Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'X-Men 1, 2 & 3' started by boywonder13, Dec 9, 2005.
Bryan Singer Sucks.
Singer should have named the first two films Wolverine and the X-Men
Good. So do you care to address my post below?
Or do you think I have a point there?
no it was complete but they were always rewriting parts of the script
I agree 100%
Insightful. You're probably one of the many hypocrites that jumps from bandwagon to bandwagon. Clown.................
Hypocrite? about what?
WTF are you talking about???
Ah yes, now I understand, I forgot Singer fans are defending him from the real critics.
Anyway Bryan Singer Sucks.
Well thats how Singer made him look and act
I've read your close-minded hypocritical posts in multiple threads. No need to explain.
Well all this says is Singer would've made a superior X-Men movie than Ratner's "studio first, quality second" hit and run deal (and remember the studio made most of the decisions on FF too though ) but Fox bullied him and he went to do SR which will probably be better than X3 as well.
Thanks Fox. Oh well. Maybe Spider-Man will be the first superhero franchise to make it to 3 solid good movies.
I think it has worked out well that Singer has moved on... I don't think he would have brought the right sense of climax, scale and power to X3.
Cyclops was poorly treated in X1 and X2 - walked over by Wolverine in X1, absent for most of X2. And now studio politics might affect what becomes of Cyclops in X3. We won't know for sure till next May.
I also would not want Storm reduced in the way Singer wanted in X3. She had some good moments of powers/FX, but a poor portrayal of who the character is. Not Halle's fault. She wouldn't have been the first choice for Storm that popped into my head, but it looks like X3 is getting it right finally.
So what if you're a fan of Pyro, Iceman, Rogue etc etc? Those characters deserve development too don't they not only the almighty Storm. If i remember correctly Bryan wanted to shoot a Storm and Cyclops origin sequence but didn't get the time and money to complete it.
You think the idea of Beast, Gambit, Sentinels, Danger Room and concentrating on Dark Phoenix etc are blech?
I don't buy it. One, I don't think Bryan Singer wanted Halle Berry, at least as his first or second choice. They fought almost constantly on the set of X-MEN. There is far too much evidence to point to the fact that FOX said "Hey, we're not going to cast for you, but there's this Halle Berry chick you should take a long, hard look at". Also, Storm is not written as meek and mousy in the X-MEN script, or the X2 script. These are acting choices Halle Berry made, in the same vein as most of her acting choices in her other action roles. The woman just does not do "intense" well unless she is ****ing or crying. Does Bryan Singer share some of the blame for her subpar performance in X-MEN? I guess. But remember, he was also pressed for time, and not in any position to tell THE Halle Berry how to act.
Jesus tapdancing Christ...
Poorly treated in terms of character or in terms of how much respect his character got in terms of screentime. Because he was not poorly treated in either film. He was Cyclops. Examples please, of why you all think he was treated so badly.
Vaporizing Cyclops is not Singers fault. The new team wrote that in the script and this before he even signed for supes i think.
He had flaws in his films but they were still great films. And I have a feeling if he were still on board you would be washing his feet.
Every one has a favorite character, a favorite genre, and an ideal that they would like to see on screen, so there are no truly unbiased opinions--especially on a thread such as this. To pretend otherwise is denying a simple truth that people like what people like. Period. However, one can take an appreciative look at something that may not be exactly what we'd like to see, and give it it's due. Having said that I think Singer is a fine director most times. I loved The Triangle on Sci-Fi and thought the characters were really well developed. He's young, talented and full of potential.
Having said that, I ask how anyone can argue Ratner's vision from a leaked script and a 1 minute 39 second trailer? It's a bit ridiculous to assume you can. We've all seen the first two movies, and have a pretty good grasp of how Singer handled the characters. I myself disliked Singer's rendition of almost every character in the first two movies. (In my opinion before you direct a movie about comic book characters, you should--I don't know read the comics.) But I can't fault him entirely for that. The scripts and production and studios have a lot of pull. There has been statements from different sources that the actors in the first two films had an awkward if not openly hostile working relationship with Singer, so regardless of vision, I think a new director was needed to allow for maximum creativity.
Singer's ideas for X-3 draw on a few characters and concepts that are well loved, such as Gambit and the sentinels. As far as Gambit is concerned (and I LOVE the Ragin' Cajun) Singer had no idea of his worth until watching the 90's cartoons? Puh-lease. If he was that clueless as to the X-Men comics and the largest fanbases, he shouldn't have grabbed the reigns. I'd love to see Gambit X3, but for reasons unknown, he isn't in it. I'll deal.
Now, I hate the idea of Cyke biting it in the first few minutes, and I vehemently hope that's not true, and if the first two movies had made him a more prominent character I could see the dramatic worth of such a sacrafice, however the big flaw in that is we never grew to care enough about Cyke in the first two films. Or any other character really. If I had never read a comic (and some people haven't) aside from Wolverine, Rogue, Xavier and Magneto, I couldn't of cared less about the characters of the first two films, and that is a big flaw in any movie.
I have not seen Ratner's version of these characters for more than a few moments--nor has anyone else on this thread that I know of--so to try and compare visions is a bit premature.
Complaints such as Singer sucks and Ratner Blows are opinions, and mostly seconded or thirded by several members on either side of the fence--but getting angry and discontent becasue someone doesn't agree with your opinion. (Example SR vs. X3) is a bit juevinile. State an opinion, argue it, make a valid point, but in an effort to validate one's own arguement I'd try and reduce the name calling and personal jabs (unless of course you know the person personally, then feel free to call them a hypocritical *****bag) otherwise you sound like a whiny child who isn't getting their way.
I don't give Bryan a free pass. I think he just prioritized. No movie is going to be perfect. However, it is a pity that Storm had to be the imperfection, and it alienates some fans. But, as I said, this does not neccessarily make it a bad movie or a bad X-Men film or is the fact that he messed her up indicative of the fact that he didn't "get" X-Men. I think that term you used was a bit X-Treme. perhaps he didn't get STorm, get Cyclops, but he as a totality, flaws and all, he got the X-Men.
That's what I was taking issue with. You used Storm as a litmus test for "understanding" X-Men. I think that's a bit of a exaggeration. I'm not defending his treatment of Storm so much as understanding why it is that way. Cinema produces challenges. More time on Storm would have come at the expense of another character -- then we'd have another (insert X-Men here)-fan coming on and complaining that Singer messed that up.
Fans put him in a Catch-22 and while doing so, refuse to acknowledge they put him there. It's unfair.
Quote your source, give your evidence
We've heard rumours of an argument in which she said 'Kiss my black ass' but that's all and that does not amount to almost constantly by my reckoning. Present your evidence for this statement.
Far too much evidence? Let's see it please.
Again, present your evidence.
'Acting choices'? The cast were not allowed to refer to the comicbook sources, it was Bryan's directing they had to follow. I wouldn't say it was a 'sub-par performance' either, it was not the acting, it was the portrayal (the lines, the characterisation).
I gave my examples. A man who should be a competent, authoritative leader bellyflopped the X-jet, thus giving Wolverine the chance to mock his flight skills. A man who should be leading the way allowed Wolverine to call him a 'dick' and just answered 'okay'. Bryan's favouritism for Wolverine shines likes a beacon here. And in X2, although he got to do some defensive beam-firing and fisticuffs at the prison, he is then absent for much of the rest of the movie, suddenly appearing (no one sees him being freed, he is just staggering around). It's not what i would call a portrayal of a commanding, competent leader. Nothing like the source material, nothing like how ANY leader should be portrayed.
The same might be said for you.....
See, this is the problem I have with Storm suddenly being the hero. It's not that the character doesn't deserve it, it's just that I personally feel Halle Berry can't pull it off. She doesn't have the commanding presence that Storm should have....She just doesn't, no amount of Special FX will change that.
I blame FOX and Singer for that in the first place. She shouldn't have been cast. Though from what I've heard, she was the 'studio choice' for the role. And Singer actually wanted Angela Bassett.