Singers Vision Of Xmen 3?

^ Actually skruloos I completely understand this particular tool of writing. And I have always understood the problems with the concept of "book to movie" adaptation and the time limitations (not to mention effective plot building and story progression). I was just taking a pot-shot at Guard for his joke, he almost insinuates that all the request for backstories on a story character is completely ridiculous and assinine. That writers only do this "spelling out" of every reasoning and persona because they think their readers are a bunch of 2 year olds; NOT because it is an effective and necessary means of storytelling.
 
Remember also, guys, that a Storm origin scene WAS storyboarded and scripted for X1 and then moved to X2, but was cut both times. Scenes of Storm flying at the dam were filmed but also cut.

Simon Kinberg, co-writer of X3, says Storm did little more in X2 except 'exposition and flying the plane'. (Okay, he failed to mention the swarm of tornadoes, and the Cerebro icestorm... but he evidently also perceived gaps in the character depiction)

Zak Penn, co-writer of X3 with Kinberg and co-writer of X2 with David Hayter, said Storm had been 'under-utilised and ill-defined.'

Discuss!
 
:rolleyes: Right... But it's just the mass audience poor interpretations and fanboy's terrible comic book taste that caused these two WRITERS to make these statements and conclusions about the characterization of storm.
 
Angry Sentinel said:
:rolleyes: Right... But it's just the mass audience poor interpretations and fanboy's terrible comic book taste that caused these two WRITERS to make these statements and conclusions about the characterization of storm.

Can you elaborate on 'mass audience poor interpretations'... and on 'fanboys' terrible comic book taste'...? I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
 
X-Maniac said:
Can you elaborate on 'mass audience poor interpretations'... and on 'fanboys' terrible comic book taste'...? I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
I'm talking about the "reasonings" that Guard, and to a lesser extent Bosef have been stating for the reasons why OUR concerns with characterizations are 'wrong'.

The Guard keeps stating that it's like Prego... and It's in there. The only problem is our own perception doesnt allow for us to see it correctly, much less interpret it. And Bosef has somewhat shared his view by stating that it is out of our own personal comic book fanboy desires that we are requesting certain things. That these things weren't altogether necessary for the film.

But you post comments and ideas expressed by the writers themselves that seems to support our reasonings and further underline the fact that certain elements werent present(enough), and that they feel that they should be included. So my post was to be sarcastic to their remarks, not your post. I was simply poking back at them, in an attempt to say... OK, the writers themselves are saying it, now what's your excuse?
 
Ya know, maybe the X-movies need cartoons like the newer Star Wars movies? I think if done right they could be very helpful in explaining where other characters are and it MIGHT satisfy some of us fanboys/girls, whose fav X-Men are under used or not at all...

Some possibilities could be a Nightcrawler story to explain why he's not in X3. and this could also set up the newer characters that are just cameos or aren't getting alot of screen time...It might be considered a cop out but it could be useful if dne right meaning that they add to the movies and not make them essential to watch to understand the movies. Sorry if someone metioned this already///
 
IcemanX said:
Ya know, maybe the X-movies need cartoons like the newer Star Wars movies? I think if done right they could be very helpful in explaining where other characters are and it MIGHT satisfy some of us fanboys/girls, whose fav X-Men are under used or not at all...

Some possibilities could be a Nightcrawler story to explain why he's not in X3. and this could also set up the newer characters that are just cameos or aren't getting alot of screen time...It might be considered a cop out but it could be useful if dne right meaning that they add to the movies and not make them essential to watch to understand the movies. Sorry if someone metioned this already///
were getting a video game to do that... much like how the matrix movies had a game to bridge the gap
 
Must have missed it the 30 times I watch it. -Waits for Guard's witty and sarcastic essay reply-
I don't need to be sarcastic. I'm through being sarcastic about such obvious aspects of these films. Storm, there's a bit more of a gray area. Cyclops, there is not. I'm just going to state what's onscreen, and let what David Hayter, Michael Doughtery, Dan Harris and Bryan Singer put out there prove my point.
-Who does Xavier send out on important missions? Cyclops and Storm. They are clearly leadership figures. The first time we see Cyclops, he is in what could be termed a very tense situation. Does he panic? Does he rush himself? Hell no. He is cool as a cucumber, and there's not a wasted movement in his actions. Without a word, he steps in front of Storm (this is significant). He takes care of rescuing Rogue and Logan from the camper quickly and efficiently, and also precisely. This is one of the hallmarks of a leader, the ability to be cool in a crisis, to think strategically and efficiently. It is also one of Cyclops' comic book trademarks.
-When Cyclops is introduced to Logan, he politely extends his hand. When Logan doesn't take it, he remains polite, and also humble when Xavier talks about how he saved Logan's life. Politeness is a leadership quality, as pretty much any employer will tell you. When Logan "threatens him" physically, Cyclops doesn't appear the least bit rattled, or intimidated. Another leadership quality.
-Xavier talks about how Cyclops was one of his first students, and how he now helps students at the X-Mansion. Mentoring is a leadership quality. We see Cyclops and Jean practicing, refining their powers. Clearly they want to become more skilled, and keep sharp. This is another leadership quality.
-In the train station, Cyclops is waiting for Storm, and hears breaking glass. The second he does, he turns. He rushes to her aide, taking care not to attract too much attention to himself. This fast reaction? You guessed it. A leadership quality.
-It is Cyclops who figures out why Magneto wants Rogue. Wolverine voices the beginnings of Cyclops' complete thought, but it's clearly Cyclops who comes up with the idea. Thinking outside the box: leadership quality.
-When Xavier is in a coma, what does Cyclops ay to him? "If anything happens, I'll take care of them". Cyclops expresses obvious concern for his mentor and expresses a desire to care for the X-Men and the students of the school. This desire to protect and guide others is also a hallmark of a leader.
-Cyclops attempts to keep Wolverine from going along with the X-Men, and for good reason. Wolverine, to that point, has been reckless and voilatile. A leader has to be on the lookout for these kinds of situations.
-Cyclops plans and explains the strategy for the X-Men's approach to Liberty Island. "We can insert here at the George Washington Bridge. Come around the bank, just off of Manhattan, we land on the far side of Liberty Island...here." He has planned the mission. He is the leader. Cyclops also pilots the jet. Clearly in charge. During the flight, he says "Storm, some cover, please" A strategic order, and one that makes good sense in order to camoflauge their approach. One imagines that the ability to fly a supersonic jet well might be considered a leadership skill.
-On Liberty Island, who leads them up over the wall? Cyclops. Who is the one to spot that the torch houses the machine? Cyclops. Who leads them forward into the statue? Cyclops. Cyclops is also leading when they are inside the statue.-
-When the door closes on the X-Men, Cyclops doesn't take long to decide to blow it open. "All right back up, back up". Another strategic order.
-Cyclops comes across another situation that requires quick thinking when he has to break Jean out of that slime via his visor. He tries to get it off without resorting to using his visor, first. Whhen he has to do so, he stays calm and collected, and is precise with his power usage. As Storm confronts Toad, Cyclops seems to be providing Jean with some kind of medical care.
-Knowing Mystique was in there, Cyclops demands Wolverine prove that he's the real Wolverine. Taking no chances.
-Ascending the stairs of Liberty, it is again Cyclops who takes the lead.
-With his visor gone and Wolverine incapacitated, Cyclops realizes their chances to stop Magneto are now limited. He acts quickly. "Storm. Fry him." Almost no hesitation. A direct order. Was it the right decision? Who knows. Had Storm fried Magneto, while the X-Men might have died or suffered injury, Magneto would not have been able to power the machine, and the day would have been saved, even if the X-Men died. Regardless, Cyclops is again giving orders here.
-After being freed, Cyclops refuses Wolverine's ideas about just shooting the machine because it could kill Rogue. He seeks an alternative plan, readily offering himself. "Storm, can you get me up there?" When Wolverine offers to go and let Cyclops hang back for one last shot, Cyclops takes a grsnd total of about a second and a half to make the call. "All right, do it." An order. He also tells Jean to use her own power to try to steady Wolverine on his way up.
-Despite Jean's urging to wait, It is Cyclops who makes the call on his own to take out Magneto via optic blast. "I have a shot. I'm taking him." The ability to make your own split second decisions in a crisis is another hallmark of leadership.
-That's in X-MEN. In X2, who does Xavier trust to take him to Magneto? Cyclops. Cyclops is clearly his number one guy.
-At the end of X2, "No! We're not leaving! Lower the ramp!" More orders. This is coming from a man accustomed to giving them.
Now, they may not have portrayed him as the particular KIND of leader you wanted to see. But to say he was not clearly established as a leader with leadership qualities is absurd. So, once again, WHY do you think he hasn't been shown as a leader? Specific examples, please. Not "Because that's how I feel". WHY do you feel that way?
Everytime I watch X-Men 1, I liked the way they protrayed Cyclops in it. Without exactly saying it or showing it, you get the feel he's the leader. It's just a natural thing protrayed on film. Wolverine's obviously one of the main characters, but you still get the sense Cyclops is the man in charge. Even in the scenes he's in in X2, when Jean's helping Cyke and he asks who Nightcrawler is, you get that demanding and leadership feel off of him like "Out of the way, I'm in charge here" If Cyke does come back at the final battle of X3, I'm betting money we'll get that same thing again.
Exactly. One of the main reasons I can't wait for X3.
I guess a better way I should have worded it was "emotional support". Of course we see her fighting the good fight, because we know she's an X-Man, and that's what X-Men do. All of these things also have large scale consequences involved if nobody is there to stop them.
Fair enough. There isn't a whole lot of that in X-MEN or X2, but there's not a whole lot of need for it, either, given the story. I mean, there was never really a point where that was needed. Logan, Rogue, where very loner-type characters (though wasn't there a deleted scene with Storm talking to Rogue in X-MEN?). When there was, however, a need for this emotional support, when Senator Kelly was afraid, Storm does provide some emotional support by coming to his side and talking to him as he dies. And you can easily picture this woman giving support to her students, to Jean, Cyclops, even Wolverine. We just don't see those scenes. So no, there wasn't a lot of it, but I don't think the way she was portrayed in the film ever suggests she wouldn't be that type of person.

As with the above examples, I see this as a "greater consequence" type action. She tried to get Wolverine to see what was important beyond himself because the X-Men could definatley use his help in the fight against Magneto. Yes, for a worthwhile cause, to save the world leaders, and Rogue. But I didn't view it as a "Logan, I'm here for you" type moment
And with Kelly? Remember, this is a man who hated mutants, who spearheaded an essentially anti-mutant campaign.I see her actions toward Kelly as very merciful and forgiving, in not letting him believe he's alone in how he feels in terms of "fear". Storm mirrors Kelly's own thoughts, it seems.
And let me just say this. Do I think movie Storm is accurate to comic book Storm? No, I don't.
I don't think she was accurate, either. But would you at least say several important aspects of her comic book character appear in the film in some capacity?

But also, I do believe that her movie version is developed, and is given motivation.
Finally, someone sane.
GENERALLY speaking, MANY comic book fans, yes.
Ok. Just making sure that was what you meant.
The stuff that I mentioned above that I felt was lacking from her character; the emotional support.
I'll agree, to a point, but with so many characters and the story demands, there's just not a whole lot of time to keep on reinforcing this aspect, and I don't think it's omission can be considered a minus. It's just somethng that hasn't been shown. However, from what IS shown, it's not unreasonable to imagine this character doing something like that. I mean, mostly all of the "emotional support" moments in the film come via Storm. The spiritual stuff mostly comes from Xavier, and the romantic/friendship stuff comes from Cyclops and Jean's scenes.
But she does come off sounding like borderline Magneto.

Senator Kelly: Do you hate humans?

Storm: Sometimes
.
How does that make her borderline Magneto? Magneto hates humans ALL the time. And wants them dead, or changed to be like him. Storm's lines don't seem that odd to me, I mean, what human being DOESN'T hate or fear his fellow man "sometimes"?

That sounds close to something Magneto might say.
Not really. Here is what Magneto says in regard to his feelings on humans and mutants:
"We are the future, Charles. Not them. They no longer matter."
"There is no tolerance. No peace. Not here, or anywhere else."[/quote]
That's not anything close to what Storm is saying characterwise. Not remotely. It's lightyears away. Storm has never implied humans don't matter, or are lesser beings. She has only admitted that she hates and fears them sometimes. What human being can't say that? But most humans don't want to kill everyone who isn't like them, or make them conform. There's a world of difference. It's not even borderline.

From Storm, I would expect something along the lines of "No, I don't hate humans" and maybe explain why she fears them.
To a complete stranger who is dying? Talk about forced exposition.
But even the first time I saw X-Men and I was too stoked to care about perfect interpretations because it was an X-Men movie, I was kind of taken aback by her "sometimes" response. I expected something more "caring" from her, than "sometimes".
"Sometimes" if nothing else, is honest. "Real". And admitting it, that's caring about him in a way. Because it's allowing Kelly to see that mutants are like him in many ways. They too may have prejudices based on fear.
I can see how a character like that, who is a mutant, and would suffer from persecution, would think like that. But that line of thinking is not what I expect from Storm. I would expect a character like Storm to realize that these people are just ignorant, uninformed, and "smack them in the head with a frying pan" to make them understand (of course that's in apostrophes because it's metaphorical, not literal)
A character as empathic as Storm has been shown to be in the comics, and to some extent, the movies, would almost HAVE to carry anger at the state of the world. It's almost unavoidable for the kind of person she is not to have those things anger her.
Where have we really seen an instance of her not willing to take crap from anyone?
WOLVERINE: "Join the team, be an X-Man? So far you've all done a bang up job."
Does she sit back? Hell no.
STORM: "Then help us. Fight with us!"
When Toad has kicked the crap out of her? What does she do? She calls down the lightning.
When Sabertooth is assaulting her, what does she do? She calls down the lightning.
When Nightcrawler won't come out after being asked, what does she do? She calls down the lightning.
It may just be my interpretation, but I don't really see her interaction with Senator Kelly as forgiving. Yes, the man here is on his death bed, and won't live long enough to make a difference politically, but she has a perfect oppourtunity here to try to ease an anti-mutant man's mind about the subject of mutants.
She does. She shows him that she, and by extension, mutants, are very similar to him in fearing others. This is the last piece of "understanding" he reaches before he dies.
And frankly, easing the man's mind about mutants is something that Charles Xavier has already done/tried to do. So why have two characters use the exact same plot point in the span of about three minutes?
But instead, when he asks if she hates humans, she says "sometimes".
What person who is not "normal" would not reply "sometimes" to that question. Honestly. This is a human truth, really.
My take on Storm would have had her try to comfort him towards the subject of mutants, and try to make him realize, in his last few moments alive, that mutants don't have to be dangerous and hateful, but rather peaceful, forgiving people. In my opinion, that was a missed oppourtunity to define Storm's character.
She seemed pretty peaceful and open, at least there. What's she supposed to do, say "I forgive you, Senator"? That's not her place. But in simply being there with him, and talking to him openly about her hate and fear aspects, she is touching him in a way that no mutants probably have.
First, she does express anger towards humans, in the exchange that I've quoted about twice already between her and Senator Kelly.
But she does it relucantly. And she doesn't get angry with Kelly himself. She is simply open and honest with him. She says what she says in a way that makes it clear that mutants and humans aren't so different in their fear of each other. This is a big deal.
 
Well, from her exchange with Nightcrawler, it can be interpreted that she does let it control her. "I gave up on pity a long time ago" "Sometimes anger can help you survive"

It CAN be interpreted that way, but that's one interpretation, and to me, that's reaching, because she says "sometimes anger can help you survive". "Sometimes" does not mean "I always let it control me". "Sometimes" could easily mean "I use it sometimes to survive", as she did in the fight against Toad, for instance, when she needed the voilatile side of her powers and her nature to defeat him.

That exchange can easily be interpreted as her letting her anger get the best of her.
Or her using her anger as a force to drive her. You know, like normal people often do?
She later seemingly overcomes it, with her "I have faith in you" remark to Nightcrawler, to get him to teleport her inside of Cerebro, and maybe that is the growing point of her character in these films.
That's definitely one of them.

I'm not saying her anger isn't a valid motivation for fighting on Xavier's side, it very well could be. All I'm saying is that the anger motivation seems inaccurate for the character of Storm. From my interpretation of the character.
But anger, in the films, is clearly not her only motivation. Neither is fear. These may, and probably are not even her main motivations. It's never stated in a way that indicates it is a motivation, it's just an aspect of her film character. Latching onto this because it's the only duialogue she's had about her emotional state "sometimes" (in both cases) is not a way to define her character as someone who uses anger or fear to motivate herself. Admitting you sometimes fear and sometimes hate does not make anger and fear your main life motivations.
Since we rarely see her angry, and because we see more constructive behavior from her than destructive (or even destructive thoughts, of which we NEVER see any stated, as far as I can recall) I'd be willing to bet her main motivation is what it's always been: seeking an end to the war between humans and mutants, teaching others to deal with the conflict and guiding them as they grow, and preventing innocent casualities in the war.

As much as you supposedly "jest" here... it appears that you think this is a BAD thing (showing/revealing a backstory).
I think it's a bad thing when fanboys think it can just be tossed into a story and ignore that it must hold some relevance to the story, and also dismiss concerns about screentime, which are very real problems when it comes to telling the full or even partial or basic origins of fourteen characters.

If this is true, then why did we get any backstory at all?
Because you obviopusly have to have motivation for your major players. We didn't get much, even from Xavier, in the way of "backstory", just a couple of lines. Ditto Magneto's backstory. It was just a couple of lines and a single scene at the beginning of the franchise to make the villain's motivations seem more real and relevant.
Why Magneto?
Because your villain, if he's going to function as your arch villain in three straight films, needs to have a STRONG motivation as a character that goes beyond "pure evil".
Why Wolverine?
Because Wolverine's backstory is extremely interesting and unique as origins go, and even then, we have only seen bits and pieces of it. Much is still unknown.
Why Rogue?
We didn't see hardly any backstory from Rogue. We saw "story", as it progressed onscreen, because we were viewing the X-Men and the conflict between humans and mutants through and Wolverine's eyes as new members. Again, what backstory we saw from Rogue wasn't very involved or detailed.
Why the subtle hints at Xavier and Magnus' past relationship.
Because it's a major part of their character interaction. But again, only SUBTLE hints at it. No details. No information beyond "When I was young, I discovered I had powers. These are my powers. When I was young, Erik and I were friends, he grew angry and vengeful, and became Magneto".

Why should any writer use flashbacks and backstory to convey a characters motivations? Why bother to establish character persona at all?
I am not saying it should never be utilized. I'm saying now is a bad time to start, and so was X2. If it was going to be done, X-MEN was th etime to do it, and even then it might have hurt the flow of the film a bit, having several origin sequences that have little to do with each other and only really give the audience aspects can be assumed about a character from what Xavier says later on anyway.
Why should writers bother? Because if you can do so, can present a backstory, and focus on one or two characters, then good. Go for it. The writers did this with Bruce Wayne and Ra's Al Ghul in BATMAN BEGINS. Notice, hardly any info on Alfred's past, Lucious's past, Rachel's past, Falcone's past, etc, except the basic tidbits. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE has an origin for Superman, but only the basics for Lois, Luthor, etc. If they had been making an origin film featuring the first X-Men, I'd say go for it. But since it wasn't an origin film, and was a story based on an established team of X-Men recruiting new members, it doesn't fit real well.
And in an ensemble film like X-MEN, whether you all like it nor not, there just wasn't room in the story or the time to do "origins" with all the other characters. Even Wolverine only got "flashes". I have no problem with backstories. What I have a problem with is fans somehow believing that EVERY character can receive this treatment, or that one is somehow being "shafted" if one does and another doesn't. It's not possible, and it's not good cinema, that is, it detracts from good cinema if attempted, because it either takes the form of too damn many flashbacks, or far too much exposition, neither of which is very good writing or film.
The problem here is that you're not being very practical. We're working on a limited timeframe for each movie.
Exactly.

Also, as a writer, you make choices on what to focus on. You try to avoid exposition as much as possible because exposition stops the forward momentum of the story.
Exactly.
The plot stays inert unless you have something in the character's past directly tied to the plot events that occur in the present (which is not the case with most of the X-Men's origin). For a perfect example of this, watch the show Lost. The most interesting flashbacks are the ones that had the most impact on where the characters ended up on the Island. The other flashbacks that just reveal character motivations, while interesting, do not support the ongoing plot of the show. You couldn't add flashbacks for each character because they simply do not impact the plot that was being put forward by Singer. If you can come up with an all-encompassing plot that would require you to show each individuals flashback and make it relevant to the story without changing major details in each character's origin, I'd love to see it. Seriously.
So would I. I'm not saing it can't be done, but you end up with a far, far less interesting main story and much shallower villains and supporting characters and such.
Actually skruloos I completely understand this particular tool of writing. And I have always understood the problems with the concept of "book to movie" adaptation and the time limitations (not to mention effective plot building and story progression). I was just taking a pot-shot at Guard for his joke, he almost insinuates that all the request for backstories on a story character is completely ridiculous and assinine.
I have never once insinuated that. Find me proof that I have. Try. I'm all FOR backstories, if you're not making a film about 15 odd characters, and the backstories don't come at the expense of the main story. I have only ever insinuated that trying to give ALL the characters backstories or origins is not possible given the time and story constraints.
Simon Kinberg, co-writer of X3, says Storm did little more in X2 except 'exposition and flying the plane'. (Okay, he failed to mention the swarm of tornadoes, and the Cerebro icestorm... but he evidently also perceived gaps in the character depiction)
One hopes Simon Kinberg realizes WHY Storm didn't do much beyond what she did, and realizes that there are limitations to what he can do characterwise, and doesn't overcorrect with Storm in X3, depriving us of other characters and development.

Zak Penn, co-writer of X3 with Kinberg and co-writer of X2 with David Hayter, said Storm had been 'under-utilised and ill-defined.'
One hopes Zak Penn realizes the same thing.

I'm talking about the "reasonings" that Guard, and to a lesser extent Bosef have been stating for the reasons why OUR concerns with characterizations are 'wrong'.

I have never said your concerns with characterization are wrong. Some of them, yes, you're simply offbase, and completely missing half of what's there. The Storm stuff, no. Where many of you are wrong, in Storm's case, is to deny that some of her most important comic book aspects are there in the writing.

The Guard keeps stating that it's like Prego... and It's in there. The only problem is our own perception doesnt allow for us to see it correctly, much less interpret it.
Odd that when I state that, I also point out proof that it's there. It's the whole "sky is blue" argument.
But you post comments and ideas expressed by the writers themselves that seems to support our reasonings and further underline the fact that certain elements werent present(enough), and that they feel that they should be included. So my post was to be sarcastic to their remarks, not your post. I was simply poking back at them, in an attempt to say... OK, the writers themselves are saying it, now what's your excuse?
Excuse for what? No one said the characterization was perfect. Or that characters didn't deserve better. But failing to realize the limitations of this format is a fool's errand.
 
Well, from her exchange with Nightcrawler, it can be interpreted that she does let it control her. "I gave up on pity a long time ago" "Sometimes anger can help you survive"

It CAN be interpreted that way, but that's one interpretation, and to me, that's reaching, because she says "sometimes anger can help you survive". "Sometimes" does not mean "I always let it control me". "Sometimes" could easily mean "I use it sometimes to survive", as she did in the fight against Toad, for instance, when she needed the voilatile side of her powers and her nature to defeat him.

That exchange can easily be interpreted as her letting her anger get the best of her.
Or her using her anger as a force to drive her. You know, like normal people often do?
She later seemingly overcomes it, with her "I have faith in you" remark to Nightcrawler, to get him to teleport her inside of Cerebro, and maybe that is the growing point of her character in these films.
That's definitely one of them.

I'm not saying her anger isn't a valid motivation for fighting on Xavier's side, it very well could be. All I'm saying is that the anger motivation seems inaccurate for the character of Storm. From my interpretation of the character.
But anger, in the films, is clearly not her only motivation. Neither is fear. These may, and probably are not even her main motivations. It's never stated in a way that indicates it is a motivation, it's just an aspect of her film character. Latching onto this because it's the only duialogue she's had about her emotional state "sometimes" (in both cases) is not a way to define her character as someone who uses anger or fear to motivate herself. Admitting you sometimes fear and sometimes hate does not make anger and fear your main life motivations.
Since we rarely see her angry, and because we see more constructive behavior from her than destructive (or even destructive thoughts, of which we NEVER see any stated, as far as I can recall) I'd be willing to bet her main motivation is what it's always been: seeking an end to the war between humans and mutants, teaching others to deal with the conflict and guiding them as they grow, and preventing innocent casualities in the war.

As much as you supposedly "jest" here... it appears that you think this is a BAD thing (showing/revealing a backstory).
I think it's a bad thing when fanboys think it can just be tossed into a story and ignore that it must hold some relevance to the story, and also dismiss concerns about screentime, which are very real problems when it comes to telling the full or even partial or basic origins of fourteen characters.

If this is true, then why did we get any backstory at all?
Because you obviopusly have to have motivation for your major players. We didn't get much, even from Xavier, in the way of "backstory", just a couple of lines. Ditto Magneto's backstory. It was just a couple of lines and a single scene at the beginning of the franchise to make the villain's motivations seem more real and relevant.
Why Magneto?
Because your villain, if he's going to function as your arch villain in three straight films, needs to have a STRONG motivation as a character that goes beyond "pure evil".
Why Wolverine?
Because Wolverine's backstory is extremely interesting and unique as origins go, and even then, we have only seen bits and pieces of it. Much is still unknown.
Why Rogue?
We didn't see hardly any backstory from Rogue. We saw "story", as it progressed onscreen, because we were viewing the X-Men and the conflict between humans and mutants through and Wolverine's eyes as new members. Again, what backstory we saw from Rogue wasn't very involved or detailed.
Why the subtle hints at Xavier and Magnus' past relationship.
Because it's a major part of their character interaction. But again, only SUBTLE hints at it. No details. No information beyond "When I was young, I discovered I had powers. These are my powers. When I was young, Erik and I were friends, he grew angry and vengeful, and became Magneto".

Why should any writer use flashbacks and backstory to convey a characters motivations? Why bother to establish character persona at all?
I am not saying it should never be utilized. I'm saying now is a bad time to start, and so was X2. If it was going to be done, X-MEN was th etime to do it, and even then it might have hurt the flow of the film a bit, having several origin sequences that have little to do with each other and only really give the audience aspects can be assumed about a character from what Xavier says later on anyway.
Why should writers bother? Because if you can do so, can present a backstory, and focus on one or two characters, then good. Go for it. The writers did this with Bruce Wayne and Ra's Al Ghul in BATMAN BEGINS. Notice, hardly any info on Alfred's past, Lucious's past, Rachel's past, Falcone's past, etc, except the basic tidbits. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE has an origin for Superman, but only the basics for Lois, Luthor, etc. If they had been making an origin film featuring the first X-Men, I'd say go for it. But since it wasn't an origin film, and was a story based on an established team of X-Men recruiting new members, it doesn't fit real well.
And in an ensemble film like X-MEN, whether you all like it nor not, there just wasn't room in the story or the time to do "origins" with all the other characters. Even Wolverine only got "flashes". I have no problem with backstories. What I have a problem with is fans somehow believing that EVERY character can receive this treatment, or that one is somehow being "shafted" if one does and another doesn't. It's not possible, and it's not good cinema, that is, it detracts from good cinema if attempted, because it either takes the form of too damn many flashbacks, or far too much exposition, neither of which is very good writing or film.
The problem here is that you're not being very practical. We're working on a limited timeframe for each movie.
Exactly.

Also, as a writer, you make choices on what to focus on. You try to avoid exposition as much as possible because exposition stops the forward momentum of the story.
Exactly.
The plot stays inert unless you have something in the character's past directly tied to the plot events that occur in the present (which is not the case with most of the X-Men's origin). For a perfect example of this, watch the show Lost. The most interesting flashbacks are the ones that had the most impact on where the characters ended up on the Island. The other flashbacks that just reveal character motivations, while interesting, do not support the ongoing plot of the show. You couldn't add flashbacks for each character because they simply do not impact the plot that was being put forward by Singer. If you can come up with an all-encompassing plot that would require you to show each individuals flashback and make it relevant to the story without changing major details in each character's origin, I'd love to see it. Seriously.
So would I. I'm not saing it can't be done, but you end up with a far, far less interesting main story and much shallower villains and supporting characters and such.
Actually skruloos I completely understand this particular tool of writing. And I have always understood the problems with the concept of "book to movie" adaptation and the time limitations (not to mention effective plot building and story progression). I was just taking a pot-shot at Guard for his joke, he almost insinuates that all the request for backstories on a story character is completely ridiculous and assinine.
I have never once insinuated that. Find me proof that I have. Try. I'm all FOR backstories, if you're not making a film about 15 odd characters, and the backstories don't come at the expense of the main story. I have only ever insinuated that trying to give ALL the characters backstories or origins is not possible given the time and story constraints.
Simon Kinberg, co-writer of X3, says Storm did little more in X2 except 'exposition and flying the plane'. (Okay, he failed to mention the swarm of tornadoes, and the Cerebro icestorm... but he evidently also perceived gaps in the character depiction)
One hopes Simon Kinberg realizes WHY Storm didn't do much beyond what she did, and realizes that there are limitations to what he can do characterwise, and doesn't overcorrect with Storm in X3, depriving us of other characters and development.

Zak Penn, co-writer of X3 with Kinberg and co-writer of X2 with David Hayter, said Storm had been 'under-utilised and ill-defined.'
One hopes Zak Penn realizes the same thing.

I'm talking about the "reasonings" that Guard, and to a lesser extent Bosef have been stating for the reasons why OUR concerns with characterizations are 'wrong'.

I have never said your concerns with characterization are wrong. Some of them, yes, you're simply offbase, and completely missing half of what's there. The Storm stuff, no. Where many of you are wrong, in Storm's case, is to deny that some of her most important comic book aspects are there in the writing.

The Guard keeps stating that it's like Prego... and It's in there. The only problem is our own perception doesnt allow for us to see it correctly, much less interpret it.
Odd that when I state that, I also point out proof that it's there. It's the whole "sky is blue" argument.
But you post comments and ideas expressed by the writers themselves that seems to support our reasonings and further underline the fact that certain elements werent present(enough), and that they feel that they should be included. So my post was to be sarcastic to their remarks, not your post. I was simply poking back at them, in an attempt to say... OK, the writers themselves are saying it, now what's your excuse?
Excuse for what? No one said the characterization was perfect. Or that characters didn't deserve better. But failing to realize the limitations of this format is a fool's errand.
 
By The Guard:
Of course. Know why? Because we SEE Storm as a teacher at Xavier's school. We HEAR that she was one of his first students, and that he taught her, along with Scott and Jean. We see her fighting the good fight. She is portrayed as a hero. Her motives are obvious: essentially, despite being hurt, and having some fear, she fights the good fight because she believes humans and mutants to be equal, and is end the end, a true hero.
You were not trying hard enough. Now, let me help you.
We leave backgroung of these two characters (Mystique and Storm) the same - one of them was being oppressed at school because of her looks, the other was being thrown rocks at when her had powers manifested. Both grew feelings of anger and fear towards humans, who were doing them wrong.
Now imagine:
Mystique being at Xavier's, teaching young mutants in a school she hated so much as a child (what an irony, and I mean school in general, not Xavier's in particular). Imagine her joining Cyclops, Wolverine and Jean to fight off the villain Magneto.
Now imagine Storm being by Magneto's side. She's angry, she wants to get her revange on humans. Not by just killing them all, that would be too easy - let's turn them all into mutants, that would be like killing two birds with one rock.
Let's proceed to X2.
Imagine Mystique giving lecture about history to her pupils in the museum. Imagine her being sent to get Nightcrawler, getting a bond with him, as they look so similar. Imagine the "because we shouldn't have to" conversation between the two - that would make so much more sense! Mystique being with Xavier 'cos she belives she shouldn't have to be hiding in a school. Imagine her going to young students' rescue.
Now imagine Storm growing more irritated by her another failure in X1. She just wants to kill of humans, they're no even good enough to become mutants, her brothers. Imagine her fight along Magneto to achive that.

Now, in this setting, it makes sense!!! I didn't change their background, neither their present feelings, they've just switched places. And it fits!
Now, of course some changes would have to be made in the script as far as the use of their powers in concerned, but that's really just secondary.
You use an argument, that one can't compare the two 'cos of what their present actions are. If they switched places - Storm would be a villain, Mystique a good guy. Mind you, only present actions would indicate that.
What I would like to see is what made them choose the path they have chosen? Why two similar people decided to go two opposite ways?
 
This is becoming moronic. It isn't language barriers, or perception differences, or cinematic variances. It's just getting stupid.

The whole idea of Storm being some what lesser of an individual because she admits to sometimes hating humans is moronic. Such a comment does not contradict her nature as a legitimate movie character. Perhaps, no, she is not completely and utterly like her comic counterpart, but should she have to be?

Perhaps many of you are angered that Singer did not serve X-Men 1 and X2 to you with a spoon full of exposition and contrived plot points. However, if you look at the films, so much is alluded for those who wish to see it:

For example: Watch the X2 DVD features concerning Storm's wardrobe. Note how the costume designer specifically picked out wardrobes that insinuated Storm's pagan/nature/holistic roots. She has Native American purses, Oriental belt buckles, and African motif blouses. This was doen intentionally to demonstrate the tyep of diversity Storm represents.

There's a saying in writing that you don't tell, you show. There is also a school of cinematic thought that feels, building upon this, that a film should be made in the most visually stimulating terms. In that vien, if one were to close their eyes while watching a movie, they'd have no idea -- even if hearing the dialogue -- of what's going on, who people were, and what they represent. Singer follows this to a "T". Things like Storm's attire are represenative of this. Look at the jewelry Jean's wearing, and the clothes Storm wears, or the Men's Clothing type attire of Scott -- it's all indicative of their personalities, their traits, their types. This is just one of many aspects that allude volumes of character history.

The first way not to become a filmmaker is through lengthy exposition, which is what many of you want. If it's done, it has to be done superbly (as it was done in X1 with the Xavier V.O. to Logan), and even then, it's a device. And also note, people said "Why do we get hints of Xavier and Magnetos, or of Logan's history" -- and Guard is right, because their histories playo n the neccessary themes the film is exploring. But notice what you yourselves said -- "hints" -- not long-winded dialogues. Even with the major characters, only hints are acceptable. The rest, is left up to the acting, the direction, etc. Notice how in one single scene -- like the Dark Cerebro scene between Xavier and Magneto -- so much history and emotion comes through, because of the actors. This is the problem with Halle Berry -- she can't emote like this, she can't vitalize a character, she can't make them real or naunced. She is a caricature of Storm at best.

But what people here don't want to admit is this:

You want YOUR favorite character EXPOSITATED THE MOST -- you don't want a great X-Men film of equal ensemble time. You want YOUR FAVORITE'S X-Men film. This is innerently bias and invalid way to approach the film.

But stepping back to this idea of Storm being a flawed, illogical character. It comes down to choice, Hatura.

I am gay. Frequently, I am the subject of what I see as oppression. Yet, I have a wide group of straight friends, both male and female. Now, I consider myself a good person. I have never, nor plan to, go about routinely descreting things I feel are idiosyncratic or symoblic of the "striaght" identity. I in fact work to write papers explaining the current situation, how both sides are erring and making the social issues worse. However, do I hate straight people sometimes? Yes. When I hear about Matthew Shepard, or my friend being strangled to death fro being gay, I get angry and I hate straight people. And I'm afraid of them. Yet, this only provides me with more REASON and more MOTIVATION to educate and to tolerate.

This is what's STorm is doing. Mystique is not capable of it. That is why Mystique is a sad villian who can't see the error or her ways, and Storm is a heroine, because she rise above her hate and fear (which is not an easy thing to do).

Until you can make a progressive point, Hatura and others (refer to my sky is blue model), then I suggest you pack your bags and leave this argument. There comes a point where opinions are no longer educated, but just biased and self-serving. And that point, those opinions need to leave.
 
You're right. This argument is pointless, as we're clearly not convincing one another.
And my nickname in HOTARU (Japanese for firefly), not Hatura (which means "to write' in hittite language, as I have learned).
I'm only a little dissapointed that you generalise - 'cos some fraction of percent of straight guys hate homosexuals and is willing to hurt them, it doesn't mean that we're all like that. But, I'm not gay so I'm in no position to judge, maybe if we switched places I would be the same.
You didn't show much tolerance to other people's points of view in this discussion, did you? That's an interesting way of spreading tolerance...
 
Forgoing the huge discussion, I'll focus in on one point. Hotaru, your example with switching Storm and Mystique had a flaw in it that I think you neglected to see. When you later said that if you were to switch places with a gay man, perhaps you would be the same; that is to say, not be you anymore, but be a different type of you, who makes different choices, faces different obstacles, and becomes a different person. This acknowledges an x factor. You also said you would like to see why these women are the way they are and have chosen to fight on the side they have chosen, but there is one obvious characteristic which defines them that is being overlooked, particularly in the case of Mystique. Mutation manifests at puberty. For 11-13 years, Storm was a beautiful black girl with silvering hair. She was teased for it, harrassed for it, but ultimately, she came through it okay. For 11-13 years, Mystique was a scaly blue lizard with red hair. Since there is no reason to believe that she didin't always look the way she looks, can you even begin to imagine the degree of abuse this little girl must have suffered? This isn't just having an abnormal hair coloring. That detail alone can explain why the blue chameleon would seek a path of vengeance, and the pretty silvertop might choose a more peaceful path. Just an observation to think about.

I'll leave all the heavy stuff to the heavy hitters, but I would very much have liked to see Bryan Singer finish the franchise he started. He had his flaws, as all do, but as far as comic book adaptations go, I felt he captured more of what really mattered, even if he lost something in translation. Hopefully (they've put it off twice now :(), we'll get to see what Bryan Singer would really do with the X-Men, unlimited, in Ultimate X-Men. Whereas film has many limitations, there isn't anything you can't do in a comic book.
 
Hotaru said:
You're right. This argument is pointless, as we're clearly not convincing one another.


There's a specific reason why I pulled out of this argument 2 days ago...it's good to see you've finally realized it.

Debates are only truly successful if there is concession of points on both sides when applicable.
 
Well, I'll add my last comments...

Guard: I read your posts, and I still dont agree that I "missed" these fundamental aspects that you claim are vividly there. I think they are... as Xmaniac would say... "Fuzzy" at best(In other words, you seem to read more into it than I do... not that I "need" more illustration, just that I think it was needed for this character in this story). But as long as we agree that it wasnt what it should've/ could've been, I'll let it go with that. And my post actually says that .. you "almost insinuate". I was just checking to be sure that you hadnt totally lost your mind with the little joke you made with Bosef about backstories.

To everyone else: It wasnt a total waste, at least we all know that we disagree...lol
 
Personally, I am glad Halle has a larger role in X3. Because, I have always felt that her character got short changed in both of the X- movies. Also, I can careless about all of the arguements over her acting abilities. I have seen all of Halle's movies except for Monster's Ball ( I did not like the concept of the movie). However, I think Halle's acting ablilites are just as good as any of the other females in the x-men movies. And I happen to disagree with the critics and other peoples opinion when it comes to Catwoman. Meaning I do not form an opinion based on something that I had read or someone else's opinion. I base all of my opinions on the movies that I have seen and not just heard about second hand.

Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her. Which, I am kinda baffled about b/c I had never heard any actors that have acted with her complain about her. The only person I have ever heard or read had any problems with her is Brian Singer. Which leads me to believe that he has or may have an personal problem with her that has nothing to do with her acting skills.
 
Canadian-beauty said:
Personally, I am glad Halle has a larger role in X3. Because, I have always felt that her character got short changed in both of the X- movies. Also, I can careless about all of the arguements over her acting abilities. I have seen all of Halle's movies except for Monster's Ball ( I did not like the concept of the movie). However, I think Halle's acting ablilites are just as good as any of the other females in the x-men movies. And I happen to disagree with the critics and other peoples opinion when it comes to Catwoman. Meaning I do not form an opinion based on something that I had read or someone else's opinion. I base all of my opinions on the movies that I have seen and not just heard about second hand.

Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her. Which, I am kinda baffled about b/c I had never heard any actors that have acted with her complain about her. The only person I have ever heard or read had any problems with her is Brian Singer. Which leads me to believe that he has or may have an personal problem with her that has nothing to do with her acting skills.

Okay, so, if you didn't like Catwoman, you didn't like it because you were riding on other people's opinions? You couldn't have been say...totally turned of by the bastardization of the character, shoddy plot, incoherent plotline, bad acting, and ridiculous situations?

No, you're just riding the backs of critics.

**shakes head for the 104th time today**
 
Canadian-beauty said:
Personally, I am glad Halle has a larger role in X3. Because, I have always felt that her character got short changed in both of the X- movies. Also, I can careless about all of the arguements over her acting abilities. I have seen all of Halle's movies except for Monster's Ball ( I did not like the concept of the movie). However, I think Halle's acting ablilites are just as good as any of the other females in the x-men movies. And I happen to disagree with the critics and other peoples opinion when it comes to Catwoman. Meaning I do not form an opinion based on something that I had read or someone else's opinion. I base all of my opinions on the movies that I have seen and not just heard about second hand.

Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her. Which, I am kinda baffled about b/c I had never heard any actors that have acted with her complain about her. The only person I have ever heard or read had any problems with her is Brian Singer. Which leads me to believe that he has or may have an personal problem with her that has nothing to do with her acting skills.

So a director couldn't have problems with an actress due TO her acting abilities? No, that'd be preposterous.

**105th shaking of the head***

Oh, btw, apparently, Halle Berry and Alan Cumming did not get along at all. So...
 
Canadian-beauty said:
Personally, I am glad Halle has a larger role in X3. Because, I have always felt that her character got short changed in both of the X- movies. Also, I can careless about all of the arguements over her acting abilities. I have seen all of Halle's movies except for Monster's Ball ( I did not like the concept of the movie). However, I think Halle's acting ablilites are just as good as any of the other females in the x-men movies. And I happen to disagree with the critics and other peoples opinion when it comes to Catwoman. Meaning I do not form an opinion based on something that I had read or someone else's opinion. I base all of my opinions on the movies that I have seen and not just heard about second hand.

Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her. Which, I am kinda baffled about b/c I had never heard any actors that have acted with her complain about her. The only person I have ever heard or read had any problems with her is Brian Singer. Which leads me to believe that he has or may have an personal problem with her that has nothing to do with her acting skills.

So a director couldn't have problems with an actress due TO her acting abilities? No, that'd be preposterous.

**105th shaking of the head***

Oh, btw, apparently, Halle Berry and Alan Cumming did not get along at all. And as far as I know, it wasn't Singer who told Halle to "kiss his big black ass" -- profesionalism all the way there, and class.

So...
 
bosef982 said:
So a director couldn't have problems with an actress due TO her acting abilities? No, that'd be preposterous.

**105th shaking of the head***

Oh, btw, apparently, Halle Berry and Alan Cumming did not get along at all. And as far as I know, it wasn't Singer who told Halle to "kiss his big black ass" -- profesionalism all the way there, and class.

So...

actors and directors both have ego's..its the KOBE vs SHAQ argument we really cant prove anything..

and if HALLE told me that..you bet i'd be puckering up a half millisecond afterward:)
 
All we've managed to achieve here, aside from some stimulating debate, is a loose agreement that some characters were more clearly, obviously defined, some had backstories, some were given 'cause and effect' motivations. Others weren't.

The fact that we have gone through 16 pages of debate - and remember we are all X-Men fans and not general members of the public who were unfamiliar with these characters before - is indicative (to me at least) that some things in the movie are less clearly defined and open to interpretation.

Some see it as Singer-hating (which it certainly is not, in my case), some have an anti-Halle agenda behind their views, but unless and until Singer and the writers spell out what they were intending, what they wanted to show, why they did what they did, there are things that are open to interpretation and that have to be deduced by reading between the lines.
 
You were not trying hard enough. Now, let me help you.
Trying hard enough to do what?
We leave background of these two characters (Mystique and Storm) the same - one of them was being oppressed at school because of her looks, the other was being thrown rocks at when her had powers manifested. Both grew feelings of anger and fear towards humans, who were doing them wrong.
At no point in the X-Men movies does anyone say that Mystique's only motivation is being made fun of, or that Storm's motivation is having rocks being thrown at her.
Mystique being at Xavier's, teaching young mutants in a school she hated so much as a child (what an irony, and I mean school in general, not Xavier's in particular). Imagine her joining Cyclops, Wolverine and Jean to fight off the villain Magneto.
Now imagine Storm being by Magneto's side. She's angry, she wants to get her revange on humans. Not by just killing them all, that would be too easy - let's turn them all into mutants, that would be like killing two birds with one rock.
What's your point? That if you completely change a good character into an evil one she becomes evil? Duh. You asked me why that didn't happen, and I told you. Because one chose the good path and chose to follow the peacemaker, and one chose the evil path and chose to follow the warbringer.
Imagine Mystique giving lecture about history to her pupils in the museum. Imagine her being sent to get Nightcrawler, getting a bond with him, as they look so similar. Imagine the "because we shouldn't have to" conversation between the two - that would make so much more sense! Mystique being with Xavier 'cos she belives she shouldn't have to be hiding in a school. Imagine her going to young students' rescue.
So, you want to just...plug Mystique into Storm's role? You realize Mystique, as a character, is not an all around good person, right? And Storm is not a person who enjoys making people suffer for no good reason. This is like going "Hell, if we plug Ghandi's characterization into Hitler, and Hitler's into Ghandi, Hitler becomes a good guy and Ghandi becomes a mass murderer!
Now imagine Storm growing more irritated by her another failure in X1. She just wants to kill of humans, they're no even good enough to become mutants, her brothers. Imagine her fight along Magneto to achive that.
Storm wouldn't want that, though. The fact that we see her making a clear choice to do good in X-MEN and rejecting Magneto's way proves that. I don't want to "imagine" something just for the hell of it. In order for them to switch roles, their characters would have be completely morally rewritten.

Now, in this setting, it makes sense!!!
What in the blue hell is your point?
I didn't change their background, neither their present feelings, they've just switched places.
No, you didn't change their background, nor their feelings. What you did do was CHANGE THEIR ENTIRE MORAL CHARACTERIZATION AND MOTIVATIONS.
And it fits!
Yes, if we FORGET that Storm is clearly desiring to do GOOD while Mystique just wants to lash out at those who harmed her. I mean, if we write a Batman story where he becomes a serial rapist, he and serial rapist characters could switch places. Is that line of logic supposed to impress anyone?
Now, of course some changes would have to be made in the script as far as the use of their powers in concerned, but that's really just secondary.
You have no idea how writing works, do you?

You use an argument, that one can't compare the two 'cos of what their present actions are.
No, if you paid any attention to my actual argument, you would have seen that I said you can't compare the two because of their different MORAL CHOICES.
If they switched places - Storm would be a villain, Mystique a good guy. Mind you, only present actions would indicate that.
Except that they'd also have to switch MORAL BACKGROUNDS and MORAL CHARACTERIZATIONS. See my Batman/Serial Rapist example.

What I would like to see is what made them choose the path they have chosen? Why two similar people decided to go two opposite ways?
I already told you. MORAL CHOICES. Storm chose to heal. Mystique chose to harm. Why? This is what their MENTORS likely taught them.
This is becoming moronic. It isn't language barriers, or perception differences, or cinematic variances. It's just getting stupid.
Agreed. That last post about Storm and Mystique really seems pointless.

The whole idea of Storm being some what lesser of an individual because she admits to sometimes hating humans is moronic. Such a comment does not contradict her nature as a legitimate movie character. Perhaps, no, she is not completely and utterly like her comic counterpart, but should she have to be?
Batman doesn't have to be. Superman doesn't have to be. Neither does Spider-Man. But Storm apparently does. Go figure.

Perhaps many of you are angered that Singer did not serve X-Men 1 and X2 to you with a spoon full of exposition and contrived plot points. However, if you look at the films, so much is alluded for those who wish to see it:
EXACTLY.

However, do I hate straight people sometimes? Yes. When I hear about Matthew Shepard, or my friend being strangled to death fro being gay, I get angry and I hate straight people. And I'm afraid of them. Yet, this only provides me with more REASON and more MOTIVATION to educate and to tolerate.
THERE it is. I don't know a human being on the planet who doesn't get angry and scared over the things that happen to them and in the world sometimes. Some people use it to hurt others. Some people use it to help others. Stormn is clearly the second. Which is why I value the anger/fear shown in her character in these films. She doesn't just happen to be a good person. She's a good person who had to overcome obstacles, and does every day of her life. She has clearly gone through a lot and risen above it to become a true hero.
Guard: I read your posts, and I still dont agree that I "missed" these fundamental aspects that you claim are vividly there.
You know, it shouldn't, but this kind of thing upsets me. I give you a concrete example in response to your query, not something I interpreted, something concrete, and you say "Well, I disagree, because my opinion differs from yours". But these are not matters of opinion. They are literary devices that denote leadership in a character. So could you please be a bit more specific about why you still disagree with me? Because like I said, I listed concrete examples of things he does in the films that indicate both leadership qualities and a leadership role as a character. Care to respond to each concrete example I gave with something that says "This is why this isn't a leadershup quality or characteristic"? I fully acknowledge that some of my examples were interpretations.But some of them weren't. Such as "He leads the X-Men onto Liberty Island, leads them inside, and is first up the stairs inside Liberty. He is the only one giving direct strategic orders". Can you dispute this? No? You can't? One wonders why.
Oh. Because I provided concrete examples of what happens in the film that clearly indicate leadership qualities and a leadership role. And it's hard to argue/dispute concrete examples, isn't it? "Fuzzy", my ass.
I think they are... as Xmaniac would say... "Fuzzy" at best(In other words, you seem to read more into it than I do... not that I "need" more illustration, just that I think it was needed for this character in this story).
My friend, how the bloody hell can someone "read into" seeing a man PLANNING STRATEGY and ACTIVELY AND PHYSICALLY LEADING HIS TEAM INTO BATTLE?
But as long as we agree that it wasnt what it should've/ could've been, I'll let it go with that.
I won't, though. To hell with that. I've had enough of this evasive nonsense to last me a lifetime. You want to cling to your opinions about whether he was done right, fine. But face up to the damn facts: While the X-Men films may not have portrayed Cyclops the exact way you wanted him, they did portray him as a leader. It's RIGHT THERE in concrete on screen. LITERARY DEVICES that make it obvious he's the leader of the X-Men. However, since your answer to that appears to be "no comment".
Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her.
What a profound statement. That's generally why people complain about things, yes. BTW, I heard that THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD was terrible. Anyone catch it? In closing, I guess we'll see in X3 who was more to blame for Storm's "weak" personality in X-MEN and X2, Halle or Singer. Because if she does the same thing in X3, you can bet it wasn't Singer.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,559
Messages
21,759,745
Members
45,596
Latest member
anarchomando1
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"