The 8 Most Cringe-Worthy Comic Book Movie Moments

[Abaddon]

yeah, wolverine was getting straight knocked out in the first film and was out cold from a touch from rogue, now he's taking direct molecular insult from the most powerful character in the show.

the only thing i say it that it would have made a nice scene, an even better scene if he was naked by the end of it and it was filmed by a professional.

What was absurd to me was him healing as fast as she was demolecularizing him.

 

[steintym]

Haha - Awesome list

I'm actually glad they included the stuff from the Superman movies. I enjoy those movies, and I know the first two are considered classics, but the moments pointed out have always bothered me. You have to just shake your head at some of those things.

 

[Theweepeople]

I'm aware you don't like this scene - probably more for the lack of Cyclops than for any real concern over Wolverine's power - but we've discussed it at length. It doesn't seem that much of a push if he was able to survive - and continue fighting - while Deathstrike was slashing apart his vital internal organs in X2. If he can keep going with his heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, all cut to pieces with all the internal bleeding and systemic shock that causes, then I'm sure he can keep going with some surface flesh atomised.

I agree that Wolverine not dying while deathstrike slashed internal organs is a stretch but, Wolverine not getting killed by the most powerful mutant on earth who can kill him with a thought is absurd. Also, wolverine's flesh was not the only thing that Jean could atomise. It's obvious that Jean has the power to atomise atoms as the result of Xavier vanishing. This power would have ripped apart all of the adamantium metal, blood, internal organs, and everything else in Wolverine's body on an atomic scale.

 

[Theweepeople]

What was absurd to me was him healing as fast as she was demolecularizing him.

Yep. Wolverine's healing power works on a cellular level. Jean's atomising power worked on a much smaller microscopic scale then Wolverine's. There is no logic explanation for how Wolverine was able to heal as fast as his body was being destroyed.

 

[X-Maniac]

I agree that Wolverine not dying while deathstrike slashed internal organs is a stretch but, Wolverine not getting killed by the most powerful mutant on earth who can kill him with a thought is absurd. Also, wolverine's flesh was not the only thing that Jean could atomise. It's obvious that Jean has the power to atomise atoms as the result of Xavier vanishing. This power would have ripped apart all of the adamantium metal, blood, internal organs, and everything else in Wolverine's body on an atomic scale.

Well, I don't think it's possible to 'atomise atoms'. Atomise = reduce to atoms.

Firstly, adamantium is, in the Marvel universe, the densest material known, virtually indestructible. Secondly, Phoenix was obviously toying with Wolverine, tormenting him sadistically as he dared to approach. If she'd really wanted to focus on totally destroying him, including breaking the bonds of the adamantium, then she would have done and the adamantium would eventually have been ripped apart into atoms. As Wolverine remarks 'I'm the only one who can stop her' he is clearly aware that his adamantium gives him the best chance of getting near (along with her emotional bond to him as an anchor in her mental turmoil...she'd already guided him to the forest camp).

All these ideas are included in the novelisation, so I know I'm right here in seeing them in the movie as well.

It's pointless analysing the science as though this is the real world. The Science of The X-Men book tries to do so and even its author later admitted it's not really possible (in another X-Men related book). Storm's super-fast weather changes, Cyclops eye blasts, Nightcrawler's teleportation... you would be hard-pressed to fit them all within our known real-world physics.

 

[Theweepeople]

Well, I don't think it's possible to 'atomise atoms'. Atomise = reduce to atoms.

One of the definitions of atomise is to break something up into smaller particles. Atoms are made up of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Nuclear physicists use fission to break up the nucleuses of atoms which produces photons, free nuetrons and the reamining subatomic particles. Didn't you learn some of these simple concepts in junior high school?

Firstly, adamantium is, in the Marvel universe, the densest material known, virtually indestructible.

This is relative. Diamond is the hardest substance on earth and is often regarded as being indestructible yet it can be easily damaged if it is hit in the right spot. There is no matter in the universe that is indestructible. In the marvel universe adamantium is shown to be a hard substance to destroy but, we all know the X-Men writers gave it's structural integrity
limits. Magneto pulled all of the adamantium out of Wolverine in one comic.

All of the above is irrelevant because even if Jean was not able destroy the adamantium she could have atomised all of Wolverine's blood, bones, flesh, and internal organs.

Secondly, Phoenix was obviously toying with Wolverine, tormenting him sadistically as he dared to approach.

I don't know if this was the writer's intention. Especially considering that Jean is a telepath and knew all of Wolverine's thought's before he spoke. Since the storyline was so weak and confusing one can only guess what the writers were thinking and what they wanted an audience to
comprehend during this scene. It doesn't make any sense to me.

If she'd really wanted to focus on totally destroying him, including breaking the bonds of the adamantium, then she would have done and the adamantium would eventually have been ripped apart into atoms.

So you're admitting it made no sense for Wolverine to be able to heal as quickly as Jean was ripping his body apart at an atomic level?

As Wolverine remarks 'I'm the only one who can stop her' he is clearly aware that his adamantium gives him the best chance of getting near (along with her emotional bond to him as an anchor in her mental turmoil...she'd already guided him to the forest camp).

It isn't his adamantium that gave him the best chance. It was his healing power which he believed would give him the best chance but, in theory it shouldn't have mattered.

All these ideas are included in the novelisation, so I know I'm right here in seeing them in the movie as well.).

From my perspective, novels for films that are written after the script is set are made to try an explain away all the flaws in films. If a movie can't stand on it's own merits and needs a novel to make it better than that's not a good movie for me. No movie goer should feel any obligation to getting more out of a confusing or disappointing movie by reading the novel.

It's pointless analysing the science as though this is the real world.

Well, you've used science to try explain some of your arguments in regards to comic book films. You had no problem accepting the improbability of Mystique having the size and density to change her shape into a mini-statue of liberty a page ago.

I find analysing the science of science fiction movies, books, and comics to be quite stimulating. If you don't have this preference that's perfectly fine with me. I just would like to see some consistency with your assertion because so far I have not seen it.

The Science of The X-Men book tries to do so and even its author later admitted it's not really possible (in another X-Men related book).

Number#1 I thought Science of the X-Men was a crappy book. Number#2 it became quite clear after reading how amateurish the scientific reasoning was the author knew little about science and had no business writing that book. Marvel should have hired someone who is very knowledgeable with science to write a book of this sort.

Storm's super-fast weather changes, Cyclops eye blasts, Nightcrawler's teleportation... you would be hard-pressed to fit them all within our known real-world physics.

Who said anything about trying to fit these things into real-world physics? I've stated well over a hundred times by now the biggest problem I have with science fiction movies is inconsistency. X-Men 3 was filled with major and minor plot inconsistencies that involved the use and misuse of mutant powers. The horrible dialogue, rapid pacing, short run time, and wasted
characters didn't help either.

 

[Matt Murdock]

For all of its mediocrity, I'm glad to say that Daredevil really didn't have much to cringe over.

 

[Abaddon]

You missed the park fight?

 

[Matt Murdock]

Oh...

Nevermind.

Forgot that.

But the knee-cracking when he gets out of his coffin-pool-bed makes up for it.

 

[BatMatt]

fun read, not fun to relive those moments in their respective films :

 

[MilkmanDan]

On the X-Men 1.5 DVD commentary, I think Singer actually apologizes for the line. And then - I believe it's - Tom DeSanto gives his suggestion for a replacement line. "You know what happens when a toad is struck by lightning?... It croaks!"

Not any better. Well, maybe a TOUCH better.

I don't know. It seems that Whedon wanted the audience to expect that the punchline is either "it croaks" or some other pun like it. And the have Storm deliver the actual non-funny punchline in a flippant "Ha-ha! There's no pun coming... jackass." way. I don't think an actual silly pun would have been much of an improvement.

 

[X-Maniac]

One of the definitions of atomise is to break something up into smaller particles. Atoms are made up of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Nuclear physicists use fission to break up the nucleuses of atoms which produces photons, free nuetrons and the reamining subatomic particles. Didn't you learn some of these simple concepts in junior high school?

The proper meaning of atomise is to reduce to atoms. The word itself makes that obvious. In manufacturing science it's used to refer to breaking a liquid into a spray of fine droplets. Any other generalised meanings are irrelevant if we are debating on a scientific basis, which I assumed we were. I've never heard a scientist talking about 'atomising atoms' - it's nonsensical. As nonsensical as vaporising a vapour or liquefying a liquid. You must be talking about atomic fission, splitting the atom.

The human body is largely oxygen (65%), carbon (18%) and hydrogen (10%). These are all lighter elements than iron/nickel and therefore would release energy in atomic fusion, and absorb energy in atomic fission. Therefore, fusion (of a sci-fi kind) was taking place, releasing energy, which accounts for the explosion of the house and destruction of most of Alcatraz. If Cyclops was also blown apart in the same way as Xavier (we're not sure 100% but it seems he was), the energy released into the environment must have caused the anti-gravitational effects and fog at Alkali Lake.

Nothing like the force of a fusion bomb was created, so we must assume the energy was being channelled/absorbed/dispersed elsewhere, perhaps absorbed by Phoenix (who in the comics has fed upon stars - which operate on fusion), or dispersed into the environment. It's worth noting that electromagnetic fields can contain a fusion material, and she was described as an electromagnetic force, enough to overcome gravity and create anti-gravity effects.

She was doing something with a metal cup in a deleted scene at the forest camp, which was releasing energy - one assumes that was some kind of controlled nuclear fusion. Camping cups are usually aluminium or stainless steel (I researched and found a steel composition of iron + chromium + nickel is typical for eating/drinking utensils). The steel cup would seem too stable for energy release, but the aluminium one would indeed release energy upon atomic fusion as aluminium is lighter than iron/nickel and therefore releases energy.

I conclude that was no 'atomisation of atoms', no fission, but that it seems to point to a kind of fusion.

What do you think? Do you agree that this is reasonable sci-fi science?

This is relative. Diamond is the hardest substance on earth and is often regarded as being indestructible yet it can be easily damaged if it is hit in the right spot. There is no matter in the universe that is indestructible. In the marvel universe adamantium is shown to be a hard substance to destroy but, we all know the X-Men writers gave it's structural integrity limits. Magneto pulled all of the adamantium out of Wolverine in one comic.

All of the above is irrelevant because even if Jean was not able destroy the adamantium she could have atomised all of Wolverine's blood, bones, flesh, and internal organs.

I'm not sure how adamantium compares with diamond in the Marvel universe. Obviously, anything the writers make indestructible has to then be given weaknesses to make a source of threat in stories. I believe she could have broken down the adamantium, but not immediately, because of its structural integrity.

But pieces of his surface tissue were destroyed by what we can see as waves of destructive force rippling through the air towards him. Obviously, flesh is easier to destroy than adamantium.

The fact that he managed to get close suggests either she was not using full destructive force on him (ie just toying with him) and the adamantium and/or his healing power enabled him to survive, or that she WAS using full force but the adamantium's bonds could survive it, at least for a period of time, and his healing power also helped.

It just doesn't look to me like she is furiously trying to destroy him, she is standing there, occasionally sending out a blast of energy. So I believe she was toying with him, and his adamantium and healing power were enabling him to get close. The structural durability of the adamantium has to be playing a part here, in protecting his bones and some of his organs encased by the bones. (The novelisation says she would eventually have shattered the adamantium's structure but that she hadn't because she wanted him there - this is, to me, borne out by what we see in the movie). I believe it's more than just healing - it's her holding back and taunting him and also the added protection of his adamantium. If you don't accept this, fair enough; but I do.

I don't know if this was the writer's intention. Especially considering that Jean is a telepath and knew all of Wolverine's thought's before he spoke. Since the storyline was so weak and confusing one can only guess what the writers were thinking and what they wanted an audience to comprehend during this scene. It doesn't make any sense to me.

See above for what I believe, and have always believed, was happening in that scene.

So you're admitting it made no sense for Wolverine to be able to heal as quickly as Jean was ripping his body apart at an atomic level?

Again, see above for my explanation and reasoning of this scene. The healing did not, to me, seem ridiculous in its speed or extent. The wounds inflicted by Spike in the forest sealed and healed immediately. When knocked unconscious, as by Sabretooth's blow with a branch in X1 and by a bullet in X2, the healing is slower, for some reason. But he was not unconscious at the end of X3, and he clearly screamed in pain, so he was not presented as invulnerable. This 'healing is too fast' complaint is largely an argument postulated by those bitter about Cyclops' absence in that scene and I easily dismiss it as such.

It isn't his adamantium that gave him the best chance. It was his healing power which he believed would give him the best chance but, in theory it shouldn't have mattered.

Surely the virtually indestructible adamantium has to have played a part? I believe it did, as explained above.

From my perspective, novels for films that are written after the script is set are made to try an explain away all the flaws in films. If a movie can't stand on it's own merits and needs a novel to make it better than that's not a good movie for me. No movie goer should feel any obligation to getting more out of a confusing or disappointing movie by reading the novel.

I agree that reading the novel should not be required. However, the novel - released the same month as the movie, not thrown together ages later to answer problems - was by Chris Claremont, who was on set, who was given the shooting script and was discussing ideas with the writers on set, according to the writers themselves. Therefore I think it does add depth or possible explanations in some places at least. But I've never relied upon it for solid answers. Sometimes it confirms my thoughts, sometimes it adds things never shown in the movie.

Well, you've used science to try explain some of your arguments in regards to comic book films. You had no problem accepting the improbability of Mystique having the size and density to change her shape into a mini-statue of liberty a page ago.

There IS something odd about that Mystique transformation, it even bugged the director himself. It's not an impossibility though. Clearly she can add bulk to become Stryker or the fat unconscious cop whom she masquerades as at the end of X1, clearly she can shed or shift mass if she can seem to be a child in X3. It's just the extent of transformation required for the size and volume of a statue appearing to be metal or stone

I find analysing the science of science fiction movies, books, and comics to be quite stimulating. If you don't have this preference that's perfectly fine with me. I just would like to see some consistency with your assertion because so far I have not seen it.

It can be stimulating and entertaining too, but it's not possible to pin everything down to known science. For instance, Cyclops' eye blasts - concussive force with no heat, not lasers. For instance, the exact mechanisms of psychic abilities, which are not on any science syllabus but come under paranormal phenomena. These things are not possible in our world of science. Your problem is that you try to turn everything into some cold, hard, chemical experiment where A + B = C, and you do it even with emotions and characters.

Number#1 I thought Science of the X-Men was a crappy book. Number#2 it became quite clear after reading how amateurish the scientific reasoning was the author knew little about science and had no business writing that book. Marvel should have hired someone who is very knowledgeable with science to write a book of this sort.

It was an interesting book with some interesting ideas. I agree a respected/known/famous scientist should have tackled it, but how would you improve upon some of the ideas in it? Examples?

Who said anything about trying to fit these things into real-world physics? I've stated well over a hundred times by now the biggest problem I have with science fiction movies is inconsistency. X-Men 3 was filled with major and minor plot inconsistencies that involved the use and misuse of mutant powers. The horrible dialogue, rapid pacing, short run time, and wasted characters didn't help either.

Perceived inconsistency, while not ideal, happens all the time. It's present in the movies for Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Stardust, and the other X-movies. Yet I don't see you on the forums for those movies bleating on and on about the problems in those - and that points to a bitter agenda that goes far beyond scientific issues you might have. It's you trying to justify your dislike of this Fox/Rothman/Ratner movie thinly disguised as nitpicking over scientific implausibilities. If the science in sci-fi bothered you so much, you'd be all over these boards pointing out 'problems' in all the movies, as all the movies have them. But you aren't in all the movie threads and you're noticeably absent from forums such as the SR forums, where a host of issues rage on and on even now over Superman's characterisation, the science in the movie, and a lot more.

I don't believe the science in X3 was that bad; if it were, I'd be going on and on about it. Most things can be explained away.

 

[Abaddon]

Again, see above for my explanation and reasoning of this scene. The healing did not, to me, seem ridiculous in its speed or extent. The wounds inflicted by Spike in the forest sealed and healed immediately. When knocked unconscious, as by Sabretooth's blow with a branch in X1 and by a bullet in X2, the healing is slower, for some reason. But he was not unconscious at the end of X2, and he clearly screamed in pain, so he was not presented as invulnerable. This 'healing is too fast' complaint is largely an argument postulated by those bitter about Cyclops' absence in that scene and I easily dismiss it as such.

he regenerates almost completely , only milliseconds after she atomizes his flesh. It has nothing to do with Cyclops, and everything to do with the plausibility of something like that.

 

[X-Maniac]

he regenerates almost completely , only milliseconds after she atomizes his flesh. It has nothing to do with Cyclops, and everything to do with the plausibility of something like that.

It's only here i have heard this complaint. No reviews mentioned it, no one i know who saw the movie has mentioned it. That points to silly agendas, silly nitpicking or silly people with too much time on their hands and no life to live. I've never read any official critique of the movie that moaned on and on about this.

 

[Abaddon]

So the fact that you haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere makes it less relevant? No one saying it's the worst thing about the film, but it's ridiculous in the same way you feel Mystique taking the form of a statue is. That's a complaint I've seen mentioned by you.

 

[X-Maniac]

So the fact that you haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere makes it less relevant? No one saying it's the worst thing about the film, but it's ridiculous in the same way you feel Mystique taking the form of a statue is. That's a complaint I've seen mentioned by you.

Of course it's less relevant if only obsessive geeks notice it! I don't feel it's ridiculous as a scene, i think it was original, cool and very cinematic. Even the statue thing doesn't bother me that much, it was just something I observed and which a friend also commented upon. Most people go on and on about why Jean left the plane in X2, the mainstream audience didn't buy that scene at all.
I'm able to enjoy all three movies, i don't have bitter agendas or time for silly nitpicking.

 

[Abaddon]

Of course it's less relevant if only obsessive geeks notice it! I don't feel it's ridiculous as a scene, i think it was original, cool and very cinematic. Even the statue thing doesn't bother me that much, it was just something I observed and which a friend also commented upon. Most people go on and on about why Jean left the plane in X2, the mainstream audience didn't buy that scene at all.
I'm able to enjoy all three movies, i don't have bitter agendas or time for silly nitpicking.

So it's not part of any agenda when you comment on a flaw you see in a film like this, but it is when others comment on a flaw you don't see or have a problem with?

and why post in the thread if you don't have time for silly nitpicking?

and the plane scene was lame too now that I remember.

 

[X-Maniac]

So it's not part of any agenda when you comment on a flaw you see in a film like this, but it is when others comment on a flaw you don't see or have a problem with?

and why post in the thread if you don't have time for silly nitpicking?

and the plane scene was lame too now that I remember.

I post because it's fun to participate and debate my X-mania.

I mean, that Wolverine scene is fine. The writers were obviously trying to create an action spectacle that took its energy from the comicbooks. Next thing people will moan that in X3 Storm flew or projected lightning or that Iceman iced up or instantly created ice walls on Alcatraz, none of which happened in the previous two movies (aside from Storm levitating up the elevator shaft). For fight scenes to work, powers have to come quickly.

What did people want? Iceman slowly, gently straining to create an ice wall as in X2 or freezing a cup of tea? or Storm unable to do anything against Toad as in X1, despite all the elements at her disposal?

The cautious ultra-realism Singer gave the characters came at a cost of making dynamic fight scenes virtually impossible to show for most of the mutants. His movies work fine, but X3 decided to bring energy and a climax and that means powers having some excitement. The Storm of X1 wouldn't have been much good in the battles of X3, neither would the Iceman of X1 and X2.

With Phoenix, they had to present a case in which someone was able to get near enough to tackle her without being vaporised. We saw a self-sacrifice in X2, we needed something different and more dynamic, someone with some ability to withstand her attack. Wolverine's the obvious choice. I believe she was taunting him and that his power of healing and his adamantium were helping. But others believe it was just some suped-up healing and they can't buy the idea at all. If they have a problem, that's their problem. I prefer to enjoy the spectacle.

 

[DawnWarrior]

I'm pretty sure I wept when I saw that animated GIF of Black Peter dancing. I really did.

 

[Theweepeople]

The proper meaning of atomise is to reduce to atoms. The word itself makes that obvious.

Well, that's one definition. If you feel comfortable ignoring the other proper meaning I presented then so be it. What's funny is your original assertion(it's not possible to reduce atoms to atoms) is common-place at nuclear facililities. Elements Uranium and Plutonium can be broken apart into different elements by the induced bombardment of a neutron.

In manufacturing science it's used to refer to breaking a liquid into a spray of fine droplets.

Correct.

Any other generalised meanings are irrelevant if we are debating on a scientific basis, which I assumed we were.

Correct and I don't consider the definition I presented to be a generalized meaning if it gives a physical representation of what happens during nuclear fission.

I've never heard a scientist talking about 'atomising atoms' - it's nonsensical.

I'm going to briefly try to explain this two you one more time:

A definition of atomise: to break up something into smaller particles.

Nuclear fission: splitting the nucleus of an ATOM into smaller nuclei(ATOMS), photons, other subatomic particles, and neutrons.

What is so confusing about this?

As nonsensical as vaporising a vapour or liquefying a liquid.

Actually, no because unlike what I was explaining to you the two things mentioned above are impossible.

You must be talking about atomic fission, splitting the atom.

Of course this is what I've been talking about.

The human body is largely oxygen (65%), carbon (18%) and hydrogen (10%). These are all lighter elements than iron/nickel and therefore would release energy in atomic fusion, and absorb energy in atomic fission. Therefore, fusion (of a sci-fi kind) was taking place, releasing energy, which accounts for the explosion of the house and destruction of most of Alcatraz. If Cyclops was also blown apart in the same way as Xavier (we're not sure 100% but it seems he was), the energy released into the environment must have caused the anti-gravitational effects and fog at Alkali Lake.

You are somewhat right except I need to correct you on a few things stated above. Fission reactions are typically exothermic. Fusion reactions are endothermic and exothermic.

Nothing like the force of a fusion bomb was created, so we must assume the energy was being channelled/absorbed/dispersed elsewhere, perhaps absorbed by Phoenix (who in the comics has fed upon stars - which operate on fusion), or dispersed into the environment. It's worth noting that electromagnetic fields can contain a fusion material, and she was described as an electromagnetic force, enough to overcome gravity and create anti-gravity effects.

No argument here.

She was doing something with a metal cup in a deleted scene at the forest camp, which was releasing energy - one assumes that was some kind of controlled nuclear fusion. Camping cups are usually aluminium or stainless steel (I researched and found a steel composition of iron + chromium + nickel is typical for eating/drinking utensils). The steel cup would seem too stable for energy release, but the aluminium one would indeed release energy upon atomic fusion as aluminium is lighter than iron/nickel and therefore releases energy.

In reality, I was merely fooling around when I mentioned the fission theory to describe how Jean was able to cause one of her victims or any inanimate objects to physically disappear. Jean would need to destabilize every atom in whatever matter she was trying to destroy by bombarding it with neutrons. Where was Jean getting these neutrons from?

I believe Jean destroyed matter was by using her telekinesis to break all the atomic bonds between the atoms in whatever she targeted. There are many ways she could have done this. Stopping the rotational, translational, and vibrational energies of all the atoms simultaneously might have caused this. Pulling an electron out of every atomic bond between two or more atoms in whatever Jean was targetting would also work.

I conclude that was no 'atomisation of atoms', no fission, but that it seems to point to a kind of fusion.

What do you think? Do you agree that this is reasonable sci-fi science?.

I already covered this.

I'm not sure how adamantium compares with diamond in the Marvel universe. Obviously, anything the writers make indestructible has to then be given weaknesses to make a source of threat in stories. I believe she could have broken down the adamantium, but not immediately, because of its structural integrity.

But pieces of his surface tissue were destroyed by what we can see as waves of destructive force rippling through the air towards him. Obviously, flesh is easier to destroy than adamantium.

The fact that he managed to get close suggests either she was not using full destructive force on him (ie just toying with him) and the adamantium and/or his healing power enabled him to survive, or that she WAS using full force but the adamantium's bonds could survive it, at least for a period of time, and his healing power also helped.

It just doesn't look to me like she is furiously trying to destroy him, she is standing there, occasionally sending out a blast of energy. So I believe she was toying with him, and his adamantium and healing power were enabling him to get close. The structural durability of the adamantium has to be playing a part here, in protecting his bones and some of his organs encased by the bones. (The novelisation says she would eventually have shattered the adamantium's structure but that she hadn't because she wanted him there - this is, to me, borne out by what we see in the movie). I believe it's more than just healing - it's her holding back and taunting him and also the added protection of his adamantium. If you don't accept this, fair enough; but I do.



See above for what I believe, and have always believed, was happening in that scene.




Again, see above for my explanation and reasoning of this scene. The healing did not, to me, seem ridiculous in its speed or extent. The wounds inflicted by Spike in the forest sealed and healed immediately. When knocked unconscious, as by Sabretooth's blow with a branch in X1 and by a bullet in X2, the healing is slower, for some reason. But he was not unconscious at the end of X3, and he clearly screamed in pain, so he was not presented as invulnerable.?

I'm not covering any of this ever again with you or anyone else. This is all relative. You have you're opinion and I have mine. After a year and a half neither one of us has been able to change each other's opinions. There's no point in us debating this topic ever again. When I first mentioned this topic it was not my intention to get into another long winded debate about why I think the final scene of Wolverine vs. Jean still makes no sense.

This 'healing is too fast' complaint is largely an argument postulated by those bitter about Cyclops' absence in that scene and I easily dismiss it as such..?

So all the people in the world who thought this scene was cheesy are just bitter about Clyclop's demise? Right. You're being completely silly and ignorant.

There IS something odd about that Mystique transformation, it even bugged the director himself. It's not an impossibility though. Clearly she can add bulk to become Stryker or the fat unconscious cop whom she masquerades as at the end of X1, clearly she can shed or shift mass if she can seem to be a child in X3. It's just the extent of transformation required for the size and volume of a statue appearing to be metal or stone.

Another example of you using scientic reasoning to justify an argument inspite of saying "it's pointless analyzing science as though this is the real world" in your last post.

It can be stimulating and entertaining too, but it's not possible to pin everything down to known science. For instance, Cyclops' eye blasts - concussive force with no heat, not lasers. For instance, the exact mechanisms of psychic abilities, which are not on any science syllabus but come under paranormal phenomena. These things are not possible in our world of science. Your problem is that you try to turn everything into some cold, hard, chemical experiment where A + B = C, and you do it even with emotions and characters.

I already explained to you what I have issues with in bad science fiction movies. There's no point in telling you again for the 100th time because it's obvious that your capable of remembering. You just don't want to
remember.

It was an interesting book with some interesting ideas. I agree a respected/known/famous scientist should have tackled it, but how would you improve upon some of the ideas in it? Examples?

I read this book 7 years ago and don't remember too much about it because the science was forgettable. I have little desire to try and improve the overall concept of a book that was poorly written. However, I will give an example of a theory I was hoping the book would cover. String Theory is a fascinating concept I thought would be utilized to describe how mutant powers are used in Science of the X-Men.

Perceived inconsistency, while not ideal, happens all the time. It's present in the movies for Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Stardust, and the other X-movies. Yet I don't see you on the forums for those movies bleating on and on about the problems in those - and that points to a bitter agenda that goes far beyond scientific issues you might have. It's you trying to justify your dislike of this Fox/Rothman/Ratner movie thinly disguised as nitpicking over scientific implausibilities. If the science in sci-fi bothered you so much, you'd be all over these boards pointing out 'problems' in all the movies, as all the movies have them. But you aren't in all the movie threads and you're noticeably absent from forums such as the SR forums, where a host of issues rage on and on even now over Superman's characterisation, the science in the movie, and a lot more.

Of course all films have minor and moderate plot inconsistencies and of course not all films have gigantic plot inconsistencies like I feel X-Men 3 has.

What I'd really like to know is why you are so insistent on convincing me that you are right about this issue. I don't see inconsistencies in most of the movies you've mentioned and I spent well over a year providing theories for why I feel this way in the X-Men forums. That's one of the
reasons you don't see me on those other forums. The other reason is I've never had a desire to go to the forums of movies that I enjoyed because
I've noticed that I'm usually in agreement with the general consensus of the positive and negative things in those films.

I don't believe the science in X3 was that bad; if it were, I'd be going on and on about it. Most things can be explained away.

That's cool for you. Of course my opinion will always be different.

This will be my last post in here for a while. These boards have become increasingly stale for me lately. There's nothing coming out that I'm interested in for the next 5 months so I'm going on a hiatus from these forums for basically a month. My next post will probably be around Feb 14 when Jumper comes out. That movie could be another sci-fi financial disappointment for Fox.

 

[X-Maniac]

Well, that's one definition. If you feel comfortable ignoring the other proper meaning I presented then so be it. What's funny is your original assertion(it's not possible to reduce atoms to atoms) is common-place at nuclear facililities. Elements Uranium and Plutonium can be broken apart into different elements by the induced bombardment of a neutron.


Correct.


Correct and I don't consider the definition I presented to be a generalized meaning if it gives a physical representation of what happens during nuclear fission.

I'm going to briefly try to explain this two you one more time:

A definition of atomise: to break up something into smaller particles.

Nuclear fission: splitting the nucleus of an ATOM into smaller nuclei(ATOMS), photons, other subatomic particles, and neutrons.

What is so confusing about this?

I've never heard of the particles within an atom also being referred to as atoms...but I'll take your word for it.

In reality, I was merely fooling around when I mentioned the fission theory to describe how Jean was able to cause one of her victims or any inanimate objects to physically disappear. Jean would need to destabilize every atom in whatever matter she was trying to destroy by bombarding it with neutrons. Where was Jean getting these neutrons from?

I believe Jean destroyed matter was by using her telekinesis to break all the atomic bonds between the atoms in whatever she targeted. There are many ways she could have done this. Stopping the rotational, translational, and vibrational energies of all the atoms simultaneously might have caused this. Pulling an electron out of every atomic bond between two or more atoms in whatever Jean was targetting would also work.

Interesting. That also then questions what exactly is process occurring during the 'telekinesis' that is doing this breaking of atomic bonds.

I'm not covering any of this ever again with you or anyone else. This is all relative. You have you're opinion and I have mine. After a year and a half neither one of us has been able to change each other's opinions. There's no point in us debating this topic ever again. When I first mentioned this topic it was not my intention to get into another long winded debate about why I think the final scene of Wolverine vs. Jean still makes no sense.

Agree to disagree.

So all the people in the world who thought this scene was cheesy are just bitter about Clyclop's demise? Right. You're being completely silly and ignorant.

I feel pretty sure that a considerable number of people who thought this scene was cheesy were bitter about Cyclops not being the one to be approaching/killing Jean.

I already explained to you what I have issues with in bad science fiction movies. There's no point in telling you again for the 100th time because it's obvious that your capable of remembering. You just don't want to remember.

I remember well. But if you were consistent and purely scientific, you'd be raising arguments on many other movies in many other parts of the Hype. But you aren't. So although you are consistent in your dislike/criticism of X3, that it is itself an inconsistency in your alleged desire to bash all allegedly bad science in science fiction movies.

I read this book 7 years ago and don't remember too much about it because the science was forgettable. I have little desire to try and improve the overall concept of a book that was poorly written. However, I will give an example of a theory I was hoping the book would cover. String Theory is a fascinating concept I thought would be utilized to describe how mutant powers are used in Science of the X-Men.

Agreed. The book did need a fully scientific approach but i'm sure it wouldn't be able to explain everything.

Of course all films have minor and moderate plot inconsistencies and of course not all films have gigantic plot inconsistencies like I feel X-Men 3 has. What I'd really like to know is why you are so insistent on convincing me that you are right about this issue. I don't see inconsistencies in most of the movies you've mentioned and I spent well over a year providing theories for why I feel this way in the X-Men forums. That's one of the reasons you don't see me on those other forums. The other reason is I've never had a desire to go to the forums of movies that I enjoyed because I've noticed that I'm usually in agreement with the general consensus of the positive and negative things in those films.

I don't regard X3 as having gigantic plot inconsistencies, so we'll have to disagree there.

An example of inconsistencies in some of the movies i mentioned:

-- In Spider-Man 3, Flint Marko (Sandman) and his clothes turned entirely to sand, except the locket he was wearing, which remained unaltered among the sand. (And a small error: Sandman robbed a bank and fled by converting to sand and pouring down a grate/grille in the floor. Once down there, he reformed and the case of money magically reappeared in his hand.)

-- In Stardust, the stars spoke to sleeping Tristan by whispering to wake him while Yvaine had left. At no other point did the stars alert these characters to danger or threat.

--- In Stardust, the witch Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) is being aged whenever she uses her magic. We see her hands/arms grow old when she uses sorcery. Then, she creates an entire inn out of nothing....and doesn't age at all.

--- In the original Superman movie Jor-El tells the young Superman in the Fortress that Krypton exploded many thousands of earth-years ago. This means the young Kal-el travelled at faster than light-speed for thousands of our years to pass and for him to arrive on earth as a little boy. In Superman Returns, a journey to and from Krypton takes five years (so 2.5 years each direction, thus Kal-el was 2 and a half when his ship first crashed on earth). But during the trip back to krypton and back again to earth, only five earth years have passed, not many thousands.

Just a few examples off the top of my head.

My next post will probably be around Feb 14 when Jumper comes out. That movie could be another sci-fi financial disappointment for Fox.

We'll see. I've no idea what Jumper is like, though i watched the trailer. I'm sure though that it will have the inevitable consistencies that come in sci-fi movies.

 

[Abaddon]

I post because it's fun to participate and debate my X-mania.

Just as it is for most of us here.

I mean, that Wolverine scene is fine. The writers were obviously trying to create an action spectacle that took its energy from the comicbooks. Next thing people will moan that in X3 Storm flew or projected lightning or that Iceman iced up or instantly created ice walls on Alcatraz, none of which happened in the previous two movies (aside from Storm levitating up the elevator shaft). For fight scenes to work, powers have to come quickly.

But it wasn't a fight scene. She stood there as he walked toward her, and made dissipated his skin. It was a dramatic scene and it worked on that level, but it was also pretty silly.

The cautious ultra-realism Singer gave the characters came at a cost of making dynamic fight scenes virtually impossible to show for most of the mutants. His movies work fine, but X3 decided to bring energy and a climax and that means powers having some excitement. The Storm of X1 wouldn't have been much good in the battles of X3, neither would the Iceman of X1 and X2.

I agree, but the point is it's a total bull**** copout to dismiss a criticism like the Wolverine/Phoenix scene as part of some agenda because of Cyclops mishandling, when you've made similar criticisms in the previous films.

With Phoenix, they had to present a case in which someone was able to get near enough to tackle her without being vaporised. We saw a self-sacrifice in X2, we needed something different and more dynamic, someone with some ability to withstand her attack. Wolverine's the obvious choice. I believe she was taunting him and that his power of healing and his adamantium were helping. But others believe it was just some suped-up healing and they can't buy the idea at all. If they have a problem, that's their problem. I prefer to enjoy the spectacle.

It works perfect for you, not so much for everyone. We're all different, opinions are like assh**les, different strokes for different folks, you say toe-may-toe I say toe-mah-teo etc.

No bitterness necessary

 

[X-Maniac]

Just as it is for most of us here.

I wish that were true. I post largely in a positive way, finding the magic and enjoyment in these movies, to find information and to add information. I don't come here just to bash or attempt to list alleged inconsistencies but never to discuss/praise the things I enjoyed. I hope my posts help to offer insight and enrich enjoyment and understanding, and i hope to find others who do the same, who show imagination, intelligence and a positive appreciation. I've been negative of course, but I don't think I'm known for that! I wouldn't choose to be around many of the people on the Hype in real life as they are so overcritical or biased or bitter and negative. They wouldn't be good people to be around.

But it wasn't a fight scene. She stood there as he walked toward her, and made dissipated his skin. It was a dramatic scene and it worked on that level, but it was also pretty silly.

Well, at least you agree she stood there and wasn't fighting. I believe she was just toying with him - there's no evidence she was furiously trying to destroy him. Regardless, i thought the scene worked.

I agree, but the point is it's a total bull**** copout to dismiss a criticism like the Wolverine/Phoenix scene as part of some agenda because of Cyclops mishandling, when you've made similar criticisms in the previous films.

I believe there is a lot of politics, bias and agendas on here. I don't understand your point though about me making similar criticisms.