Worried About X3? Post Your Misgivings Here

[X-Maniac]

I can understand the concern. The biggest fear I have is that this will be a repeat of Episode III. That is to say, a movie where the trailer made it look phenomonal and incredibly moving, but the actual sequencing of the movie itself left a lot of scenes emotionally stale. However, the trailer for X3 was REALLY captivating, and despite a lot of fans' complaints that it's not close enough to the source, it looks like it's shaping up to be a very good movie.

i just had the misfortune to finally see Revenge of the Sith... Utterly soulless, very poor characterisation, very little emotional content and Palpatine becoming like an evil cartoon/pantomime villain with the grimacing and cackling and the silly voice. Opening straight into frenetic action was a bad move, and there was far too much light-sabre fighting, it started to become meaningless; and Anakin's turning to the dark side was done in such a casual, perfunctory fashion with no real emotion. What a letdown.

Made X1 and X2 look UTTERLY MAGNIFICENT in their character-driven sci-fi drama; let's hope Brett keeps the faith with X3 and that he doesn't look to Revenge of the Sith for any inspiration.

 

[Sandman138]

Well, I thought Palpatine was the one fun thing about it, but other than that I more or less agree with your assesment.

 

[Halcohol]

The best part of Episode III for me wasn't even the story, characters, or special effects. It was seeing all the designs as hybrids between Episodes II and IV, ie Palpatine's shuttle, the Jedi war room, the fleet ships, etc

 

[XCharlieX]

There is a difference between being neutral and being negative. For example, your phrase "pleasantries from obligated cast" implies that when Patrick Stewart said this movie is the "best" of the series and that when Ian McKellan said it started with a "superior" script, they are both lying.

No I am being neutral... how? Because I can see what positive and negative fans are saying, average it out and trash the nonsense complaints and see the core arguments of both sides. The core argument of a positive fan is nobodies seen the movie yet and they could be telling the truth to us that its good... ok. The negative side is bad writers, unproven director, part 3, fox and sequels dont mix... those are valid complaints. Very. You average both of these out and it all comes down to hollywood having reputation to take folks for everything theyre worth despite quality... thats not negative about the movie.. thats common sense. Which leads me to wait and see since it could fall either way technically. But I will not ignore negative things just to not appear negative. Theyre there.

And about lying... this is how folks think they always tell the complete truth. Theres a difference between lying and spinning. Spinning is where all you have to do is point out the positive aspects of a film and think along those lines for the context of your compliments. So say "the script is the "best" of the three.. it could be the *main idea* behind it.. they find it thoughtful whatever idea they came up with.... but that does NOT mean it was executed to satisfactory standards OVERALL or paced properly with the action. You can notice a specific quality that you find to boost the script/film, but those ideas can get lost by the rest of the process or even script, and you dont have to mention that, just that "the movie is amazing because of this brilliant cure idea!" What many people do is focus on the positive... but there are many variables besides this that muddle a project. They also try to reach for a pov in the minority (usually for a reason) and market it on that in order to be positive. Ever heard a bad flick use the "its not pretentious" line? Usually means "the movie has no story but who cares its fun". Its a perception game 24/7.. "make no mistake". It boiled down to if this time nobody has to spin too much because it truly is good.. or is hollywood doing what its done since its conception: turning perception inside out for BO returns.

The spin game brings out the best even in a bad movie... when everybody goes to work everyday you must spin the products you sell... like that big screen tv that breaks easily Its in the job description when you apply..they actually ask you psych questions in order to see what type of person you are in this respect

 

[flavio_lebeau]

No I am being neutral... how? Because I can see what positive and negative fans are saying, average it out and trash the nonsense complaints and see the core arguments of both sides. The core argument of a positive fan is nobodies seen the movie yet and they could be telling the truth to us that its good... ok. The negative side is bad writers, unproven director, part 3, fox and sequels dont mix... those are valid complaints. Very. You average both of these out and it all comes down to hollywood having reputation to take folks for everything theyre worth despite quality... thats not negative about the movie.. thats common sense. Which leads me to wait and see since it could fall either way technically. But I will not ignore negative things just to not appear negative. Theyre there.

And about lying... this is how folks think they always tell the complete truth. Theres a difference between lying and spinning. Spinning is where all you have to do is point out the positive aspects of a film and think along those lines for the context of your compliments. So say "the script is the "best" of the three.. it could be the *main idea* behind it.. they find it thoughtful whatever idea they came up with.... but that does NOT mean it was executed to satisfactory standards OVERALL or paced properly with the action. You can notice a specific quality that you find to boost the script, but those ideas can get lost by the rest of the process or even script, and you dont have to mention that, just that "the movie is amazing because of this brilliant cure idea!" What many people do is focus on the positive... and that positive idea may very well boost the quality... but there are many variables besides this that muddle a project. They also try to reach for a pov in the minority (usually for a reason) and market it on that in order to be positive. Ever heard a bad flick use the "its not pretentious" line? Usually means "the movie has no story but who cares its fun". Its a perception game 24/7.. "make no mistake". It boiled down to if this time nobody has to spin too much because it truly is good.. or is hollywood doing what its done since its conception: turning perception inside out for BO returns.

The spin game brings out the best even in a bad movie... when everybody goes to work everyday you must spin the products you sell... like that big screen tv that breaks easily Its in the job description when you apply..they actually ask you psych questions in order to see what type of person you are in this respect

fox and sequels dont mix...

i thought X2 was made by Fox??

part 3

sorry, but this is the least valid point ever. Because the previous rains were pouring we can ever say the next one will be pouring too? dont think so...

The core argument of a positive fan is nobodies seen the movie yet and they could be telling the truth to us that its good... ok

that is not the core argument IMO. While negative fans point out the writers and director, judging by their previous works, the positive ones deal with what has been shown, with what is real, trailers, posters, and they all seem very nice even to most concerned critics. X-men is in front of other blockbusters in many sites, has been receiving postive critics all the time. We cannot say that the film will be poor because the writers were responsible for failure movies before. Everyone has a chance to grow better and become more experient, if given a chance, and this may be the chance they needed to show a good work.

 

[XCharlieX]

i thought X2 was made by Fox??

Yes yes... i thought of that months ago. You see... fox is ok when theres someone proven... or even someone to stand up to them. What happens with movies that lose the strong directors at fox is often being replaced by someone who is more "agreeable" toward them... Paul Anderson for example. Either way, all they gotta do is get someone who agrees from the get go... then they dont have to demand anything Theyll get their slender flick with a storyline agreed on, that they had in mind all along.

sorry, but this is the least valid point ever.

I have millions of people in the majority who think otherwise. Part 3s is where things unravel most of the time. I believe doubting this is the least valid point ever.

that is not the core argument IMO. While negative fans point out the writers and director, judging by their previous works, the positive ones deal with what has been shown, with what is real, trailers, posters, and they all seem very nice even to most concerned critics.

Which is saying "nobodies seen the movie yet and they could be telling the truth, wait and see". And where do these marketing materials come from? PR. Who trusts a corporation with promises? Who trusts their past list of works that weve seen already? Its common sense.

What folks are missing a lot online is the ability to judge PR relations separately from the movie... good talk.. now show the product.

 

[LEX]

i just had the misfortune to finally see Revenge of the Sith... Utterly soulless, very poor characterisation, very little emotional content and Palpatine becoming like an evil cartoon/pantomime villain with the grimacing and cackling and the silly voice. Opening straight into frenetic action was a bad move, and there was far too much light-sabre fighting, it started to become meaningless; and Anakin's turning to the dark side was done in such a casual, perfunctory fashion with no real emotion. What a letdown.

Made X1 and X2 look UTTERLY MAGNIFICENT in their character-driven sci-fi drama; let's hope Brett keeps the faith with X3 and that he doesn't look to Revenge of the Sith for any inspiration.

It was way too fast-paced and too many plot holes with no character developments. I kept losing track of the movie. I agree with you, it made both X1 and X2 look a lot better. God. Was Lucas smoking pot when he was directing/writing/producing/drawing/supervising/CEO-ing?

 

[flavio_lebeau]

Yes yes... i thought of that months ago You see... fox is ok when theres someone proven... or even someone to stand up to them. What happens with movies that lose the strong directors at fox is often being replaced by someone who is more "agreeable" toward them... Paul Anderson for example.

I agree with this, since Ratner isnt still a strong director to stand up to Fox, he could (and probably) have suffered pressure and influence from the studio. Even so, in X1, Singer wasnt that powerful, he got many things out and low budget and yadda yadda yadda, but still X1 came out as a great movie. He is responsible for that, he is a talented director, but it doesnt exclude the possibility of Ratner, even not being the almighty director, come out with a great movie. And please dont tell me that because he made the Rush Hour movies he is not able to make X3 good. Any good director always needs a first masterpiece to become recognized, why cant X3 be Ratner's jump to a better level?

I have millions of people in the majority who think otherwise. Part 3s is where things unravel most of the time.

While part 3 is usually hard to be good, it is just not a valid point. We can not say something is bad because other films that have nothing to do with X-men, and were directed and thought by other people, were bad. There are exceptions like LOTR, and i hope and think X-men will become another example of a good third part. Part 3 is just a superstition.

And where do these marketing materials come from? PR. Who trusts a corporation? Who trusts their past list of works? Its common sense.

True, the marketing material is obviously made to get us with high expectation, but remember once more X1, i bet that when Bryan Singer was put in direction, fans must have got crazy, he had never read comics, he didnt know who were x-men and so. Ratner has some terrible movies in his list, yes, but he is a fan and though that doesnt make him a better director, at least he knows something about them. Also, he is following Bryan's steps, what makes me happy and more secure. I dont like Ratner, but i just dont go out saying that movie will suck because of him and his past films. He wasnt the one who thought the entire movie, he is basically continuing Singer's vision of this universe, and probably adding more action without forgeting the drama. I cant complain about that. I sure would be happier if Singer ended his trilogy, but i dont think the movie will be bad because he left. No one is unforgettable, and now i even actually start to like the way the movie is going. If Ratner was the one directing X1, yes, i would get crazy, but he is merely continuing some point of view (like he himself said many times) and i am pleased how he forgets all that "i tried to put my fingerprint". That counted points for him, he was forgetting his ego to just keep the universe the way it is. I would talk about thee writers, but this is already too long

 

[Halcohol]

It was way too fast-paced and too many plot holes with no character developments. I kept losing track of the movie. I agree with you, it made both X1 and X2 look a lot better. God. Was Lucas smoking pot when he was directing/writing/producing/drawing/supervising/CEO-ing?

I think his problem was he tried to spruce up the prequels a bit too much, make them TOO full of everything. Everything except heart. When you watch the originals, they were great, you felt disappointed when Luke wasn't allowed to go to the Academy, you were intrigued when Ben started talking about the Force, you were thrilled when Han Solo showed up at the end, flying out of the sun.

But with Episode I, II, and III, you KNEW what was going to happen at the end, and the journey wasn't as memorable. Personally, I believe with someone else writing the dialogue and another actor cast as Anakin, the prequels could have been INCREDIBLE.

But, well, Lucas lost his touch about 15 years ago and nobody bothered to tell him.

 

[Halcohol]

I'm looking forward to Ratner's X3 because, as shown in Rush Hour, he can shoot action scenes and make them look good. Granted, a large portion of the coolness came from Jackie Chan, but I think Rush Hour was one of the better-shot Jackie Chan movies.

I'm hoping X3 will have enough action that Ratner's experience can shine through.

 

[LEX]

I think you made a good point on the we-know-what-was-going-to-happen thing. Oh, well - it's in the past now. Lucas is swimming in his money pool and let's leave him be.

Speaking of the Rush Hour movies, I haven't seen them in ages. I have the Rush Hour 2 DVD, but I haven't the first one in over a year, I think. I remember laughing all the way through the movie. I must rent one ASAP.

 

[Halcohol]

I dunno, people use them as a reason why Ratner sucks, but I always thought they were pretty good.

"Ciga-what? Maaaaan, this is ciga-weed!"

 

[MoiBijou]

"Rush Hour" movies were good as comedy movies. I don't understand why people bash them... What did they want to see? Drama? Deep thoughts? Man, they're COMEDIES!

 

[PhoenixRisen]

I don't wanna debate this endlessly cuz I know some people, for whatever reasons, will be "worried" about this movie until the lights come up in the theater, but...

And about lying... this is how folks think they always tell the complete truth. Theres a difference between lying and spinning. Spinning is where all you have to do is point out the positive aspects of a film and think along those lines for the context of your compliments. So say "the script is the "best" of the three..

You probably thought about this months ago, BUT if Stewart and McKellan wanted to spin, they could've easily said the movie will be "great" and the script is "awesome." But instead they chose to compare it with the previous films. I would think that, if they are friends with Bryan Singer, they would avoid saying that X3 will be better than X1 or X2, so as not to "put down" Singer's work. But they used the words "best" and "superior."

For me, when I see a movie's trailer, I usually expect that they are showing the best moments from the movie. So if I see a trailer for a comedy and don't laugh, I assume that they showed the funniest bit in the trailer and that the rest of the movie probably won't be funny. HOWEVER, in this case, it seems that they are purposefully NOT showing some of the juiciest scenes from the movie (i.e. Sentinels, Phoenix effect) to keep some surprises. And I LOVE every moment from the trailer, so yeah I am pretty optimistic (er, to say the least!!). I took the poll in the "Which scene do you think will be the most emotional/powerful?" thread and I couldn't decide--IT ALL LOOKS GOOD!! And I'm just judging based on what I've SEEN, not on part 3 superstitions, etc.

 

[LEX]

"Rush Hour" movies were good as comedy movies. I don't understand why people bash them... What did they want to see? Drama? Deep thoughts? Man, they're COMEDIES!

I know. The naysayers have got to stop using the Rush Hour movies to bash Ratner. *coughsAICNcoughs* It's pathetic, really.

 

[XCharlieX]

You probably thought about this months ago, BUT if Stewart and McKellan wanted to spin, they could've easily said the movie will be "great" and the script is "awesome." But instead they chose to compare it with the previous films.

Heres how it can work... you compare it with the previous films in terms of the main plot... which McKellan stated was the reason it was ahead of the previous. Still can be spin. And im sure Singers not offended... he knows the 3rd is supposed to be greatest of all or it doesnt float and that contracts tell them who theyre supporting. Once again the main idea may be good... its the details.

I agree with this, since Ratner isnt still a strong director to stand up to Fox, he could (and probably) have suffered pressure and influence from the studio. Even so, in X1, Singer wasnt that powerful, he got many things out and low budget and yadda yadda yadda, but still X1 came out as a great movie. He is responsible for that, he is a talented director, but it doesnt exclude the possibility of Ratner, even not being the almighty director, come out with a great movie. And please dont tell me that because he made the Rush Hour movies he is not able to make X3 good. Any good director always needs a first masterpiece to become recognized, why cant X3 be Ratner's jump to a better level?

Which is exactly why im neutral. You have possibilities that CAN happen. But... how many times are you willing to play roulette with directors? X men lucked out with Singer. "O yeah.. its wise to roll the dice again" ...no. For every person sucessful that made sub par stuff before.. theres tons that still suck lol.

While part 3 is usually hard to be good, it is just not a valid point.

If you say so 3s are legend. for some reason or another they usually become sucky while the fanbase is split on consensus on pre arrival. Observing, i think the reason for so much negativity is its blatant this flick has issues that arent favorable.

If Ratner was the one directing X1, yes, i would get crazy, but he is merely continuing some point of view (like he himself said many times) and i am pleased how he forgets all that "i tried to put my fingerprint". That counted points for him, he was forgetting his ego to just keep the universe the way it is. I would talk about thee writers, but this is already too long

Thats called PR youve been reading lol Fun to believe.. but the carpet can be pulled from your feet at any point... but interestingly some begin to buy into the PR logic and then love the movie reguardless... this is what i predict will happen to a lot of folks here. Then the companies say people want more of it... hence more bad flicks are made and are called "good".

 

[PhoenixRisen]

Thats called PR youve been reading lol Fun to believe.. but the carpet can be pulled from your feet at any point... but interestingly some begin to buy into the PR logic and then love the movie reguardless... this is what i predict will happen to a lot of folks here. Then the companies say people want more of it... hence more bad flicks are made and are called "good".

"I WILL LOVE THIS MOVIE REGARDLESS. PR LOGIC RULES. DO NOT PULL CARPET FROM MY FEET. PR LOGIC RULES."

 

[TheSumOfGod]

This movie will suck! It will forever destroy the X-Men franchise! Oh my God, we're all gonna die!!!

Now that I've gotten THAT out of my system, I must say that I don't like the costume design, the new hairdews, and the story in general.

 

[XCharlieX]

"I WILL LOVE THIS MOVIE REGARDLESS. PR LOGIC RULES. DO NOT PULL CARPET FROM MY FEET. PR LOGIC RULES."

I didnt say theyd admit it or even realize it Even if its bad theres still fans there to say the movie was a success so lets make more heh. Hell half of what folks say optimistic on this board sounds exactly like what PR says... coincidence? no.

 

[Aiden]

Oh no you didn't

 

[LEX]

Okay, I'm gonna pretend that you didn't just say that.

 

[XCharlieX]

Youre entitled to your povs but as am i about yours If you convince yourself beforehand somethings good.. many wont admit or realize much of faults when it arrives , for the sake of having a part 3 made into a movie or maybe even embarassment. Self fulfilling prophecy. On the t3 boards most voted it was a great movie and debated on and on... until they parted from the hype on message boards.. trickled in years later and said the flick wasnt all that. Too late.. they each went to see it 7 times already.

 

[PhoenixRisen]

Now that I've gotten THAT out of my system, I must say that I don't like the costume design, the new hairdews, and the story in general.

I will agree with your point about the hairdews, or hair-DON'Ts as I like to call them!! I mean, seriously...can you believe Jean's hair grew a good foot and a half while she was underwater?? Thankfully she awoke when she did or we woulda saw her emerge from Alkali Lake like this:

 

[TheSumOfGod]

I didnt say theyd admit it or even realize it Sounds ridiculous? Well how do you think companies make money off of nonsense? How do politicians get into office? Change public view. Its a paradox that works like a charm Convince enough folks to support the film reguardless.. so even if its bad theres still fans there to say the movie was a success so lets make more heh. Hell half of what folks say optimistic on this board sounds exactly like what PR says... coincidence? no.

The FF movie is perfect proof of this. FF fans should have been outraged and have marched unto 20th Century Fox studios and set the building on fire for what they did to Doctor Doom, but no, there are still thousands of PR-brainwashed suckers who think that the FF movie wasn't that bad, despite the fact that it was truly horrible.

 

[XCharlieX]

And theyre making a sequel to that also... PR works in mysterious ways if not the die hards that are obsessive in that case.. it worked for the casual movie goers. If it didnt make money, there would be no sequel plans. Batman and robin killed old school batman.. not batman forever. It takes a while for folks to not get taken by PR and residual excitement from the previous heh. Its the talk up game that loses or wins elections and any strategist/spindoctor will tell you that, in a spin way of course lol. For multi billion dollar companies, theyd be dumb not to do this as well.