So I've been watching the cartoons lately

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I've found a channel that plays the old 90's X-Men cartoons, and I've set my DVR to record every episode, and upon watching the cartoons, I've come to a strong conclussion:

The X-Men trilogy - all 3 movies - did a VERY accurate job of portraying the X-Men on the big screen.

The movies are toned down, I do admit that, but the cartoons (and comics) are a bit over the top and cheesy, given the nature of the medium.

But there are so many elements that I see from the cartoons that were included pretty faithfully into the movies. The movies did get some things wrong, all of them, that's true, but I find the vast majority of the movies to be rather faithful. The characters, the stories, they just seem so spot on to me in terms of an adaptation, adapting one version of a story (appropriate for one medium) to a new version of the story, appropriate to it's new medium.

Certain things like Cyclops and Xavier being killed, and Rogue taking the cure are off, sure, as well as a few other things, but going back to the X-Men that I grew up with only further validates to me how great of a job all 3 teams did with these movies.

And yes, that includes X-Men: The Last Stand - which I only made this post here really because it's the most viewed of the 3 X-films forums.

 

[Legion]

I don't know where you see that. I think the pilot "Night of the Sentinels" did a much better job of introducing the X-Men in 40 mins than any of the movies did.

 

[bullets]

the 90's cartoon series was probably the best representation of the characters . i do think they did a good job with xmen 3 with beast , angel , multiple man , juggernaut , collosus and the sentinel cameo was satisfying enough . i however feel that the cure and phoenix storylines belonged in two different movies and was shocked and offended by cyclops death . i can forgive the death of professor x but a camoe by certain mutants such as nightcrawler shoudl of been included in the funeral and we deserved
a better psylocke . i also do think they should of kept gambit .from the script , he would of been perfect as a magneto hencemen but then redeems himself after falling for rogue.

 

[Cyma]

I grew up watching the 90s show and I agree, the movies did a fairly good job of portraying the X-men. The third one, in my opinion only did a good job with Beast, Angel and Kitty. But I’ve never been satisfied with Rogue in all three movies. But it’s a movie so you can’t have character development for everyone

 

[MoPlaYa]

I cant wait to watch Wolverine and the X-Men

 

[Metal Spidey]

Did Cyclops really die? Remember we saw no body. Unless of course The Phoenix killing Scott is within the X-Men storyline, then yeah he's probably dead.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I thought the first 2 movies got the most right, other than Pyro and Beast, I dont think X3 got anything right, the Pheonix storyline was so unrecognisable, I actually found more emotion in the cartoon version, despite the fantastical elements that the movie couldnt have portrayed.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I've found a channel that plays the old 90's X-Men cartoons, and I've set my DVR to record every episode, and upon watching the cartoons, I've come to a strong conclussion:

The X-Men trilogy - all 3 movies - did a VERY accurate job of portraying the X-Men on the big screen.

The movies are toned down, I do admit that, but the cartoons (and comics) are a bit over the top and cheesy, given the nature of the medium.

But there are so many elements that I see from the cartoons that were included pretty faithfully into the movies. The movies did get some things wrong, all of them, that's true, but I find the vast majority of the movies to be rather faithful. The characters, the stories, they just seem so spot on to me in terms of an adaptation, adapting one version of a story (appropriate for one medium) to a new version of the story, appropriate to it's new medium.

Certain things like Cyclops and Xavier being killed, and Rogue taking the cure are off, sure, as well as a few other things, but going back to the X-Men that I grew up with only further validates to me how great of a job all 3 teams did with these movies.

And yes, that includes X-Men: The Last Stand - which I only made this post here really because it's the most viewed of the 3 X-films forums.

Love that avi.

 

[X-Maniac]

I thought the first 2 movies got the most right, other than Pyro and Beast, I dont think X3 got anything right, the Pheonix storyline was so unrecognisable, I actually found more emotion in the cartoon version, despite the fantastical elements that the movie couldnt have portrayed.

I don't think it's as important for it to be 'recognisable' (ie like the comics or cartoons) so much as for it to work within the film itself. Changes from the source should not be reason for upset. I mean, critics weren't yelping on about how the Phoenix story differed from the one in the animated series. What matters is whether it worked within the film.

 

[Matt.S99]

I thought the first 2 movies got the most right, other than Pyro and Beast, I dont think X3 got anything right, the Pheonix storyline was so unrecognisable, I actually found more emotion in the cartoon version, despite the fantastical elements that the movie couldnt have portrayed.

Agreed.


And a big issue I had with all the movies is the way Wolverine and Cyclops were handled, especially in X3. I seemed like Cyclops became mroe of the rebellious character and Wolverine was more of the leader type when it should have been the other way around.


Now i know Jean ''died'' and Scott had every reason to be depressed, but it seemed like Cyke and Wolvie switched roles.

 

[ChaoticPsylocke]

I thought the first 2 movies got the most right, other than Pyro and Beast, I dont think X3 got anything right, the Pheonix storyline was so unrecognisable, I actually found more emotion in the cartoon version, despite the fantastical elements that the movie couldnt have portrayed.

i completely agree! there is a difference in making a few tweaks to make the story work for the movies. and theres a whole other thing completely changing the whole story for the sake of including wolverine into it more!

there was room for some change, but i feel ripped off if X3 counts as the Phoenix saga. cuz it wasnt.

it was wolverine/hugh jackman steals every minute of the movie bc hes the most recognizable character/actor in the movie saga.

ridiculous!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't think it's as important for it to be 'recognisable' (ie like the comics or cartoons) so much as for it to work within the film itself. Changes from the source should not be reason for upset. I mean, critics weren't yelping on about how the Phoenix story differed from the one in the animated series. What matters is whether it worked within the film.

Well, it DIDNT work within the film either, it was atrocious IMO. And considering this thread is about comparing the movies to the cartoons, in this case, I feel it IS important for the character to be recognisable, which in the first 2 movies, IMO, they were.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Agreed.


And a big issue I had with all the movies is the way Wolverine and Cyclops were handled, especially in X3. I seemed like Cyclops became mroe of the rebellious character and Wolverine was more of the leader type when it should have been the other way around.


Now i know Jean ''died'' and Scott had every reason to be depressed, but it seemed like Cyke and Wolvie switched roles.

i completely agree! there is a difference in making a few tweaks to make the story work for the movies. and theres a whole other thing completely changing the whole story for the sake of including wolverine into it more!

there was room for some change, but i feel ripped off if X3 counts as the Phoenix saga. cuz it wasnt.

it was wolverine/hugh jackman steals every minute of the movie bc hes the most recognizable character/actor in the movie saga.

ridiculous!

Agreed with both of you guys, I can barely consider X3 an X-Men movie, the characters were mostly so unregocnisable.

 

[X-Maniac]

Well, it DIDNT work within the film either, it was atrocious IMO. And considering this thread is about comparing the movies to the cartoons, in this case, I feel it IS important for the character to be recognisable, which in the first 2 movies, IMO, they were.

That's blatant nonsense though. Where in the cartoons was Jean a doctor/geneticist, Pyro a bitter student, Storm a fearful woman? Where in the cartoons was Jason Stryker/Mastermind/Proteus/whoever-it-was-supposed to be? And where was that person in a wheelchair? Where was Stryker the one who ran Weapon X and created Wolverine? Where was Jones, where was the forked-tongued kid called Artie? And where did the films depict the Jubilee from the cartoons?

There are differences and similarities between the cartoons and the movies - but I don't think X1 and X2 are more closely matched to the animated versions than X3.

On the subject of cartoons though, I thought the Superman Doomsday animated feature was a better film than SR and presented a better version of Superman.

 

[The Batman]

The Cartoon and films do represent the characters accurately...however, its all about a matter of focus. Focus changes everything.

For example, the Jean/Scott/Logan triangle. To cartoon shows enough to cover all bases: Logan loves Jean, Jeans attracted to Logan, Jean's true love is scott. The movies do the same...in concept. But because the focus is on jean and logan most of the time, the mainstream audience walks away thinking that jean and logan should be together....especially when they see Jean and Logan kissing in the last two films. Wheres the passion in the films between Scott and Jean? sure, the fans know its there, but the mainstream dosent. That's where the cartoon succeeds and the films fall short. They do things just as accurately, but when certain characters get more attention over others, perspective shifts.

 

[EnDz0n3]

The thing is though, X2 already ended with Jean making a choice: She chose Scott.

The creators behind X-men 3 should have respected that decision. Wolverine sure did, then.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That's blatant nonsense though. Where in the cartoons was Jean a doctor/geneticist, Pyro a bitter student, Storm a fearful woman? Where in the cartoons was Jason Stryker/Mastermind/Proteus/whoever-it-was-supposed to be? And where was that person in a wheelchair? Where was Stryker the one who ran Weapon X and created Wolverine? Where was Jones, where was the forked-tongued kid called Artie? And where did the films depict the Jubilee from the cartoons?

There are differences and similarities between the cartoons and the movies - but I don't think X1 and X2 are more closely matched to the animated versions than X3.

I didnt say everything was accurate, but the core of the characters from the cartoons was there, as was the general fear of mutants. Jean Grey was made a doctor in the first movie because they didnt have the budget for beast. It was a change, but one that made sense. IMO the essence of the character in the cartoon were there in the first 2 movies, but not in the 3rd.

On the subject of cartoons though, I thought the Superman Doomsday animated feature was a better film than SR and presented a better version of Superman.

I would have to disagree, but that discussion is for another forum.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The Cartoon and films do represent the characters accurately...however, its all about a matter of focus. Focus changes everything.

For example, the Jean/Scott/Logan triangle. To cartoon shows enough to cover all bases: Logan loves Jean, Jeans attracted to Logan, Jean's true love is scott. The movies do the same...in concept. But because the focus is on jean and logan most of the time, the mainstream audience walks away thinking that jean and logan should be together....especially when they see Jean and Logan kissing in the last two films. Wheres the passion in the films between Scott and Jean? sure, the fans know its there, but the mainstream dosent. That's where the cartoon succeeds and the films fall short. They do things just as accurately, but when certain characters get more attention over others, perspective shifts.

The thing is though, X2 already ended with Jean making a choice: She chose Scott.

The creators behind X-men 3 should have respected that decision. Wolverine sure did, then.

I actually agree with both of these points. The movies didnt show enough of the relationship between Scott and Jean, and I'm talking about all of them. For me, X3 just escalated that to the point that Scott was practically forgotten about completely. Especially after it was stated quite categorically in the 2nd movie that Jean loved Scott and not Logan.

 

[X-Maniac]

I didnt say everything was accurate, but the core of the characters from the cartoons was there, as was the general fear of mutants. Jean Grey was made a doctor in the first movie because they didnt have the budget for beast. It was a change, but one that made sense. IMO the essence of the character in the cartoon were there in the first 2 movies, but not in the 3rd.

I think Storm in X3 was most like the cartoons in her pride and power displays while Juggernaut was exactly like the cartoons, so was Beast (although not a politican). The fear of mutants was in all three films.

But I never expected a direct translation of either cartoons or comics and I never saw critics comparing the films to those sources. You just need the essence of the character.

Unfortunately, the first two films never showed passion between Scott and Jean and never showed a strong sisterly bond between Storm and Jean. There was more love/passion between Scott and Jean in their brief reunion in X3 than in all of the first two movies!!!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think Storm in X3 was most like the cartoons in her pride and power displays while Juggernaut was exactly like the cartoons, so was Beast (although not a politican). The fear of mutants was in all three films.

But I never expected a direct translation of either cartoons or comics and I never saw critics comparing the films to those sources. You just need the essence of the character.

Unfortunately, the first two films never showed passion between Scott and Jean and never showed a strong sisterly bond between Storm and Jean. There was more love/passion between Scott and Jean in their brief reunion in X3 than in all of the first two movies!!!

I thought X1 got Storm the most like the cartoons personally, with the exception of a few things. Beast was fairly accurate, but his storyline went no were IMO. Juggernaut I didnt like in the movie nearly as much as I did in the cartoon, but i suppose that could be down to development.

Have to disagree on the Jean-Scott reunion in X3 also, which I personally found pretty passionless, not to mention poorly staged. Their reunion in X2 however, there I felt that they loved and cared for each and it was a shame we never got to see more of that.

 

[X-Maniac]

I actually agree with both of these points. The movies didnt show enough of the relationship between Scott and Jean, and I'm talking about all of them. For me, X3 just escalated that to the point that Scott was practically forgotten about completely. Especially after it was stated quite categorically in the 2nd movie that Jean loved Scott and not Logan.

In X2, she says that girls flirt with the dangerous guy but marry the good guy, as she is trying to explain her behaviour of being attracted to him.

Jean did not 'love' Logan, but she had that almost-subconscious attraction to him as the dangerous guy. The Phoenix part of her was more obviously attracted - because it represented Jean's repressed, subconscious desires and partly because the Phoenix felt some kinship with his wild, animalistic persona.

 

[X-Maniac]

Have to disagree on the Jean-Scott reunion in X3 also, which I personally found pretty passionless, not to mention poorly staged.

How was it 'poorly staged'?

 

[ChaoticPsylocke]

well it leading to nothing down the road for them pretty much sucked.

 

[X-Maniac]

well it leading to nothing down the road for them pretty much sucked.

I guess it did 'suck' (hate that word) for Cyclops and his hardcore fans, for sure. I realise that. I wonder how it would have turned out for Cyclops if Jimmy Marsden hadn't signed on to SR (Singer also approached Famke, Hugh and possibly Shawn, I believe, about being in SR).

And, by the way, with regard to the regular use on here that something 'sucks' or 'blows', I do hope you all realise you are describing a sexual act and it would be most improper to use that phrase in polite conversation. I've a feeling a lot of people don't really know what they are actually saying when they utter these words.

 

[ChaoticPsylocke]

i know what im saying..... suck is most definitely not considered a bad "sex term" in the US.