Superman Returns The Official Bryan Singer Thread

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Opinions , we'll have to agree to disagree here
But yeah , i think the bullet time shot of Jean Grey blasting everything away with the water rising owns pretty much all of X2 bigger VFX sequences.
And there's is of course DBZ Iceman and Pryo , Jean Grey atomising Prof X ..etc etc.
Personal opinion

Fair enough we will leave that one.

I know that X2 is loved by many. But hey , i don't consider it to be THAT great. I doubt most of the people who voted in that poll are comic purists HEck alot of my friends like/love X1-X2 and they don't even read comics. They judge the movies as standalone pieces of entertainment.

Well then how come X2 won the poll on here as the best movie of the trilogy then?

Rattner.
For starters , Rattner has to live up Brian vision (which given the critical response that X1 and especially X2 got is really hard) , introducing many characters ( he didn't have much of a say in this , because Brian still focused on a very small group of mutants; Brett just got he script and was told to work with all the characters ), securing that X3 made more money then X2 and a fixed release date. They had a total of 12 months to work on this movie ( from starting the shoot all the way till release date , can you imagine a massive blockbuster movie like X-men having a post. prod slate less then a year with that many complex VFX).
Not only that , but Rattner also had to turn in a movie that was considerably shorter in lenght for Fox , cause as we all know this logic :
shorter running time equals more showings equals more money.
Fox wanted to make as much as possible back from their 210 million investment. And also i think that FOX would've never given Brian Singer a 200 million dollar budget had he been on board. It was their intention all along to to release this movie in 2006 no matter what ( i have the empire issue at home where they're talking releasing this flick in 2006). When Brian left to do SR along with his crew members who were all there for start for the X-Men franchise , Fox was in a real problem . They had to now have a script , start essentially from scratch with set designs , casting other actors , and negotiating new deals with the actors
I think the main reason why the budget was so high was because of the VFX slate ( and to a less extent the salaries of the actors).
You need to deliver BIg , complex scenes with in a very short period. The only way you can do that is by increasing the budget big time.

So yeah , summarising. Brett had the harder time.

Please, you have GOT to be joking on this, if you are not, you are letting your anger towards BS for SR cloud your judgement. Singer had to introduce a whole new world full of unfamiliar, in the publics eye, characters. Singer had the much tougher job. He also was given the same timescale as Ratner was given for X3 to develop X1. Also Singer had to cast the most important roles of Xavier, Magneto, Jean, Storm, Cyclops, and possibly the hardest of them all, he had to cast Wolverine. Ratner had the main cast already in place before he even came on board, all he had to do once he came on board was cast small parts like Quill, and Arclight, not exactly difficult is it? Also, Matthew Vaughn did most of the work for Ratner before he even came aboard. And Ratner had a budget for one movie that was $25 million more than BOTH of the first movies.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Well then how come X2 won the poll on here as the best movie of the trilogy then?

I don't buy Empire anymore so i didn't know they had a poll. And i still stand by my point. I doubt most of the people there are comic purists.
And i'd also like to add this to the topic of X3. Generall following the tone of this X-men movie arc , i do feel that X3 is the ROTJ to X2's ESB. Low on the story as things are resolved and high on action.

Please, you have GOT to be joking on this, if you are not, you are letting your anger towards BS for SR cloud your judgement. Singer had to introduce a whole new world full of unfamiliar, in the publics eye, characters. Singer had the much tougher job. He also was given the same timescale as Ratner was given for X3 to develop X1. Also Singer had to cast the most important roles of Xavier, Magneto, Jean, Storm, Cyclops, and possibly the hardest of them all, he had to cast Wolverine. Ratner had the main cast already in place before he even came on board, all he had to do once he came on board was cast small parts like Quill, and Arclight, not exactly difficult is it? Also, Matthew Vaughn did most of the work for Ratner before he even came aboard. And Ratner had a budget for one movie that was $25 million more than BOTH of the first movies.

No i'm not joking. Like i said in my previous post , Ratner had a far harder job IMO.
He was just given the script and he needed to make a profitable movie in tne eyes of Fox. He needed to juggle all the characters and he needed to follow Brian's vision while still working with a script ,of which an earlier draft was trashed by Moriarty.
If i would also follow the rumors , he also needed to ensure that Storm did also take center stage alot with the main characters , something that Brian didn't do in X2.
I'll give you that Brian had to cast the actors. But at the same time , he didn't have the confidence of Fox' exec. as they thought that this movie would bomb (hence why they cut back on the budget , and possibly move the release date forward).
Fastforward 5 years later and you have a franchise that is worth millions with movie and dvd sales. No way would they let this slide and to meet the release date of 2006 they had to bring up alot of cash .

Brett's job was easier in having the main cast and the script , but he still had to deliver ( like i said earlier).
Again , If Brett Ratner had been given the same amount of prep time that SInger had X2 , X3 would've been better.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't buy Empire anymore so i didn't know they had a poll. And i still stand by my point. I doubt most of the people there are comic purists.
And i'd also like to add this to the topic of X3. Generall following the tone of this X-men movie arc , i do feel that X3 is the ROTJ to X2's ESB. Low on the story as things are resolved and high on action.

As i said earlier X2 won the poll ON HERE for best movie of the trilogy also, and 90% of people here read comics.

No i'm not joking. Like i said in my previous post , Ratner had a far harder job IMO.
He was just given the script and he needed to make a profitable movie in tne eyes of Fox. He needed to juggle all the characters and he needed to follow Brian's vision while still working with a script ,of which an earlier draft was trashed by Moriarty.
If i would also follow the rumors , he also needed to ensure that Storm did also take center stage alot with the main characters , something that Brian didn't do in X2.
I'll give you that Brian had to cast the actors. But at the same time , he didn't have the confidence of Fox' exec. as they thought that this movie would bomb (hence why they cut back on the budget , and possibly move the release date forward).
Fastforward 5 years later and you have a franchise that is worth millions with movie and dvd sales. No way would they let this slide and to meet the release date of 2006 they had to bring up alot of cash .

Brett's job was easier in having the main cast and the script , but he still had to deliver ( like i said earlier).
Again , If Brett Ratner had been given the same amount of prep time that SInger had X2 , X3 would've been better.

I'm sorry for saying this, but i think your hate for BS because of SR is blinding you here. No matter what the quality of X3, it would have made millions of dollars because of the popularity and success of the previous 2 movies, and if it was made as a quality movie, it would have made a lot more money also, did you see the drop-offs in its 2nd week?

Not to mention that when Bryan cast the actors in X1, NON of them were the bonafide stars they are now also. Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry and even Famke Janssen are all A LOT more known now than when X1 came out. X3 was going to make money no matter what. Another reason is also most of the general audience didnt even know BS had left. Not to mention X1 was only Bryan's 3rd movie AND his 1st action movie.

I honestly cant believe you think Ratner had a harder job!!!!!!!!!

 

[matrix_ghost]

As i said earlier X2 won the poll ON HERE for best movie of the trilogy also, and 90% of people here read comics.

I doubt 90 % of those people read comics

I'm sorry for saying this, but i think your hate for BS because of SR is blinding you here. No matter what the quality of X3, it would have made millions of dollars because of the popularity and success of the previous 2 movies, and if it was made as a quality movie, it would have made a lot more money also, did you see the drop-offs in its 2nd week?

Not to mention that when Bryan cast the actors in X1, NON of them were the bonafide stars they are now also. Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry and even Famke Janssen are all A LOT more known now than when X1 came out. X3 was going to make money no matter what. Another reason is also most of the general audience didnt even know BS had left. Not to mention X1 was only Bryan's 3rd movie AND his 1st action movie.

I honestly cant believe you think Ratner had a harder job!!!!!!!!!

Oh you don't need to say you're sorry.
Because i don't find that offensive at all.
I still stand by my point that Ratner had a harder job. And for the record , if really hated Singer i would've hated everything he did pre SR and post-SR.
And i don't. I still think Usual Suspects is an exceptional piece of cinema worthy of oscar recognition and i think that Apt Pupil is an amazing movie.
I think that X1 is a great popcornish fun movie and i realise what it did for the comics industry.
I have both X1 and X2 on dvd and while X2 is an improvement over X1 IMO , i think it tends to drag alot and i hated that it's essentially the Wolverine show.

I liked the movie till i read just how safe singer was playing it and just how much it deviated from the comics. From there on IMO X2 lost more value to me. Now it's just and okay movie. Not much.

 

[explode7]

For those of you who said that SR 2 will be better than SR are wrong because its the same thing you guys said for SR and looked what happened.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

As i said earlier X2 won the poll ON HERE for best movie of the trilogy also, and 90% of people here read comics.

I doubt 90 % of those people read comics







Oh you don't need to say you're sorry.
Because i don't find that offensive at all.
I still stand by my point that Ratner had a harder job. And for the record , if really hated Singer i would've hated everything he did pre SR and post-SR.
And i don't. I still think Usual Suspects is an exceptional piece of cinema worthy of oscar recognition and i think that Apt Pupil is an amazing movie.
I think that X1 is a great popcornish fun movie and i realise what it did for the comics industry.
I have both X1 and X2 on dvd and while X2 is an improvement over X1 IMO , i think it tends to drag alot and i hated that it's essentially the Wolverine show.

I liked the movie till i read just how safe singer was playing it and just how much it deviated from the comics. From there on IMO X2 lost more value to me. Now it's just and okay movie. Not much.

Fair enough, but if you thought X2 was the Wolverine show and wasnt fatihful, why do you like X3 so much when that was even more the Wolverine show and it was the most unfaithful movie of the trilogy??????

 

[matrix_ghost]

For those of you who said that SR 2 will be better than SR are wrong because its the same thing you guys said for SR and looked what happened.

I say we wait it out.

If it's good , we're proven wrong and we can be happy that a proper superman flick was made

It it sucks , well you know we'll have more then enough ammo for quotes like "I TOLD YOU SO , IT WAS GOING TO SUCK t: "

 

[matrix_ghost]

As i said earlier X2 won the poll ON HERE for best movie of the trilogy also, and 90% of people here read comics.


Fair enough, but if you thought X2 was the Wolverine show and wasnt fatihful, why do you like X3 so much when that was even more the Wolverine show and it was the most unfaithful movie of the trilogy??????

Well for starters it has more storm , more Pyro , more bobby , the X-men fight as a team as opposed to separately.
It introduced the mutant world properly ( the scene where Magneto arrives at the mutant meeting to name just one) and i liked Beast.

 

["V"]

Singer talks a good game, but when it comes to the crunch he doesn't deliver.

He fooled me on Superman Returns, the way he spoke about how the World had moved on while he was away. How we'd be dealing with Superman being an immigrant who didn't know his place in the World. What a liar.

The film didn't satisfy with either story or with action (it should have exceeded in both).

The man has no real idea what he's trying to do. "Yeah, I just figured that Lois and Superman made love in Fortress which concieved a child. Yeah, sure if you want."

And if he brings back his two writers I think we'll have a film very similar to Returns.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well for starters it has more storm , more Pyro , more bobby , the X-men fight as a team as opposed to separately.
It introduced the mutant world properly ( the scene where Magneto arrives at the mutant meeting to name just one) and i liked Beast.

Both Pyro and Bobby had more screen time in X2, and dont even get me started on the pathetic fight they have at the end.

 

[SHAFT Agent]

I like Bryan Singer as a director, but it's time to retire the Wrath of Khan analogy.

 

[Marcus M.]

Someone should tell Singer, it's too late. Get another director, an all new cast and make a real Superman movie. Also they should ignore SR just like Singer ignored 3 and 4. And damnit get a costume that doesn't have low-riding hip hugging shorts. We don't need a sassy Superman.

 

[Lighthouse]

I like Bryan Singer as a director, but it's time to retire the Wrath of Khan analogy.

FINALLY!! Someone finally wrote down in detail what I've been thinking for along time. I've always found this argument, this explanation of the first one to be totally bogus. It is a highly overused defense.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Both Pyro and Bobby had more screen time in X2, and dont even get me started on the pathetic fight they have at the end.

Fine , you hate it. I like it.

 

[Lightning54SC]

Someone should tell Singer, it's too late. Get another director, an all new cast and make a real Superman movie. Also they should ignore SR just like Singer ignored 3 and 4. And damnit get a costume that doesn't have low-riding hip hugging shorts. We don't need a sassy Superman.

i like the shorts.... better then your grandma panties t: that Reeve wore... welcome to the 21st century..... styles change.....

 

[matrix_ghost]

FINALLY!! Someone finally wrote down in detail what I've been thinking for along time. I've always found this argument, this explanation of the first one to be totally bogus. It is a highly overused defense.

Man i read that article.

TOTALLY TRUE what he said , especially with this quote :
And what about action heroes who do return in sequel after sequel? Should Indiana Jones, Martin Riggs, or John McClane have had slow, plodding introductory movies before their action-packed debuts in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lethal Weapon, or Diehard? Should Dr. No have presented the audience with more biographical data on 007 before launching the James Bond franchise?

 

[WormyT]

Singer turned THEE icon of masculinity into a dumb, shy, crybaby wimp.

He had no screen presence, little to no dialogue (even though hes the title character) and the suit looked like it was made with shiny showercurtains with a tupperwear Shield and fisherprise plastic belt.
He failed. The Nerve of him to add a Superchild and NOT add a single heavy hitting Supervillain after 20 years. Even if he only had luthor a comic like All Star Superman and Superman:Birthright have Luthor written so much better with superb dialolgue, plot interaction between hero and nemisis.
After 20 years we were rewarded with 1 line of dialogue between Superman and Luthor. 20 years!! The reason? maybe Brandon can't act? Wow, well thats reassuring for the sequel.
Uch! SR is just a really bad Superman movie, i can't believe a single male could settle on such mediocrity.
Theres no Superman Curse, theres only bad decisions made by the execs at WB. You guys did GOOD by hiring Bruce Tim for the animated show, now you need to hire someone like Peter Jackson for director and someone familiar with Superman books for a screenwriter and give us a Superman movie that blows away Spidey2 and batman begins. It's certainly possible, just not with Singer and his Dull, feminine, narrow and lackluster tv quality vision.

 

[bosef982]

I don't buy Empire anymore so i didn't know they had a poll. And i still stand by my point. I doubt most of the people there are comic purists.
And i'd also like to add this to the topic of X3. Generall following the tone of this X-men movie arc , i do feel that X3 is the ROTJ to X2's ESB. Low on the story as things are resolved and high on action.







No i'm not joking. Like i said in my previous post , Ratner had a far harder job IMO.
He was just given the script and he needed to make a profitable movie in tne eyes of Fox. He needed to juggle all the characters and he needed to follow Brian's vision while still working with a script ,of which an earlier draft was trashed by Moriarty.
If i would also follow the rumors , he also needed to ensure that Storm did also take center stage alot with the main characters , something that Brian didn't do in X2.
I'll give you that Brian had to cast the actors. But at the same time , he didn't have the confidence of Fox' exec. as they thought that this movie would bomb (hence why they cut back on the budget , and possibly move the release date forward).
Fastforward 5 years later and you have a franchise that is worth millions with movie and dvd sales. No way would they let this slide and to meet the release date of 2006 they had to bring up alot of cash .

Brett's job was easier in having the main cast and the script , but he still had to deliver ( like i said earlier).
Again , If Brett Ratner had been given the same amount of prep time that SInger had X2 , X3 would've been better.

Actually, Singer and Ratner had about the same prep time. Also, Singer didn't have a harder job? Really, this is disqualifies your opinion.

As someone else said, Singer had to introduce a complex set of characters and issues into a 90 minute time frame in the first film. He did it admirably, all the while delivering substantial character development that goes missed because people forget that ensemble movies work differently then standardized individual hero films. In X3, Ratner botched and forget the development of any character in the film, threw it to the side, made a MTV 90 minute video with the X-Men, threw in a melodramatic, tacked on ending, and tried to say it bookended what could have been one of the greatest comic book trilogies.

Jean's rising of the water sequence and blowing the bullets away? Um, well...why did she rise the water in the first place? See, you like pointless action for the sake of action. I do not. I like my action to make sense, to fit into the story and its internal logic. Jean, the most powerful mutant, standing around catanoic while Magneto attacks Alcatraz was idiotic; logically and in fitting with her character's "so-called development" she should've been fighting much earlier. No, she just stands around and watches like a coma patient. "Um....."

Then, conviently, and in a way that was so revealing of the underlying script, we remember: JEAN! Crap! We forgot about her! Okay, soldiers, come shoot her...and they do because they know she's obviously evil and that the X-Men, who just popped down on the scene, are obviously good. And despite thsi making no sense, Jean just decides to kill everyone. Yep. Why? Oh, I don't know. She just wants to kill people...she's out of control, you say? I would agree, she's so out of control that her powers and her motivations have no LOGICAL SENSE BEHIND THEM!!!! How convienet for the filmmaker! And then, when I'm in a frenzy to destroy everyone around me in a blaze of demolecuralizing fury, the one thing I think of is: "I need a gigantic water wall!" and so I create one, thereby convienetly locking in my lover who so happens to possess a healing ability that RAPIDLY IMPROVES OVER THE PAST THREE FILMS IN THREE SECONDS as he resists being demolecuralized because apparently he just knows and tells Storm, "I"m the only one who can stop her" because when he got his adamantium skeleton they gave him a trsuty manual that told him his skeleton was "Radically-Insane-Apocotolyptic-Contrived-Plot-Point" proof.

Level 5 mutant capable of destroying the world taken out by three adamantium claws. Please..

So yes, Singer had a much harder job, and then produced a much better film.

X3 can't hold a candle to X2 in terms of pacing, character development, and action. It's by far a superior film on nearly every level, if not all levels (music being the sole exception). It is nearly held by most -- fans and moviegoers alike -- as a better film.

YOu hate Superman, Fine. Hate it. But, keep it logical and real and don't think you're making Superman a worse film by trying to make X3 a better one.

 

[Dark Knight]

You people aren't paying attention to what the man is saying:

He had to reintroduce the charater's archs, their developmental struggles and he did so in a very new and unforseen way. That's what he's talking about.

As to his comment about sequels: Singer has alreayd proven himself with X2. X2 was a far leaner, meaner film that X1 and X3 combined, a tight, concise piece of cinema with action, character, and theme. Setting the bar with Empire Strike's Back and Wrath of Kahn is not over the top at all -- he already proved he could do it with X2.

That is true.....Singer did solid job of improvement with X2. X2 was the best film out of all the X films....easily.

 

[Dark Knight]

Exactly ^

 

[I Am The Knight]

Actually, Singer and Ratner had about the same prep time. Also, Singer didn't have a harder job? Really, this is disqualifies your opinion.

As someone else said, Singer had to introduce a complex set of characters and issues into a 90 minute time frame in the first film. He did it admirably, all the while delivering substantial character development that goes missed because people forget that ensemble movies work differently then standardized individual hero films. In X3, Ratner botched and forget the development of any character in the film, threw it to the side, made a MTV 90 minute video with the X-Men, threw in a melodramatic, tacked on ending, and tried to say it bookended what could have been one of the greatest comic book trilogies.

Jean's rising of the water sequence and blowing the bullets away? Um, well...why did she rise the water in the first place? See, you like pointless action for the sake of action. I do not. I like my action to make sense, to fit into the story and its internal logic. Jean, the most powerful mutant, standing around catanoic while Magneto attacks Alcatraz was idiotic; logically and in fitting with her character's "so-called development" she should've been fighting much earlier. No, she just stands around and watches like a coma patient. "Um....."

Then, conviently, and in a way that was so revealing of the underlying script, we remember: JEAN! Crap! We forgot about her! Okay, soldiers, come shoot her...and they do because they know she's obviously evil and that the X-Men, who just popped down on the scene, are obviously good. And despite thsi making no sense, Jean just decides to kill everyone. Yep. Why? Oh, I don't know. She just wants to kill people...she's out of control, you say? I would agree, she's so out of control that her powers and her motivations have no LOGICAL SENSE BEHIND THEM!!!! How convienet for the filmmaker! And then, when I'm in a frenzy to destroy everyone around me in a blaze of demolecuralizing fury, the one thing I think of is: "I need a gigantic water wall!" and so I create one, thereby convienetly locking in my lover who so happens to possess a healing ability that RAPIDLY IMPROVES OVER THE PAST THREE FILMS IN THREE SECONDS as he resists being demolecuralized because apparently he just knows and tells Storm, "I"m the only one who can stop her" because when he got his adamantium skeleton they gave him a trsuty manual that told him his skeleton was "Radically-Insane-Apocotolyptic-Contrived-Plot-Point" proof.

Level 5 mutant capable of destroying the world taken out by three adamantium claws. Please..

So yes, Singer had a much harder job, and then produced a much better film.

X3 can't hold a candle to X2 in terms of pacing, character development, and action. It's by far a superior film on nearly every level, if not all levels (music being the sole exception). It is nearly held by most -- fans and moviegoers alike -- as a better film.

YOu hate Superman, Fine. Hate it. But, keep it logical and real and don't think you're making Superman a worse film by trying to make X3 a better one.

....And we have a winner. Great post.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Actually, Singer and Ratner had about the same prep time. Also, Singer didn't have a harder job? Really, this is disqualifies your opinion.

As someone else said, Singer had to introduce a complex set of characters and issues into a 90 minute time frame in the first film. He did it admirably, all the while delivering substantial character development that goes missed because people forget that ensemble movies work differently then standardized individual hero films. In X3, Ratner botched and forget the development of any character in the film, threw it to the side, made a MTV 90 minute video with the X-Men, threw in a melodramatic, tacked on ending, and tried to say it bookended what could have been one of the greatest comic book trilogies.

Jean's rising of the water sequence and blowing the bullets away? Um, well...why did she rise the water in the first place? See, you like pointless action for the sake of action. I do not. I like my action to make sense, to fit into the story and its internal logic. Jean, the most powerful mutant, standing around catanoic while Magneto attacks Alcatraz was idiotic; logically and in fitting with her character's "so-called development" she should've been fighting much earlier. No, she just stands around and watches like a coma patient. "Um....."
.

Bravo , yoj must have known me alll my life to come with such a conclusion
Listen , don't draw conclusion on what you think you know about me. If you wanna discuss X3 , fine. Point me to the X3 threads and we'll continue it there. Me and Ave have have already gone off topic with our discussions and i really don't fell like disucssing X-men in a superman forum , again and again.

Then, conviently, and in a way that was so revealing of the underlying script, we remember: JEAN! Crap! We forgot about her! Okay, soldiers, come shoot her...and they do because they know she's obviously evil and that the X-Men, who just popped down on the scene, are obviously good. And despite thsi making no sense, Jean just decides to kill everyone. Yep. Why? Oh, I don't know. She just wants to kill people...she's out of control, you say? I would agree, she's so out of control that her powers and her motivations have no LOGICAL SENSE BEHIND THEM!!!! How convienet for the filmmaker! And then, when I'm in a frenzy to destroy everyone around me in a blaze of demolecuralizing fury, the one thing I think of is: "I need a gigantic water wall!" and so I create one, thereby convienetly locking in my lover who so happens to possess a healing ability that RAPIDLY IMPROVES OVER THE PAST THREE FILMS IN THREE SECONDS as he resists being demolecuralized because apparently he just knows and tells Storm, "I"m the only one who can stop her" because when he got his adamantium skeleton they gave him a trsuty manual that told him his skeleton was "Radically-Insane-Apocotolyptic-Contrived-Plot-Point" proof.

Level 5 mutant capable of destroying the world taken out by three adamantium claws. Please..

So yes, Singer had a much harder job, and then produced a much better film.

X3 can't hold a candle to X2 in terms of pacing, character development, and action. It's by far a superior film on nearly every level, if not all levels (music being the sole exception). It is nearly held by most -- fans and moviegoers alike -- as a better film.

YOu hate Superman, Fine. Hate it. But, keep it logical and real and don't think you're making Superman a worse film by trying to make X3 a better one.

I am keeping it logical and real as i have been discussing so far with ave.If you can't see that , then that's you're problem , not mine. We were discussing about Bret Ratner , not about making X3 a better by trying to make superman worse.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Actually, Singer and Ratner had about the same prep time. Also, Singer didn't have a harder job? Really, this is disqualifies your opinion.

As someone else said, Singer had to introduce a complex set of characters and issues into a 90 minute time frame in the first film. He did it admirably, all the while delivering substantial character development that goes missed because people forget that ensemble movies work differently then standardized individual hero films. In X3, Ratner botched and forget the development of any character in the film, threw it to the side, made a MTV 90 minute video with the X-Men, threw in a melodramatic, tacked on ending, and tried to say it bookended what could have been one of the greatest comic book trilogies.

Jean's rising of the water sequence and blowing the bullets away? Um, well...why did she rise the water in the first place? See, you like pointless action for the sake of action. I do not. I like my action to make sense, to fit into the story and its internal logic. Jean, the most powerful mutant, standing around catanoic while Magneto attacks Alcatraz was idiotic; logically and in fitting with her character's "so-called development" she should've been fighting much earlier. No, she just stands around and watches like a coma patient. "Um....."

Then, conviently, and in a way that was so revealing of the underlying script, we remember: JEAN! Crap! We forgot about her! Okay, soldiers, come shoot her...and they do because they know she's obviously evil and that the X-Men, who just popped down on the scene, are obviously good. And despite thsi making no sense, Jean just decides to kill everyone. Yep. Why? Oh, I don't know. She just wants to kill people...she's out of control, you say? I would agree, she's so out of control that her powers and her motivations have no LOGICAL SENSE BEHIND THEM!!!! How convienet for the filmmaker! And then, when I'm in a frenzy to destroy everyone around me in a blaze of demolecuralizing fury, the one thing I think of is: "I need a gigantic water wall!" and so I create one, thereby convienetly locking in my lover who so happens to possess a healing ability that RAPIDLY IMPROVES OVER THE PAST THREE FILMS IN THREE SECONDS as he resists being demolecuralized because apparently he just knows and tells Storm, "I"m the only one who can stop her" because when he got his adamantium skeleton they gave him a trsuty manual that told him his skeleton was "Radically-Insane-Apocotolyptic-Contrived-Plot-Point" proof.

Level 5 mutant capable of destroying the world taken out by three adamantium claws. Please..

So yes, Singer had a much harder job, and then produced a much better film.

X3 can't hold a candle to X2 in terms of pacing, character development, and action. It's by far a superior film on nearly every level, if not all levels (music being the sole exception). It is nearly held by most -- fans and moviegoers alike -- as a better film.

YOu hate Superman, Fine. Hate it. But, keep it logical and real and don't think you're making Superman a worse film by trying to make X3 a better one.

Have to agree with most of this X3 was just a generic action flick that was THE most unfaithful comic book adaptation so far and has more plot holes and inconsistencies than SR by far more what Bosef mentioned. Want some more examples:

1)How come in the first two movies Xavier can only locate people across great distances using Cerebro, but in X3 he can sense Cyclops died at Alkali Lake and he can find Jean in an instant at her home!

2) How the hell did Angel know that Xaviers SCHOOL was a safe place for mutants and how the hell did he get from New York to San Francisco virtually as quick as the X-Men when they were in a super fast jet and he wasnt. AND how did he happen to know that the brotherhood would kill his father by throwing him off the roof?

3) Why does Magneto scream for Jean NOT to kill Xavier then when she does he just takes her with him without saying a word.

4) Why did Multiple Man join Magneto just to get caught by the authorities again? Is he ****ing stupid? And dont get me started on the way he joined Magneto: "I dont know you, i like your powers but you could be a treacherous bastard, but i could use a man of your talents."
MM:" I dont know you either, but i'm in!" Ugh pathetic!

5) At Jeans house, Magneto tells Juggernaut, etc, not to let Logan and Storm into the house, so what is virtually the first thing Juggernaut does? Throws Logan INTO the house.

Not to mention that it was CYCLOPS who saved Jean in the comic from being the Pheonix by telling her he loved her, NOT Wolverine. God i hate that movie!!!

And in Matrix Ghosts defense he hasnt made any derivative comments or snide remarks, he has just simply discussed. Though i cant imagine why he thought Ratner had the harder job!!!!!!!

 

[dark_b]

Actually, Singer and Ratner had about the same prep time. Also, Singer didn't have a harder job? Really, this is disqualifies your opinion.

As someone else said, Singer had to introduce a complex set of characters and issues into a 90 minute time frame in the first film. He did it admirably, all the while delivering substantial character development that goes missed because people forget that ensemble movies work differently then standardized individual hero films. In X3, Ratner botched and forget the development of any character in the film, threw it to the side, made a MTV 90 minute video with the X-Men, threw in a melodramatic, tacked on ending, and tried to say it bookended what could have been one of the greatest comic book trilogies.

Jean's rising of the water sequence and blowing the bullets away? Um, well...why did she rise the water in the first place? See, you like pointless action for the sake of action. I do not. I like my action to make sense, to fit into the story and its internal logic. Jean, the most powerful mutant, standing around catanoic while Magneto attacks Alcatraz was idiotic; logically and in fitting with her character's "so-called development" she should've been fighting much earlier. No, she just stands around and watches like a coma patient. "Um....."

Then, conviently, and in a way that was so revealing of the underlying script, we remember: JEAN! Crap! We forgot about her! Okay, soldiers, come shoot her...and they do because they know she's obviously evil and that the X-Men, who just popped down on the scene, are obviously good. And despite thsi making no sense, Jean just decides to kill everyone. Yep. Why? Oh, I don't know. She just wants to kill people...she's out of control, you say? I would agree, she's so out of control that her powers and her motivations have no LOGICAL SENSE BEHIND THEM!!!! How convienet for the filmmaker! And then, when I'm in a frenzy to destroy everyone around me in a blaze of demolecuralizing fury, the one thing I think of is: "I need a gigantic water wall!" and so I create one, thereby convienetly locking in my lover who so happens to possess a healing ability that RAPIDLY IMPROVES OVER THE PAST THREE FILMS IN THREE SECONDS as he resists being demolecuralized because apparently he just knows and tells Storm, "I"m the only one who can stop her" because when he got his adamantium skeleton they gave him a trsuty manual that told him his skeleton was "Radically-Insane-Apocotolyptic-Contrived-Plot-Point" proof.

Level 5 mutant capable of destroying the world taken out by three adamantium claws. Please..

So yes, Singer had a much harder job, and then produced a much better film.

X3 can't hold a candle to X2 in terms of pacing, character development, and action. It's by far a superior film on nearly every level, if not all levels (music being the sole exception). It is nearly held by most -- fans and moviegoers alike -- as a better film.

YOu hate Superman, Fine. Hate it. But, keep it logical and real and don't think you're making Superman a worse film by trying to make X3 a better one.

you do know that the bullet to the eye scene was there because they wrote that scene? every action scene that happens happens because they want to. action scenes are filmed because of action movies. there is not a bigger purpose in SR than in x3.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

you do know that the bullet to the eye scene was there because they wrote that scene? every action scene that happens happens because they want to. action scenes are filmed because of action movies. there is not a bigger purpose in SR than in x3.

No but at least SR had purpose, character, heart and some intelligence.