Singer nay or yah

[LastSunrise1981]

see this is how the transformer fans feel about the changes being made to their beloved favorites except here the majority say ohhh that would look dumb if done from the books, or the changes are fine cause they couldnt get the budget ect... i feel sorry for those fans cause as a x-men fan i never got them on screen just like those guys over on the transformer boards are getting hammered

Apples and oranges, Michael Bay(judging from what I've seen in leaked pictures and so forth) ruined the concept of Transformers. X1 and X2's changes weren't that big of a deal compared to the Transformers.

As a Transformers fan I am pissed how they changed Megatron, Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Starscream, and many others.

You got to see the X-Men in all their glory in X1 and X2. There's more to the X-Men than just action, there's more to the X-Men than colorful costumes, there's more to the X-Men than just cool visuals.

At the very heart of X-Men there's a human condition that calls for the audience to feel for the characters, to feel the emotion, and to actually relate to these particular characters. Believe it or not, X1 and X2 while not big on action, they had a great story that moved me to the point of tears quite a bit.

But as far as Transformers is concerned, never did I think I'd see the day where Transformers:The Movie(Animated) could actually be better than the live action product.

 

[x-fan]

Apples and oranges, Michael Bay(judging from what I've seen in leaked pictures and so forth) ruined the concept of Transformers. X1 and X2's changes weren't that big of a deal compared to the Transformers.

As a Transformers fan I am pissed how they changed Megatron, Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Starscream, and many others.

You got to see the X-Men in all their glory in X1 and X2. There's more to the X-Men than just action, there's more to the X-Men than colorful costumes, there's more to the X-Men than just cool visuals.

At the very heart of X-Men there's a human condition that calls for the audience to feel for the characters, to feel the emotion, and to actually relate to these particular characters. Believe it or not, X1 and X2 while not big on action, they had a great story that moved me to the point of tears quite a bit. But as far as Transformers is concerned, never did I think I'd see the day where Transformers:The Movie(Animated) could actually be better than the live action product.

and that is where we dont agree, i dont think you can't take a character like rogue and take away her past, she started as a villian and make her a scared teen. make wolverine without his past as well take away cykes leading abilities make storm a ...i dont lnow what they did to storm but it wasnt her. my point is x-men have never been on the screen as far as im concerned and the trannsformers that those fans want will not be either. were the movies good yes but were they good x-men movies no they werent. i dont care about the apple orange difference of the two movies im talking about the fans and for some of us we were not given what we wanted we got and are getting hollywood reimagining not adaptions. and it seems to me you are the bigger transformer fan and maybe i might be the bigger x-men fan cause these changes bothered me alot more than the transformer changes did and visa versa...

 

[NateGray]

I have read the comics, watched the animated series, and have been an X-Men fan since I was 7 years old son, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying that EVERY change they made was faithful to the comics. But to say those changes to Jean and so forth ruined the movie, is nothing more than a load of bull. No one ever said Jean was a genius, but to say she wasn't intelligent or making her into a doctor butchered her character is another bull**** lie.

Her being a telepathic she could find out things that other people only dream of finding out.

But if you want to get on Singer about Beast and so forth, then blame Fox for screwing him over in that department. I remember him saying he wanted to include Beast as an introductory character in X1, and in his blue form that we know him as in X2, and guess what son? Fox screwed him over with the budget so that he couldn't include Beast earlier on in the story.

So in actuality he had to do something and while Jean wasn't and isn't a doctor in the comics, it didn't make me pissed off or feel as though the movie was ruined over a small change.

I highly suggest you watch the deleted scenes of Cyclops. I was disappointed they deleted them from the actual movie, but it shows Cyclops in his true bad ass leader form and not taking **** from anyone.

Who's say Cyclops listened to Nsync? Just because it was in his cd compartment doesn't mean he was listening to it, because for all we know Jean maybe listening to them. But seriously, I believe Singer included that due to the fact that Nsync was huge during that year and were everywhere at the time.

First off I got your boy right here son considering I am 15+ years older than you little boy.
Second you have no f--ing clue about the comics if you are still arguing there were in any way shape of form like there comic book counter parts get it little boy and we will not even get into how little you actually know about them from your supposed reading them vs my actually HAVING THE COMICS.
I know FOX had a huge say in what he was allowed to do and have said so and even said just like Ratner he would have had none had he stayed.

Yeh a telepathic can find out lots of stuff but to say that means its ok to make her a doctor is a huge stretch spanky especially considering she is a cheerleader in TAS and she has never been portrayed as nearly that intelligent no matter how you try to spin it.

Hmm who cut those cyclops scenes would it be maybe Singer????

So I go back to my read the comics around the time and tell me they are even remotly like there movie counter parts I have the issues from those years and I am telling you they are barley like them at all, if you don't believe me fine pick them up and READ them yourself smartass.

 

[X-Maniac]

Beast wasn't in the first two movies. Someone had to take his place. And even in X3 we don't get to see his scientist side. He's more of a politician who can quote lots of things rather than the genius we've known him to be who uses brains as well as muscle to save the day.

Regarding Moira, I'm sorry but that wouldn't work. It's never been established what Moira's background and roles are, so its open to interpretation. We will never know what her character's story is except for someone in a labcoat that appears in 3 scenes, two of which are essentially cameos to give us eye candy.

I have no problem with Jean being portrayed as a doctor / researcher. In fact I consider that a brilliant part by the writers as it instantly gives her a much needed and interesting background and boost to her character's strength. She's no longer just another telepath or just another pilot but has something very useful to contrubite to her team and to the cause.

Jean's portrayal as a doctor/researcher works within the movies as an alternate version of events - but, most importantly, it was engineered in the movies to allow her to come into contact with Wolverine, thus setting up the love triangle that many have come to hate. Personally, I would have preferred to see Beast (a human version if they hadn't got the time or funds for the make-up/prosthetics) or Moira in the doctor role. It would have 'felt' more accurate to the source material.

Agreed. Either way, she took a sudden nosedive in X3 and for selfish, shallow reasons.

Her 'nosedive' in X3 is a debatable thing. In X2 she started to gain confidence (draining Pyro's power at the Drake house, wanting to tackle Magneto on the jet), then she reverted to Miss Insecure when she couldn't fasten her belt on the jet and when she was clinging on to the controls of the jet at the end of the movie. The depiction of Rogue was somewhat inconsistent. And in X1 it really bugs me that she calls herself Rogue when she meets Wolverine, using a codename for no real reason that could make sense to the normal viewer. (The prequel adds in a lot of backstory between her running away and meeting Wolverine, but nevertheless...). The name Rogue is presumably because she is a 'thief' (of people's powers) or because she is a 'vagrant' on the run or because she shows deviation from the norm (all definitions of the word 'rogue'. But it was never explained in the movies.

For her to take that cure makes some kind of sense for someone portrayed as having a disadvantageous power, especially when it came to relationships.

But, outside the movie's own world, Rogue has largely been inaccurate since Day One. These sci-fi mutations are the next step in evolution, they enable these people to survive. If there is another movie, this aspect must be developed. Magneto is right - mutants are the 'cure' for mankind, they are the next step, the ones with the power to survive because their powers give them advantages. Her power - to drain the powers or memories or strength of anyone who is a threat to her - is an advantage. It makes her literally untouchable. Singer and his writers are largely to blame for creating this weak version of the character. They didn't understand the whole theme of these mutants being an advanced (sub-)species.

Sadly, X3 continued along this path for Rogue... perhaps partly because of her limited availability for filming. Although what happened to the character works within the movieworld's own framework, it does reveal a misunderstanding of the character and the nature of these mutations.

 

[x-fan]

so maniac if they made another movie would you perferr a restart that gave a more faith redition to the comics or another in the vain we are already getting??

 

[X-Maniac]

so maniac if they made another movie would you perferr a restart that gave a more faith redition to the comics or another in the vain we are already getting??

Great question. I'm brimming over with ideas as to how I'd do a further movie with much greater respect for the source material and for character accuracy.

Let me say that I loved all three X-Men movies. They are all great movies, but they are not as accurate to the X-Men mythology as they could have been. All the writers, both directors, have done brilliant things and some disappointing things too. We need a 'specialist' director who is a total comicbook geek.

If there were another movie I would create a plot (and already have done in my head - are you listening Fox!!!???) that 'fixed' certain characters. Rogue would get her powers back and be taught to see them as an advantage (people should fear her, she shouldn't be the one full of fear and doubt), Storm would get an origin scene (visually or in dialogue) and a broader use of powers, Colossus would get much more characterisation, Jubilee would finally get her moments, Gambit would appear along with other new characters.

The only doubts i have are over Xavier, Cyclops and Phoenix - I would love to bring them all back, but it would be difficult - the general public and the critics might feel cheated if all the tragedy that drove X3 was 'undone'.

I would give Magneto his powers back eventually (I've thought of ways to go about that in a believable and accurate way) but probably not make him the main villain.

 

[x-fan]

if you read astonishing x-men you know the man for the job already. thing is with rogue is she also gets all the memories of the person she is in contact with, so she might get traumatised grabbing certain people, that is why her other comic powers make her a better team player. i dont think i would want to grab someone like sabertooh and get to see some of the things he has done not twice anyway

 

[*Dark_Phoenix*]

After seeing what singer did to superman are you guys still upset he didnt direct X3?

jajaja he did screw , right? i dont know i think that we deserved to have him end the trilogy but maybe it wouldnt have big differences, so im just glad he screw superman, and that X3 did more boxoffice

 

[PhoenixRisen]

they could have given us the nonfurry beast but didnt and instead corrupted another character, and when beast came onto the scene his position had to be changed to polition instead of dactor said, thanks singer for giving me shadowrogue and jean mccoy broodybobby and on and on is it too much tohhope that when they finally do another x-men movie they give us a creative team that will indeed give us the x-men in all their glory and not more of the this watered down stuff they call the movie verse x-men??????????

I agree 100%. The Jean-as-doctor change is a major deviation from how she has been portrayed since the inception of the X-Men. It's not just adding the title "Dr." to her name and upping her intelligence. (I never felt she was stupid in the comics, she just had her own set of priorities, namely shopping, Scott Summers and the X-Men.) However, given what attaining the "Dr." title requires, it fundamentally changed the very heart and soul of who Jean Grey is and what her life is all about.

Same goes for Rogue. Singer made Rogue a symbol for people suffering from HIV/AIDS. The metaphor works given the nature of her powers, but he portrayed her as primarily a victim suffering from an unwanted mutation that could potentially kill someone she comes in physical contact with. So when she decided to get the cure in X3, it completely fit with they way Rogue was established in Singer's movieverse. Wanting to touch someone is not a cheap or shallow motivation for Rogue deciding to get cured, making physical and emotional connections with another person is one of our funtamental desires as human beings.

Same goes for Iceman. Singer made him a symbol for someone "coming out." I didn't think this metaphor was as effective and seemed forced, especially the "Have you ever tried not being a mutant?" line.

Singer nailed the X-Men theme of mutants as outsiders but totally missed the real message of the X-Men, that when people work as a team their differences become an advantage. That is why the lack of team battles in X1 and X2 is such a major deviation from the spirit of the comics.

I like all the X-Men movies, but in reality they are all XMINOs. X1 and X2 would more accurately be called "Bryan Singer's X-Men." Which is why I wouldn't have minded seeing his version of X3 since the X-Men movies were really HIS vision of the X-Men. I love X3 but feel the creative team always had WWBD? in the back of their mind.

I would love to see a reboot directed by someone who places comic-book canon over their personal "vision." But really, if you are willing to accept these movies for what they are--Hollywood "interpretations"--they are all good movies. The anti- and pro-Singer divide is getting old; he left, it's over and done. I know the fans of Bryan Singer have had a painful summer seeing their hero knocked off the pedestal they placed him on, but their negavitiy, especially given the box-office results, is to be expected.

I think Bryan Singer should stay away from comic-book movies and direct movies like his Harvey Milk project. I think he is better suited to directing introspective dramas than he is to directing superhero movies.

 

[tonytr1687]

I agree 100%. The Jean-as-doctor change is a major deviation from how she has been portrayed since the inception of the X-Men. It's not just adding the title "Dr." to her name and upping her intelligence. (I never felt she was stupid in the comics, she just had her own set of priorities, namely shopping, Scott Summers and the X-Men.) However, given what attaining the "Dr." title requires, it fundamentally changed the very heart and soul of who Jean Grey is and what her life is all about.

Same goes for Rogue. Singer made Rogue a symbol for people suffering from HIV/AIDS. The metaphor works given the nature of her powers, but he portrayed her as primarily a victim suffering from an unwanted mutation that could potentially kill someone she comes in physical contact with. So when she decided to get the cure in X3, it completely fit with they way Rogue was established in Singer's movieverse. Wanting to touch someone is not a cheap or shallow motivation for Rogue deciding to get cured, making physical and emotional connections with another person is one of our funtamental desires as human beings.

Same goes for Iceman. Singer made him a symbol for someone "coming out." I didn't think this metaphor was as effective and seemed forced, especially the "Have you ever tried not being a mutant?" line.

Singer nailed the X-Men theme of mutants as outsiders but totally missed the real message of the X-Men, that when people work as a team their differences become an advantage. That is why the lack of team battles in X1 and X2 is such a major deviation from the spirit of the comics.

I like all the X-Men movies, but in reality they are all XMINOs. X1 and X2 would more accurately be called "Bryan Singer's X-Men." Which is why I wouldn't have minded seeing his version of X3 since the X-Men movies were really HIS vision of the X-Men. I love X3 but feel the creative team always had WWBD? in the back of their mind.

I would love to see a reboot directed by someone who places comic-book canon over their personal "vision." But really, if you are willing to accept these movies for what they are--Hollywood "interpretations"--they are all good movies. The anti- and pro-Singer divide is getting old; he left, it's over and done. I know the fans of Bryan Singer have had a painful summer seeing their hero knocked off the pedestal they placed him on, but their negavitiy, especially given the box-office results, is to be expected.

I think Bryan Singer should stay away from comic-book movies and direct movies like his Harvey Milk project. I think he is better suited to directing introspective dramas than he is to directing superhero movies.

Ratner screwed up the material just as much as Singer. The difference is Singer still managed to create good movies out of his "changes."

 

[*Dark_Phoenix*]

i just think is a different point of you and you got to admit that the climax on the third was much alike to the comic that the fist two. I dont think Ratner change everything, i think the concept it will be the same.

 

[thegameq]

see this is how the transformer fans feel about the changes being made to their beloved favorites except here the majority say ohhh that would look dumb if done from the books, or the changes are fine cause they couldnt get the budget ect... i feel sorry for those fans cause as a x-men fan i never got them on screen just like those guys over on the transformer boards are getting hammered

You know what the worst part is? Some of the changes are being made just for the sake of change? Much like X-men there is no real excuse for not following the source material. The only real reason these studios and directors don't follow the source material is because a)they don't care about the source material the way we do--they aren't fans. Thank goodness for Raimi. I shudder to think what an unfamiliar would have done to Spider-man. Probably given him rubber body armor and ninja claws to climb. Then use the "realism" excuse to justify it. b)following thew source material closely means expensive sfx (DUH! IT IS A COMICBOOK MOVIE! WHAT DID YOU THINK YOU GOT THE RIGHTS TO, ANOTHER COP/DETECTIVE STORY?), thus using the first reason becomes much more justifiable. c)they simply don't want to. See ego.

At least the new GR movie looks promising. It looks like they're taking the Raimi approach; comicbook fantasy.

 

[x-fan]

see some actually liked X3 more than the other two because it was more of a comic movie not everyone hated it, ratner didnt mess up anything anymore than singer, notice i dont want either to do a x-men movie i want someone that understands them like joss whedon

 

[x-fan]

im tired of all the realism being pushed in movies cant we still have some fantasy and still enjoy a movie i want to escape the real world when i go to a movie

 

[LastSunrise1981]

im tired of all the realism being pushed in movies cant we still have some fantasy and still enjoy a movie i want to escape the real world when i go to a movie

Realism is very important my friend. I think it's very important to add a sense of realism to films like Batman, X-Men, and even Lord of the Rings. It helps the audience relate to those particular characters and care about them at the same time.

What is cool and fantastic in the comics or an animated series, may not translate well on the screen due to how silly it could possibly look.

I escaped the real world watching Batman Begins, X1 and X2, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man 1 and 2, and so forth. Truthfully even with realism there's still a lot of fantasy in these films too. There's nothing realistic about mutants with claws, shooting beams from their eyes, reading minds, or being able to manipulate metal.

Bottom line, realism adds a necessary sense of emotion that can make a film great.

 

[x-fan]

but sometimes they go overboard

 

[x-fan]

in alot of ways x-men took itself to seriously it could have been a touch lighter, say using iceman's humor to an advantage instead of removing it completely, costumes could have worked they did for f4 i know lighter movie beside the point if the story treats itself with acceptance then the audience will also the leather outfits didnt look any less campy than would have f4 type spandex

no not yellow and blue please black and gold would have been tasteful

 

[thegameq]

Apples and oranges, Michael Bay(judging from what I've seen in leaked pictures and so forth) ruined the concept of Transformers. X1 and X2's changes weren't that big of a deal compared to the Transformers.

As a Transformers fan I am pissed how they changed Megatron, Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Starscream, and many others.

You got to see the X-Men in all their glory in X1 and X2. There's more to the X-Men than just action, there's more to the X-Men than colorful costumes, there's more to the X-Men than just cool visuals.

At the very heart of X-Men there's a human condition that calls for the audience to feel for the characters, to feel the emotion, and to actually relate to these particular characters. Believe it or not, X1 and X2 while not big on action, they had a great story that moved me to the point of tears quite a bit.

Is that all you see when you read an X-men comicbook or see the cartoon? Everyone and their mother knows the X-men is a social commentary. We don't have to have it beaten to death. But moreso that's not all the comicbook is about. X-men is great scifi/fantasy storytelling--not just the whole bias/prejudice angle.

I often hear people on these boards constantly saying that the X-men are more than just their costumes and superpowers, and this is 100% true. But the X-men are also much more than just a social commentary. The problem with many is that they want THEIR PERSONAL X-men rather than the comicbook most of us have been reading for years and (for some stupid reason--us silly fans) were expecting and hoping to finally see come to life on the big screen.

What were we foolish fans thinking?

Than God for Raimi and the Spider-man films. No their not perfect (as I know someone will rush to point out), but they are comicbook movies that aren't trying to be something the source material was never meant to be.

Comicbook fantasy, that's all....pure and simple. Is it really so difficult to fathom?

 

[thegameq]

I agree 100%. The Jean-as-doctor change is a major deviation from how she has been portrayed since the inception of the X-Men. It's not just adding the title "Dr." to her name and upping her intelligence. (I never felt she was stupid in the comics, she just had her own set of priorities, namely shopping, Scott Summers and the X-Men.) However, given what attaining the "Dr." title requires, it fundamentally changed the very heart and soul of who Jean Grey is and what her life is all about.

Same goes for Rogue. Singer made Rogue a symbol for people suffering from HIV/AIDS. The metaphor works given the nature of her powers, but he portrayed her as primarily a victim suffering from an unwanted mutation that could potentially kill someone she comes in physical contact with. So when she decided to get the cure in X3, it completely fit with they way Rogue was established in Singer's movieverse. Wanting to touch someone is not a cheap or shallow motivation for Rogue deciding to get cured, making physical and emotional connections with another person is one of our funtamental desires as human beings.

Same goes for Iceman. Singer made him a symbol for someone "coming out." I didn't think this metaphor was as effective and seemed forced, especially the "Have you ever tried not being a mutant?" line.

Singer nailed the X-Men theme of mutants as outsiders but totally missed the real message of the X-Men, that when people work as a team their differences become an advantage. That is why the lack of team battles in X1 and X2 is such a major deviation from the spirit of the comics.

I like all the X-Men movies, but in reality they are all XMINOs. X1 and X2 would more accurately be called "Bryan Singer's X-Men." Which is why I wouldn't have minded seeing his version of X3 since the X-Men movies were really HIS vision of the X-Men. I love X3 but feel the creative team always had WWBD? in the back of their mind.

I would love to see a reboot directed by someone who places comic-book canon over their personal "vision." But really, if you are willing to accept these movies for what they are--Hollywood "interpretations"--they are all good movies. The anti- and pro-Singer divide is getting old; he left, it's over and done. I know the fans of Bryan Singer have had a painful summer seeing their hero knocked off the pedestal they placed him on, but their negavitiy, especially given the box-office results, is to be expected.

I think Bryan Singer should stay away from comic-book movies and direct movies like his Harvey Milk project. I think he is better suited to directing introspective dramas than he is to directing superhero movies.

Good post.

 

[x-fan]

i hope marvel takes back this property and gives it a good reatment like they plan on going with the hulk

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Is that all you see when you read an X-men comicbook or see the cartoon? Everyone and their mother knows the X-men is a social commentary. We don't have to have it beaten to death. But moreso that's not all the comicbook is about. X-men is great scifi/fantasy storytelling--not just the whole bias/prejudice angle.

I often hear people on these boards constantly saying that the X-men are more than just their costumes and superpowers, and this is 100% true. But the X-men are also much more than just a social commentary. The problem with many is that they want THEIR PERSONAL X-men rather than the comicbook most of us have been reading for years and (for some stupid reason--us silly fans) were expecting and hoping to finally see come to life on the big screen.

What were we foolish fans thinking?

Than God for Raimi and the Spider-man films. No their not perfect (as I know someone will rush to point out), but they are comicbook movies that aren't trying to be something the source material was never meant to be.

Comicbook fantasy, that's all....pure and simple. Is it really so difficult to fathom?

Well, you got to see your comic book fantasy come to life in X3. So why are you complaining? You got to see endless wall to wall action with no plot, no character development, and awesome visuals. So you should be happy.

Just so you know, Spider-Man 1 and 2 have a lot of aspects of realism involved and quite a few people thought they were boring. But I love both movies and really respect what Raimi has done with them.

You're right, they're not perfect. But you have some fans who are whining about Peter's "emo" look, the organic webshooters, the symbiote having the Spider-Man lines, Harry not donning the Goblin costume, Gwen being in SM3, Venom being in SM3, and so forth. So there's a lot of complaining that is going around in terms of Spider-Man my friend.

I know you're a newbie that is trying to establish himself, but were you around when Spider-Man 1 and 2 were released? You had fans who were PISSED that he wasn't making any wisecracks through the movie. As you and I know, part of Spider-Man's appeal is his ability to talk trash even when he's getting his ass handed to him, however, some were just absolutely pissed off because he wasn't running off his mouth against GG or Doc Ock.

 

[x-fan]

i was around and still wish he could be alittle more wise cracking like johnny storm in f4...but i didnt say i wanted all action no story, i want the comic characters portrayed the way they are in the books, i want the books brought as closely as possible to the screen. spidey came close and it is well recieved. X1 and X2 were accepted by many they are good movies not good x-men movies

 

[thegameq]

Well, you got to see your comic book fantasy come to life in X3. So why are you complaining? You got to see endless wall to wall action with no plot, no character development, and awesome visuals. So you should be happy.

Just so you know, Spider-Man 1 and 2 have a lot of aspects of realism involved and quite a few people thought they were boring. But I love both movies and really respect what Raimi has done with them.

You're right, they're not perfect. But you have some fans who are whining about Peter's "emo" look, the organic webshooters, the symbiote having the Spider-Man lines, Harry not donning the Goblin costume, Gwen being in SM3, Venom being in SM3, and so forth. So there's a lot of complaining that is going around in terms of Spider-Man my friend.

I know you're a newbie that is trying to establish himself, but were you around when Spider-Man 1 and 2 were released? You had fans who were PISSED that he wasn't making any wisecracks through the movie. As you and I know, part of Spider-Man's appeal is his ability to talk trash even when he's getting his ass handed to him, however, some were just absolutely pissed off because he wasn't running off his mouth against GG or Doc Ock.

What's with the hostility? Relax man, I wasn't attacking you or your post? It was just a question.

.....anyway....

X3 wasn't really better or much worse than the previous films. IT gave the people looking for an action-fest what they wanted. No, I didn't want an actionfest. Like most fans of the comicbook we simply wanted a great scifi/fantasy film adaptation of the comicbook.

Raimi's films are so widely accepted (despite the flaws) because much like LOTR and the Potter films, they "are" the source material. It is the comicbook. Everyone knows you're not getting a verbatim translation of any written story to the big screen (that shouldn't even have to be mentioned on knowledgeable fan-based boards like SHH). Furthermore, the high respect for the source material is evident in such films. Singer may have had respect for the source material--but not enough knowledge of the source material to respect it the same way the directors of the above films did their projects. It shows--and not just in these types of films, with any film. you can see the passion, knowledge and respect any director has for his material in his work. It shows. Look at the difference between what Singer did for SR and the X-films. SR may not have been what the fans wanted (what a surprise.) but Singer was clearly much more knowledgeable and passionate about the Donner film than the X-films. Why? He wasn't a fan of the X-men to begin with. To add insult to injury, lack of knowledge and respect is what caused him to "add-lib" the X-men, so to speak.

Anyway, I could go on and on and I don't have the time or patience frankly.

Also, what the hell the does a post count have to do with anything? Does it equate to penis size or something? OH MY GOD I SAID PENIS ON SHH!

LOL.

Careful dude, your ego is showing when you make comments like that. Have a good and safe weekend all.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Not to turn into TNC or anything...

But this post is really getting a lot of 's from me...

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

he said Penis...omg. lol