Well, I was responding to your points.
Why do you keep responding after continually saying I'm either wasting my time or my commentaries are pointless?
I’m not lying, or trying to shut you up,.
I simply don't believe you. I've had too many debates with you where you made claims that turned out to be 100% false. Sometimes you would make the same claim multiple times after it had already been refuted.
I’m offering what I believe are possible explanations.
Possible explanations that we already debated months ago? We already agreed to disagree on our opinions of X-Men 3 a few months back so why do you keep starting these debates with me in threads that weren't meant for this debate? Is there any end to your hypocrisy?
Every single debate I've had with you in this forum was instigated by you.
It's was obvious a year ago and it's pretty clear to me that you want to change my opinion of X-Men 3 no matter what it takes.
You have to make allowances with sci-fi and fantasy movies.
I have no problems with allowances that don't conflict with the rules with the established world in the sci-fi and fantasy movies. I have problems with what the hell moments that movies like X-Men 3 are filled with.
For instance, Gandalf summons giant eagles in the final battle in ROTK, leaving people wondering why he’d never done that before.
This was already disputed and refuted multiple times but, for some reason you think talking about this again is going to make you right. Gandalf summoned a Giant eagle in The fellowship of the Ring by talking to an insect that apparently sent a message to the eagles who had befriended some of the elves and humans. There was no scene in The Return of the King that suggested the eagles came to the final battle because Gandalf wished them there.
For instance, in X1, Rogue happens to turn up in the exact bar where Wolverine is,.
This has nothing to do with what I have been complaining about. I'm complaining about plot and logic inconsistencies. Not necessary plot points that must take place for us to even have a storyline.
Magneto somehow is aware of who she is and where she is,.
I already gave an explanation for this and because your short term memory is so awful I won't bother wasting my energy a second time.
with a machine he has not even tested at that point (so he wouldn’t know he’d need someone else to operate it at the Statue at that point),.
Previously explained months ago.
Sabretooth happens to be able to track them and create a precise ambush (and then find his way back on to Magneto’s island),),.
Previously explained months ago.
she just happens to call herself Rogue for no obvious reason ),),.
You're just being silly now. Now that's something reasonable to be critical of.
and, later, when Wolverine meets the X-Men, he mocks their codenames DESPITE calling himself by the name Wolverine),),.
I have no idea where you going with this? What are you complaining about?
and having arrived with a girl who inexplicably calls herself Rogue.
You do know that one synonym of rogue is a vagrant don't you? With this useful information I'm sure you can figure out why Anna Marie called herself Rogue.
As pieces of plot set-up, these felt a little awkward and contrived.
A little awkward yes but, definitely not contived.
..but were no doubt needed to move the story on..
That is obvious. Unfortunately, you don't know the difference between necessary plot pieces and ones that defy all logic.
..There’s also the silly scene in X2 where Magneto pulls the pins out of the soldiers’ grenades in the dam (while on the other side of a wall), though nothing else aside from the grenade pins seems to be affected.
I have no idea what about that scene gave you a problem. Magneto has
consistently(emphasis on consistently) displayed in all three movies that when he maximizes and focuses his power he can do amazing things with it. Your complaint of the grenade pins is confusing. Please explain to me what about the grenade pins being affected as the result of Magneto focusing his powers that doesn't make sense?
..By the way, Arclight’s power is explained in the novelisation as the power to shatter inorganic matterials by finding the frequency at which they break... this is borne out in the movie by the fact that when she uses her power at Alcatraz, the plastic guns are broken but the soldiers are not injured or killed or thrown around. Her mutant power is obviously quite specific..
That was from the novelisation and like many novelisations written to correlate with a film there are things in the novel and film that don't correlate so your suggestion is irrelevant because you can't prove that this is the way Arclight's powers work in the damn movie!!!
..The fact she is able to generate such shockwaves just from a handclap takes us into sci-fi anyway. So your attempt to apply real-life science is bogus. I’d love to hear your take on how Cyclops generates beams of concussive force (not lasers, no heat) from his eyes.
This is irrelevant. Once again you show that you have no freaking clue what I have been complaining about. I have problems with plot and logical inconsistences that defy the rules of Sci-fi and Fantasy worlds that are created. Repeat that sentence a hundred times to yourself and then just maybe you might just comprehend what I have been saying for a whole freaking year.
..I can also see why they went for the impact - literally - of having Magneto drop the bridge rather than delicately lowering it on to the troops and their look-out station on the island.
After considering how little time and thought was used to put together the horrid X-Men 3 script I can also see why they went for impact.
..This is science fiction.
Yep. It's also bad science fiction.
The science is fictional.
I have no problem with that.
How you’ve never figured that out before now is astounding
So now you're 100% convinced I don't know what the basic meaning of science fiction is?

You are without a doubt one of the worst debaters I've ever encountered on these forums.