It's amazing how people get offended when people call them out or attempt to explicate a argument. What's more than amazing is the total lack of understanding that argument.
One, to address this concept of fanboys. If you notice, I do refer to the "we" at times in my posts. That would include myself as a fan at least. Fans love these movies, they sign up on these boards and post. A "fanboy" is someone who goes to the extreme, they are purists I say, or comic dogmatists. That's a fanboy.
Two, on opinions. I never said that opinions are not wanted; I stated that uneducated opinions are unwanted. Don't simplify. Saying taht Storm had nothing to do in X2 is an uneducated opinion. Why? Because when we list what she did, there is plenty that was done. This isn't a matter of debate or opinion. I also was challenging the opinion that some people hold of "Singer's film suck because he got the characterizatoins of Storm wrong." This is an uneducated opinion, because unlike an educated opinion, it fails to take in the totality of the films. It picks what it wants and attempt to make an opinion -- this is uneducated and such an opinion is not welcome. This is why I said, if you go, "I don't like the X-Men films b/c Storm got shafted" it's an opinion. It may be an opinion I disagree with, due to the facts. IT may be an opionion that fails to define itself ( as in how STorm got shafted), but it is a more reasonable opinon that that of "Singer's film suck" or "Ratner's films will be better films b/c Storm is characterized better". Storm's characterization, Scott's characterization is in no way related or indicate to the qualtiy of a film, even an X-Men film. As I said, educated opinions are good, uneducated bad. And I will continue to draw this line. Get angry and scream when I choose to challenge that opinion as wrong, but I shall continue to do so.
It would appear that after such an extensive and in-depth post, the only rebutal anyone could come up with is basically repeating exactly what they said in previous posts, which my post had already invalidated. Good job.
Hatura, the whole "how they finish" is again an idiotic approach to analyzing the impact of a character in film. As I demonstrated, if you apply that logic, the X-films become something else entirely, where Logan is no longer Singer's favorite. You CANNOT deny this -- your logic if applied to other situations fails. If you do this in an attempt to understand why she didn't have, in your mind, much to do, it does not neccessarily mean its right. It means your attempt failed and you need to try again. And at points like this, it's a great idea to step back and examine your first premise -- is it that Storm had nothing to do, or is it something else...like the actor portraying Storm? See, you're working from a pre-existing premise in whic you're alreayd comfortable and not taking into account other variables.
Now, back to characterization, I thought the analysis of films and comics would better illuminate why this was the case. Singer made a creative choice based on the equations of film, NOT COMIC BOOKS! Why is this so difficult for people to understand? I'm curious. Why is it that if dialogue in the film is not pulled directly off the page, fanboys (by which I mean extreme fans who are unable to differintiate between interpretation and comic book) throw hissy fit, slapping their hands over their ears, frowning, and saying, "NO!"
The whole Storm wasn't characterized right, she was afraid. Well, you totally missed the nobility in her actions. I suppose that's okay. But also, fall back into the cinema equation, Scott already fullfills in the movies what STorm does in the comics -- a devote follower of Xavier's dream who does not fear humans and wants to protect them. By adding the fear aspect (which I alreayd demonstrated is apparent in all their characters) Singer was attempting to illuminate her in a different way. If you don't like this, then the movie itself is not a bad film, it does not suck -- for than you implying a fetish towards Storm which on itself would make you then a hypocrite for your citiques for Singer. If you don't like the characterization, you don't like the film. Period. That's it. The film does not become bad because you don't like it -- drop your ego.
But you'll say, "So no films bad then?" No, again, educated opinion and not resorting to the conventions of "it's all opinion" will help against this. In order to determine a bad film, you must apply the paradigms film has created, and evne that dramatic plays have evoked, for the past centuries. If a film holds to those, it is good -- the rest is a matter of taste. For example, people love Titanic, and on analysis, it holds to the conventions of film, has good direction, great characterizations, and amazing FX and pace. HOwever, I dont' care for it. Now, am I arrogant enough to say these movies sucked? No. I simply say I don't like the movie. It could be because I don't like the characterizations or I don't like the pace, too fast for me. Who knows? But what matters, is that the crew constructed a film. It's like with anything. If you don't like pizza, it doesn't neccessarily become "Bad food." However, say you like pizza, and someone makes it, and its undercooked nad the cheese is moldy. This is than "bad food" objectively -- there's no arguing it. However, if if the pizza was made good, the anti-pizza person would still dislike it, even though it's pizza.
This is what people miss. And the only way to decipher these things is through debate. However, when the debate consists of one person attempting to ingnite a progressive series of analyses and discussions, and others just retreading their own, tired, unsupported opinions as if they're were fact, nothing can get accomplished.
Again, also, people blame Singer for the faults in X1. For example, the assume it was him who din't want a CYlcops, Storm origin scene. However, we all know that it was Fox who didn't want to budget those. So, don't get mad at Singer, he tried. Get mad at the Studio that you all are so seemingly lauding now because of a 90 second trailer. The script did have those scenes, it wasn't singer who said, oh, I don't want those -- it was Fox. But again, fanboyism keeps you from breaking out of this narrow thinking and embracing that you can't just pick a scapegoat and scream at him all the while.
The nuances of p roducing and creating a film are either ignored to you...or I'm beginning to suspect...beyond some's comprehension. I had wanted to have faith and have confidence in people's ability to at least formulate a progressive argument back at me. Instead, I get posters who beg the very question. They repost and reargue the very points that are in contention as if they are in fact. It's like this:
BOY: The sky is blue.
GIRL: No it's not.
BOY: Why?
BOY: But, wavelenths create that color, light wavelengths, bounce of objects and such, making it blue.
GIRL: Because...the sky is not blue. The wavelengths do not matter. The sky is not blue.
BOY: But, wavelenths are colors, created by scientists and proven by science. That is an inescapable fact. Thus, since sunlight illuminates that atmosphere in such a way, it is blue.
GIRL: No, the sky is not blue. Scientists are wrong. You're arrogant, and apparently there's no room for opinion here. You hate me. And you're just repeatnig yourself. God!
BOY: Well, if scientists are wrong, how do we delineate between when they are right? If we are not scientists ourselves, don't we have to trust --
GIRL: The sky is not blue. Period.
This is the process of our arguements here. HOweve,r how could this be overcome. Just by some progressive thinking. You think I put fanboys in a lose situation in the above analogy. I didn't.
BOY: The sky is blue. We have a wheel of colors, which are demonstrations of how light impact certain objects. These colors function on wavelengths. This color is blue. The sky is blue.
GIRL: No it's not.
BOY: Why?
GIRL: Because...color is a perception of the human mind, dependent upon our subjective naming and analysis.
BOY: But, wavelenths are colors, created by scientists and proven by science. That is an inescapable fact. Thus, since sunlight illuminates that atmosphere in such a way, it is blue.
GIRL: Doesn't matter, its still a human classification of a natural phenomenon. Plus, as you said, the light itself is what makes all this happen. Independently, as your comment suggests, the atomsphere is not blue.
BOY: Then what is it?
GIRL: It isn't anything...yet. The sky becomes blue.
See, in the second example, the girl stepped out of the context of the argument and brought in external sources relevant to the argument. In this case, when I say, "cinema demands this..." and you say "comics demand this..." you've evaded my argument, not defeated it. If we're talking cinema, comics have no bearing. If I say, "Storm was made such a way..." and you say "That's not Storm..." you're begging the question. If I say, "STorm had this, this, and this to do in X2" and you say, "But STorm didn't have enough to do in X2" you've agained, begged the question.
This isn't being arrogant people, this is being mroe reasonable than I think you're use to on these boards.
) I mean, it aggravates me that he's missing for 2/3 of the movie, but I realize that not everyone can share the limelight in a large ensemble cast. So I cope. And I always assumed that he would get his due screentime in X3, what with the Phoenix SL, but it looks like that's not to be either. It's unfortunate. 
- saying all this in polish would be sooo easier, hehe.
