO, Colossus action in X2 is more valuable than his "throwing arm" moments in X3.

-Pyro causing hell outside his friend's house is a lot more disturbing than any amount of scene he might have in X3.

Juggernaut had one good scene, same for Kitty and Iceman, and a random, but awesome display from Magneto, maybe that's what is better than the previous. Ratner might have put more action, but in my opinion, way poorer and less classy, elegant action than Singer. I don't really take the argument that Singer didn't nail their powers, especially when comparing to Ratner. If Singer didn't nail, Ratner's attempt is laughable. Repeating of powers (Storm and Colossus do the same damn thing over and over), little to no creativity with most mutants, etc. To me, Singer was way more creative. The fact is that he didn't put the action just for the wow. His movies weren't filled with action, but when it appeared, it delivered beautifully. Ratner, on the other hand, seemed to want as much as action as possible, at last, the more you try, the bigger are the chances of hitting right. But imo, he didn't, except for 2 or 3 characters.

Once again, between quality and quantity, I still choose the first.

 

[PoSeiDon]

P.S: Wonder how Halle will take this news?

take what news? do you think if x4 does not in some continue from x3 that most of the original cast wants to come back maybe besides hugh?

 

[WorthyStevens]

I will say this about Ratner & co with the mutant powers. They did nail Angel's flight scenes down pat.