What did Bryan Singer think of X3?

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I just watched it today again on Blu-ray and I wondered what all the fuss was about on here. It's a terrific movie. Any groans about comparisons with comics can be dismissed as the previous two films also deviated from the comics and cartoons. Since when was Iceman a young student in class with Pyro and a whiny Rogue? Mystique had one line of dialogue in X1. Sabretooth looked like a heavy-metal fan, Magneto was nothing like the comics, neither was Storm. If you can accept all that, then the changes in X3 are no reason to whinge.

I always want more X-Men - and I wish some of those deleted scenes were included - but overall it's a great film. It just upset fans, even though Rogue was still whiny and weak in the previous two movies and even though Cyclops was elbowed aside in X1 and X2. Why expect those characters to be transformed in X3? That's an unrealistic burden to put on the writers and director of the third film. Were they suddenly supposed to introduce Ms Marvel, have her powers switched to Rogue and then get Rogue flying about all over the place punching through skyscrapers. I hardly think so.

Well I like X-Men: The Last Stand - you and everyone else on these forums should know that - but the changes to it were MUCH more severe than the changes to the other films, and I also don't agree with much of what you stated.

1. Whiny Rogue
Well, Rogue wasn't the fiery southern belle that she is in the comics, but her "emo" portrayal isn't exactly inaccurate either. I've read my fair share of X-Men comics were Rogue WAS a loner, depressed girl over her powers. Her southern belle fiery attitude is more of a thing of the 90's, the Jim Lee era, specifically the times of the animated cartoon. But before then, she has been the lost, depressed girl who wishes she could have physical human interaction. It's not her most trademark persona, but it is an accurate one.

2. Magneto
I still fail to see how Magneto was nothing like the comic book. Is it because he wasn't young and muscular? Well, even in the comics, he's not young. And especially given the time frame of the films (released in 2000 - set in the "Not too distance future", meaning 2000 or later), a survivor of the Holocaust can't be some fit, in shape young buck. Ian McKellen and the films' portrayals were perfect.

3. Cyclops elbowed to the side
Cyclops actually had a rather significant role in X-Men as the field leader and original member of the team. Sure, Wolverine still got the lion's share of the screen time (because Wolverine IS the man when it comes to X-Men, like it or not) but Cyclops still had a pretty vital role. Not only that, but it was also him to took out Sabretooth, and took out Magneto as well, allowing Wolverine to destroy the machine. In X2 he was put to the side a little bit, but that was for storyline purposes - Stryker's plan to divide the X-Men and take out their leadership. Cyclops was "elbowed" to the side the most in X-Men: The Last Stand where he was killed off in a story that he should have played a large role in.

Storm I will admit - she was done wrong in all 3 films, and not one of them really got her "better" than the others, they were all wrong. Same goes for Iceman.

Sabretooth may not have had a lot of lines, but he was still pretty much in character - a ruthless, dangerous mutant who has no compassion for others and will go to the extremest of measures to get the job done.

Same for Mystique who was portrayed rather well in all of the movies, despite limited lines (despite the fact that I have never been a fan of the Mystique character, she was one of the trademark characters in the trilogy).

So in Singer's films, we have a mischaracterized Storm, who still shares the role of her comic book counterpart as second in command, a mischaracterized Bobby Drake / Iceman who is not an original member of the team, but rather one of the youngest members of the X-Men (accurate), an emo Rogue (accurate, but not her most popular persona), Pyro who was originally a student at Xavier's, Stryker who is a Colonel instead of a Reverend, Lady Deathstrike who is a female version of Wolverine (same exact mutant powers - same adamantium skeleton) with zero characterization, and Jean Grey taking the medical traits of Beast.

In Ratner's film (rather Kinberg / Penn) we have Cyclops killed off by Jean Grey in a story that should heavily involve him, we have a Rogue who takes the mutant cure, when in all previous versions of cure storylines, she has rejected the cure despite temptation, Jean Grey -killing- Charles Xavier, and Wolverine taking over as field leader of the X-Men, as well as Storm and other former friends of Jean Grey showing zero compassion towards their fallen friend.

All of these are changes to the very cores of the characters. Giving some particular traits from one character to another, such as medical training, or a lack of lines, are not fundamental changes to who the characters actually are. Killing Cyclops and taking him out of the Dark Phoenix Saga is a core change to who Cyclops is as a character - it's deleting him as a character. Curing Rogue goes against a very powerful trait of her persona - longing for physical human interaction, but sacrificing that, giving up those desires, to help benefit Xavier and his dream. Wolverine is not a leader, he's the guy who in X2 strays from the rest of the team to go persue his own personal vendettas. Storm giving up on Jean Grey, saying she "made her choice" takes away the sisterly bond that the 2 women share.

I mean, again, don't get me wrong, I do like the movie, and in the OVERALL picture I can deal with these changes. These things were wrong, yes, but the entire movie wasn't wrong. There were tons of things in this movie (as well as X-Men and X2) that I feel was done right. I think in the entire trilogy, including X-Men: The Last Stand more was done right than was done wrong.

But as I've always stated, the levels of "wrong" that were done in X-Men: The Last Stand far exceed the levels of "wrong" in X-Men and X2. I also believe that X-Men: The Last Stand reached certain heights that the other 2 didn't, but overall the film remains bittersweet for someone like myself. It's got some amazing moments, the Wolverine / Phoenix climax is probably my favorite moment in the trilogy, and it has some other great moments as well like the Phoenix v. Xavier battle, Magneto's 2 speeches, the entire final battle, Wolverine in the woods, and a few others, but it also has moments that make me, as an X-Men fan of the cartoons and comics before I ever saw my first X-Men film, cringe.

 

[X-Maniac]

Without going into one of those exhausting point-by-point debates, I agree that The Last Stand had the most deviation. But I think as a closing film for the trilogy, with casting issues, that's to be understood in some ways. Ratner's decision to show Rogue being cured was a way of resolving the conflict set up in the films, otherwise that conflict would go nowhere at all.

And don't misinterpet my list of movie changes from the comics as being things I disliked. I can accept most of them, even Storm. They're pointed out to show that changes existed way before Ratner and co came along!

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Yea I understand that, I just think that some of the things you pointed out weren't even exactly changes to begin with.

 

[chaseter]

Putting two huge storylines together, the cure and the Phoenix, was a bad idea in the first place and then chopping it down to 90something minutes didn't help. Marsden had scheduling conflicts, Halle wanted a nemesis and a bigger role, and of course Jackman was the star of the whole show so too many ideas clashed and personal requests/egos got in the way of what could have been a terrific movie. Then we get Fox telling Kinberg and Penn to cut that out or do it that way and lastly hiring Ratner who is a spastic monkey just culminated in an allbeit mediocre movie.

Singer can make the connection that fans and critics loved his first 2 movies and the same felt luke warm about the third.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Putting two huge storylines together, the cure and the Phoenix, was a bad idea in the first place and then chopping it down to 90something minutes didn't help. Marsden had scheduling conflicts, Halle wanted a nemesis and a bigger role, and of course Jackman was the star of the whole show so too many ideas clashed and personal requests/egos got in the way of what could have been a terrific movie. Then we get Fox telling Kinberg and Penn to cut that out or do it that way and lastly hiring Ratner who is a spastic monkey just culminated in an allbeit mediocre movie.

Singer can make the connection that fans and critics loved his first 2 movies and the same felt luke warm about the third.

I don't think the 2 storylines put together was a bad idea, I do agree that the film needed to be longer to develop them both better. I do believe that Fox should have kept their grubby little hands off of it and let the film makers just make a movie, and trust that their blockbuster franchise will bring in viewers and ultimately dollars. While I understand that when you translate something from one medium to another there are inherently going to be changes, just by the very nature of the beast, and I am okay with that, there has to come some point where you just trust the source material. And to me, therein lies the difference between Singers X-Men movies, and X-Men: The Last Stand - Singer's changes were the difference between making comic books and making a movie; neccessary changes to help the source material translate better. The changes in X-Men: The Last Stand were changes to the very core of the characters and the material. Killing off Cyclops, the first X-Man, and the field leader of the team; killing Xavier, the founder of the X-Men, the visionary of mutant / human co-existance; curing Rogue who chooses the complete opposite in the source material; turning Wolverine into a leader and inspirational speaker.

As much as I like the movie, it's still the most disappointing of the trilogy, because it's the only one that I feel could have, and should have been better. with X-Men and X2 I don't really feel like anything was missing. They lived up to their potential. X-Men: The Last Stand didn't. And as good as the movie was, I can only think of how good it would have been if it DID live up to it's potential. And that potential is even without Singer directing.

 

[DMRadz]

I really wanted to see Matthew Vaughn take a stab at this film.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I really wanted to see Matthew Vaughn take a stab at this film.

Some of the things that went horribly wrong with the film were his ideas or done under his watch. Plus other horrible ideas that he had that were thankfully scrapped when he left.

 

[X-Maniac]

Yea I understand that, I just think that some of the things you pointed out weren't even exactly changes to begin with.

Anything that wasn't as in the source material is a 'change'. The question is whether it works in a film, and that's best answered by those who don't have obsessive attachments to the source material.

Take the Phoenix/Xavier battle for instance. It worked within the film. And, if we do look at the source, it would hardly have played out in the same way, with Xavier winning and the X-Men then beamed to the moon.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I thought "The Cure" storyline was a fantastic idea, personally. But mixed with The Phoenix it didn't really hit me the way it should have. Same goes for Phoenix...Well, except they gave her no presence.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well I like X-Men: The Last Stand - you and everyone else on these forums should know that - but the changes to it were MUCH more severe than the changes to the other films, and I also don't agree with much of what you stated.

1. Whiny Rogue
Well, Rogue wasn't the fiery southern belle that she is in the comics, but her "emo" portrayal isn't exactly inaccurate either. I've read my fair share of X-Men comics were Rogue WAS a loner, depressed girl over her powers. Her southern belle fiery attitude is more of a thing of the 90's, the Jim Lee era, specifically the times of the animated cartoon. But before then, she has been the lost, depressed girl who wishes she could have physical human interaction. It's not her most trademark persona, but it is an accurate one.

2. Magneto
I still fail to see how Magneto was nothing like the comic book. Is it because he wasn't young and muscular? Well, even in the comics, he's not young. And especially given the time frame of the films (released in 2000 - set in the "Not too distance future", meaning 2000 or later), a survivor of the Holocaust can't be some fit, in shape young buck. Ian McKellen and the films' portrayals were perfect.

3. Cyclops elbowed to the side
Cyclops actually had a rather significant role in X-Men as the field leader and original member of the team. Sure, Wolverine still got the lion's share of the screen time (because Wolverine IS the man when it comes to X-Men, like it or not) but Cyclops still had a pretty vital role. Not only that, but it was also him to took out Sabretooth, and took out Magneto as well, allowing Wolverine to destroy the machine. In X2 he was put to the side a little bit, but that was for storyline purposes - Stryker's plan to divide the X-Men and take out their leadership. Cyclops was "elbowed" to the side the most in X-Men: The Last Stand where he was killed off in a story that he should have played a large role in.

Storm I will admit - she was done wrong in all 3 films, and not one of them really got her "better" than the others, they were all wrong. Same goes for Iceman.

Sabretooth may not have had a lot of lines, but he was still pretty much in character - a ruthless, dangerous mutant who has no compassion for others and will go to the extremest of measures to get the job done.

Same for Mystique who was portrayed rather well in all of the movies, despite limited lines (despite the fact that I have never been a fan of the Mystique character, she was one of the trademark characters in the trilogy).

So in Singer's films, we have a mischaracterized Storm, who still shares the role of her comic book counterpart as second in command, a mischaracterized Bobby Drake / Iceman who is not an original member of the team, but rather one of the youngest members of the X-Men (accurate), an emo Rogue (accurate, but not her most popular persona), Pyro who was originally a student at Xavier's, Stryker who is a Colonel instead of a Reverend, Lady Deathstrike who is a female version of Wolverine (same exact mutant powers - same adamantium skeleton) with zero characterization, and Jean Grey taking the medical traits of Beast.

In Ratner's film (rather Kinberg / Penn) we have Cyclops killed off by Jean Grey in a story that should heavily involve him, we have a Rogue who takes the mutant cure, when in all previous versions of cure storylines, she has rejected the cure despite temptation, Jean Grey -killing- Charles Xavier, and Wolverine taking over as field leader of the X-Men, as well as Storm and other former friends of Jean Grey showing zero compassion towards their fallen friend.

All of these are changes to the very cores of the characters. Giving some particular traits from one character to another, such as medical training, or a lack of lines, are not fundamental changes to who the characters actually are. Killing Cyclops and taking him out of the Dark Phoenix Saga is a core change to who Cyclops is as a character - it's deleting him as a character. Curing Rogue goes against a very powerful trait of her persona - longing for physical human interaction, but sacrificing that, giving up those desires, to help benefit Xavier and his dream. Wolverine is not a leader, he's the guy who in X2 strays from the rest of the team to go persue his own personal vendettas. Storm giving up on Jean Grey, saying she "made her choice" takes away the sisterly bond that the 2 women share.

I mean, again, don't get me wrong, I do like the movie, and in the OVERALL picture I can deal with these changes. These things were wrong, yes, but the entire movie wasn't wrong. There were tons of things in this movie (as well as X-Men and X2) that I feel was done right. I think in the entire trilogy, including X-Men: The Last Stand more was done right than was done wrong.

But as I've always stated, the levels of "wrong" that were done in X-Men: The Last Stand far exceed the levels of "wrong" in X-Men and X2. I also believe that X-Men: The Last Stand reached certain heights that the other 2 didn't, but overall the film remains bittersweet for someone like myself. It's got some amazing moments, the Wolverine / Phoenix climax is probably my favorite moment in the trilogy, and it has some other great moments as well like the Phoenix v. Xavier battle, Magneto's 2 speeches, the entire final battle, Wolverine in the woods, and a few others, but it also has moments that make me, as an X-Men fan of the cartoons and comics before I ever saw my first X-Men film, cringe.

This mostly sums up my feelings superbly, the only deviation being that I thought X3 was absolute garbage, even as simply a movie, it failed and was amateurish on so many levels IMO.

At least you can accept the opinions of others though Nell, unlike some people I know.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

At no point was Singer ever contracted for X3.

The first look deal that Singer's production company signed with FOX back then didn't include X3.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/536/536563p1.html

Oh no, this isnt correct though it is written clearly here Ben, X-Maniac has 'all the facts' and he is never wrong .

 

[X-Maniac]

At no point was Singer ever contracted for X3.

The first look deal that Singer's production company signed with FOX back then didn't include X3.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/536/536563p1.html

You're right that there was no contract for Singer to make and direct X3.

Negotiations for the third film began at the same time as the overall first-look deal. The trades described that as an 'overall' deal - why use that phrase unless it was a general, all-encompassing agreement that included everything. such as the development of a third X-movie.

I'm more astonished that Matthew Vaughn was so easily able to leave the X3 project.

But anyway, it's all academic now.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I'm more astonished that Matthew Vaughn was so easily able to leave the X3 project.

I still have theories that Fox got rid of Vaughn.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

This mostly sums up my feelings superbly, the only deviation being that I thought X3 was absolute garbage, even as simply a movie, it failed and was amateurish on so many levels IMO.

At least you can accept the opinions of others though Nell, unlike some people I know.

Thanks. I try to be open minded. I know I've gotten into some heated moments with members on the forums over the movie, but even then, my beef wasn't with negative opinions of the film, but rather the methods of completely insulting anything and everything positive about the film. It came off childish, and more along the lines of wanting to find failure in everything to be proven right than anything.

As far as your opinion of the film, I can even see how you would feel it to be amateurish. I even get that vibe myself at times. There are some elements of the film that just really aren't developed in a way that indicates great quality film making. And it's one of my complaints with the film that I've always had:

-Angel just randomly appearing whenever he's needed, without any explanation to why he is there.
-More on Angel, Angel being introduced very heavily without giving him any kind of real arc (I.E. making him a member of the team), or even giving closure to what little arc there was (showing up at the school, seeking a safe place for mutants, and then just disappearing after saving his father at Alcatraz)
-Absolutely HORRID dialogue between Cyclops and Jean Grey during the scene of her resurrection.
-Beast in Washington D.C. in one scene, and then New York in the very next scene.
-Storm saying to Xavier "There's something you're not telling us" without any kind of follow up what so ever on that claim.
-Film makers undoing pretty much every important element of their film with their final Magneto scene, and the Xavier scene post credits.
-Characters like Multiple Man and Juggernaut joining Magneto's cause without knowing anything about Magneto or what his cause even is (at least with Callisto and her group, they witnessed Magneto's speech and had a dialogue with him about his intentions)
-Minor characters randomly appearing and disappearing - Pyro not at Jean's house with Magneto, despite being Magneto's next in command and right hand man. Same with Multiple Man. Psylocke disappearing for the entire movie after he introduction at the church, never being involved in any Brotherhood scenes, and then randomly appearing at Alcatraz.

I still find much of this to be minor, as most of it involves such minor characters like Multiple Man, Psylocke, or Angel, but it's just little things like this that a good film maker like Singer wouldn't have missed.

Although, after seeing X-Men and X2, as well as Superman Returns, I don't think Singer would have done many of the things that X-Men: The Last Stand did right. And just like the accuracy to the comic books, I think the movie did more right than it did wrong. So I can forgive the mistakes.

 

[[A]]

^ what I said: X3 = piece of s**t movie

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Well I've had a long time to think about how I feel about X3. I'm not as vocal about my hatred for it as I used to be, nor do I feel the need to look down or call anyone out about their love for it.

Let's be honest the film has made its money and whatever anger, disappointment, and hatred that anyone felt about it has subsided into a more rational type of thinking. How do I feel? Well, in all honesty I still feel it's a poor film and it's disappointing when you think how much better it could've been.

For me personally if I were to like it it would be accepting a mediocre product and for as long as I've read, followed, and watched X-Men I've always felt that the material is just calling to be depicted in a faithful, emotional, and powerful fashion. I feel we got those in two films but Fox refused to let Bryan Singer do what he intended for the franchise. But what's done is done my friends and we can't change what was made.

Fox should take lessons from WB though. Films like The Dark Knight is living proof as to what happens when you have little to no studio interference and allow a director to film his vision.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I still have theories that Fox got rid of Vaughn.

I don't know. It's possible that he may've left. He did leave Thor after all the balk he made about when he said he would've made an epic, emotional, and better X3 than Ratner or Singer. Then for him to turnaround and leave Thor does kind of make you wonder though.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I don't know. It's possible that he may've left. He did leave Thor after all the balk he made about when he said he would've made an epic, emotional, and better X3 than Ratner or Singer. Then for him to turnaround and leave Thor does kind of make you wonder though.

I just wonder why a bigtime movie studio like that would just let someone out of their contract so easily.

Whatever the reasons may be, I'm glad that he did leave, but knowing some of his ideas, and how even Kinberg and Penn felt about it, and the fashion in which he left, I wouldn't be surprised if the studio got rid of him

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I just wonder why a bigtime movie studio like that would just let someone out of their contract so easily.

Whatever the reasons may be, I'm glad that he did leave, but knowing some of his ideas, and how even Kinberg and Penn felt about it, and the fashion in which he left, I wouldn't be surprised if the studio got rid of him

To be fair it's not like he had a big resume. Now if it was someone like a Peter Jackson, Gullermo Del Toro, Spielberg, or Nolan I doubt they'd let either of them go that easily. But in all honesty I don't believe Vaughn's story of not wanting to be away from his family. He's in a occupation where actors, directors, and the crew are away from their families for months sometimes years.

So we don't know what really happened. I'm curious to see what he would've done. However since he left Thor? I just find it hard to believe that he's this great director who can make an amazing film. He said he wanted to prove his critics wrong when he makes Thor, and yet he leaves?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

To be fair it's not like he had a big resume. Now if it was someone like a Peter Jackson, Gullermo Del Toro, Spielberg, or Nolan I doubt they'd let either of them go that easily. But in all honesty I don't believe Vaughn's story of not wanting to be away from his family. He's in a occupation where actors, directors, and the crew are away from their families for months sometimes years.

So we don't know what really happened. I'm curious to see what he would've done. However since he left Thor? I just find it hard to believe that he's this great director who can make an amazing film. He said he wanted to prove his critics wrong when he makes Thor, and yet he leaves?

Well I guess there's that, he is essentially a nobody. But in the end, you'd think that'd be even more reason for him to be held to his contract, he'd have less leverage than someone like Cameron or Jackson or Spielberg or someone.

I also don't believe his story of not wanting to be away from his family. A part of me wants to say Fox canned him after they learned of some of the things he wanted to do.

 

[X-Maniac]

Well I've had a long time to think about how I feel about X3. I'm not as vocal about my hatred for it as I used to be, nor do I feel the need to look down or call anyone out about their love for it.

Let's be honest the film has made its money and whatever anger, disappointment, and hatred that anyone felt about it has subsided into a more rational type of thinking. How do I feel? Well, in all honesty I still feel it's a poor film and it's disappointing when you think how much better it could've been.

For me personally if I were to like it it would be accepting a mediocre product and for as long as I've read, followed, and watched X-Men I've always felt that the material is just calling to be depicted in a faithful, emotional, and powerful fashion. I feel we got those in two films but Fox refused to let Bryan Singer do what he intended for the franchise. But what's done is done my friends and we can't change what was made.

Fox should take lessons from WB though. Films like The Dark Knight is living proof as to what happens when you have little to no studio interference and allow a director to film his vision.

I'm glad you mellowed.

I rewatched X3 the other day - i just switched over to Blu-ray and it was one of the first discs I bought. I still think some of the film is terrific and gave me the visceral and energetic action scenes I had been waiting to see in the X-movies.

I do think Singer's two films were technically better and more thoughtful (that was very obvious when watching all three at an IMAX screening) and that his background (Jewish, adopted, gay) gave him a greater connection to the underlying themes of the source material that worked fairly well on film - but I also feel his films were sometimes too restrained and flat, lacking in punch and power. For me, the third film is far more visceral and dynamic and I enjoyed seeing that happen; for me, it works really well in what is supposed to be the climax of the trilogy when all hell finally breaks loose.

I also think The Dark Knight's success isn't just down to directorial freedom. Bryan had that with Superman Returns and he went off at a tangent with an elseworld storyline that divided the fanbase - introducing a child, a new partner for Lois and having Superman disappear for five years. It's incredibly hard to move the story forward with that superkid in it, hence long debates/delays over the next film.

Christopher Nolan didn't do anything that controversial - his vision is still very much in line with expectations of Batman. There is no Batman child, we don't see Batman spying on Rachel, we don't see him leaving Gotham for five years... It leads me to conclude that Bryan isn't exactly the right director for Superman, that he was more suited to X-Men. But he isn't the only director who could do an X-Men film and I don't think he would want to come back and do another, though I may be wrong.

 

[Retroman]

Vaughn comes off as very arrogant and he sounded a little too rigourous with some of his X3 ideas but still i think he would have made a better movie than Ratner had he been given the time he wanted.

Layer Cake is a good solid british gangster flick and i thoroughly enjoyed Stardust too.So i was disappointed when i heard that he had left Thor.


Here are some of Bryan Singer's ideas for the sequel(s) and his thought's on X3.

May 25, 2003 —

Director Bryan Singer recently spoke to Total Film Magazine about some potential X-Villains in future installments:

The Brood: Sounds like 'The Thing' meets 'Alien'. I'll always try to shy away from anything that I've seen before. You try desperately not to be derivative, and we've seen eggs planted in people's stomachs and people transforming into aliens a lot.

Juggerbaut: I've always liked Juggernaut. I like the concept of this unstoppable, freight-train being - the purity of that is terrifying. But he was never considered in any of the scripts I worked on, unfortunately.

The Sentinels: The Sentinels are something we looked at for X2. I originally brought Guy Dyas, my production designer, on board to do Sentinel designs for me and he came up with a clever design and built a maquette of it, which actually sits in my home! But we felt, for X2, the concept of giant robots is a difficult sell. But it's definitely something we may have room for in the future.

Arcade: Ugh. That seems a little 'Batman'. That's all I would say about that.

Apocalypse: It's possible. But that involves an expanded X-Men universe and we're expanding it but, y'know, one step at a time!"

Published on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 5:22am

- Someone asked if he could "repair the damage" done by X3. His immediate answer was, "I'd have to see who's left in the cast..." got a big laugh. He then went very political, commenting positively on what Ratner was able to pull off in the time alloted to him.
- Another person asked what his X3 was going to be. Singer said he only wrote 1/3rd of a treatment that's floating around on his computer now. Phoenix was involved, but the villain was someone new... from the X-Men universe. He wouldn't specify since he's currently writing some stuff for Marvel Comics.

Source:http://www.countingdown.com/movies/2756437?item_id=3073059
http://www.aintitcool.com/talkback_display/23943?q=node/23943

I thought "The Cure" storyline was a fantastic idea, personally. But mixed with The Phoenix it didn't really hit me the way it should have. Same goes for Phoenix...Well, except they gave her no presence.

Agreed, both stories could sustain their own film. But they wanted to cram too much in a movie that had to be under 2 hours for some reason.The rushed production schedule didn't help matters either.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Thanks. I try to be open minded. I know I've gotten into some heated moments with members on the forums over the movie, but even then, my beef wasn't with negative opinions of the film, but rather the methods of completely insulting anything and everything positive about the film. It came off childish, and more along the lines of wanting to find failure in everything to be proven right than anything.

As far as your opinion of the film, I can even see how you would feel it to be amateurish. I even get that vibe myself at times. There are some elements of the film that just really aren't developed in a way that indicates great quality film making. And it's one of my complaints with the film that I've always had:

-Angel just randomly appearing whenever he's needed, without any explanation to why he is there.
-More on Angel, Angel being introduced very heavily without giving him any kind of real arc (I.E. making him a member of the team), or even giving closure to what little arc there was (showing up at the school, seeking a safe place for mutants, and then just disappearing after saving his father at Alcatraz)
-Absolutely HORRID dialogue between Cyclops and Jean Grey during the scene of her resurrection.
-Beast in Washington D.C. in one scene, and then New York in the very next scene.
-Storm saying to Xavier "There's something you're not telling us" without any kind of follow up what so ever on that claim.
-Film makers undoing pretty much every important element of their film with their final Magneto scene, and the Xavier scene post credits.
-Characters like Multiple Man and Juggernaut joining Magneto's cause without knowing anything about Magneto or what his cause even is (at least with Callisto and her group, they witnessed Magneto's speech and had a dialogue with him about his intentions)
-Minor characters randomly appearing and disappearing - Pyro not at Jean's house with Magneto, despite being Magneto's next in command and right hand man. Same with Multiple Man. Psylocke disappearing for the entire movie after he introduction at the church, never being involved in any Brotherhood scenes, and then randomly appearing at Alcatraz.

I still find much of this to be minor, as most of it involves such minor characters like Multiple Man, Psylocke, or Angel, but it's just little things like this that a good film maker like Singer wouldn't have missed.

Although, after seeing X-Men and X2, as well as Superman Returns, I don't think Singer would have done many of the things that X-Men: The Last Stand did right. And just like the accuracy to the comic books, I think the movie did more right than it did wrong. So I can forgive the mistakes.

Those problems you listed and more are what bugged me about the movie, and why I still feel so sore about it, its THE most dissapointing movie of my life, and knowing the way Fox handled it, it makes me sick to my stomach. Literally the ONLY things I like about it were the portrayal of Pyro, Beast and the score, even the action scene's which people tend to enjoy the most in this movie did nothing for me, as I had grown to dislike the characters so much because of their portrayal. But if you like it Nell, you like it, I hope you get the enjoyment out of it that I never could, I really do. At least you appreciate that others feel differently and try and discuss rather than offend them.

 

[Rac]

I clearly remember reading Singer saying ‘unbelievable’.

That could have been the word. As it's a synonym, replace my 'astonishing' with 'unbelievable' and my original post still stands. Whether he meant unbelievably good or unbelievably bad is open to debate

The word was "unbeliavable". I remember. And I think he meant the latter.

If I'm not mistaken I could've sworn Singer stated he was going to film X3/X4 back to back with the Phoenix Saga and Dark Phoenix Saga along with the Hellfire Club being included.

Of course it's all speculation at this point. I don't even think he had a script for X3 done. He just had a few ideas and concepts saved into his computer.

I remember the talk of back-to-back X3/X4 too. X3 was supposed to be about The Sentinel Program with Phoenix subplot and X4 about Dark Phoenix.

There were rumours about Singer wanting Deathstryke to return as a cyborg (like in the comics) too.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, you don't have all the facts and you never will.

And you do?

 

[X-Maniac]

The word was "unbeliavable". I remember. And I think he meant the latter.

Heh, he actually was astonished at what had been achieved in the available time, as he also said in a later interview

I remember the talk of back-to-back X3/X4 too. X3 was supposed to be about The Sentinel Program with Phoenix subplot and X4 about Dark Phoenix.

There were rumours about Singer wanting Deathstryke to return as a cyborg (like in the comics) too.

Rumours....talk...what he wanted to do...blah blah... And yet he didn't, he left for Superman. Which makes anything he wanted to do irrelevant as he chose to leave the franchise.

Always wanting what you can't have and never got is going to make you a very unhappy person, if you aren't one already.

And you do?

Yes.