X men 2 sucked a$$

the only part i hated about the movie was the second cerebro story, and that they were trying to make xavier kill all the mutants/humans, and when the WHOLE WORLD witnesd the panic, there seemed to have been no comotion about it later, You would think that the whole world after that ear splitting sound whould be like WTF WAS THAT!! and president would have been like "WHAT THE **** WAS THAT!" instead of that damn speech

AND they totally Screwed over cyclopse by giving him no screen time.
 
GoldenAgeHero said:
like i said they still managed to completely effed up the character. and you cant blame me for thinking ti was legion. legion is also a telepath and suffers from autism, which it looked like the guy in the wheel chair was.


The character is aplot device anyway. If you really wanna complain about the movie, find the right things about it to complain about like making Stryker a general and not a Reverend.
 
GoldenAgeHero said:
you cant blame me for thinking ti was legion. legion is also a telepath and suffers from autism, which it looked like the guy in the wheel chair was.

Are you talking about that one guy who controlled the Professors Visions while he was captured ? If so did you completely miss the part when the Professor first saw him & said "My god William this is your Son Jason" or something like that :o They completely tell you who he is
 
Strgts said:
Are you talking about that one guy who controlled the Professors Visions while he was captured ? If so did you completely miss the part when the Professor first saw him & said "My god William this is your Son Jason" or something like that :o They completely tell you who he is


Mastermind's real name is Jason Wynagarde, and has no relation to Stryker. So, GAH isnt really wrong here.
 
Darthphere said:
Mastermind's real name is Jason Wynagarde, and has no relation to Stryker. So, GAH isnt really wrong here.

I guess they wanted to try making Stryker

"Sympathetic"
 
I guess alot of what you guys hated I didn't mind because I haven't read many of the comics. Just some of the Jim Lee ones and Whedon and Cassiday's Astonishing. So alot of the changes in the movie, I didn't even know they were changes.
 
GoldenAgeHero said:
like i said they still managed to completely effed up the character. and you cant blame me for thinking ti was legion. legion is also a telepath and suffers from autism, which it looked like the guy in the wheel chair was.

i'm at a loss how Jason looked like he was autistic...malnourished and nearly incapacitated, yes...but not autistic
 
Strgts said:
I guess they wanted to try making Stryker

"Sympathetic"


Perhaps, the version of William Strker in the comic books is a lot more interesting IMO.

Stryker is a fundamentalist religious fanatic, with a military history which may have involved the Weapon X project, which resulted in Logan/Wolverine being given his adamantium skeleton. When his son was born, he was so physically deformed that Stryker knew he was a mutant and, in a fit of rage, killed his wife and son at once, then concealed the evidence. He became convinced that Satan had a plot to corrupt humankind by taking over their souls while still in the womb, resulting in their mutations. He further concluded that the only reason God would have allowed his son to be a mutant was to direct him to his true calling: ridding the world of mutants.
 
Stormyprecious said:
Yes, both films suck.

Singer is one of the most bland, point and shoot directors out there. He has no sense behind the camera, and he hacked great source material to pieces. The movies are just bad episodes of the Wolverine show guest starring the X-Men, and even with all the time they spend(waste)on him, Singer managed to royally **** him up too. He's nothing more than a generic bad-ass with some corny one-liners that can't back up his bs since he gets his ass handed to him on a silver platter every time he fights a mutant.
Storm, Cyclops, and Jean might as well be clones of a character named Generic. Rogue and Iceman are absolutely pathetic. Neither has contributed a damned thing to helping the team in either film, and both are wildly miscast; Ashmore is among the most wooden actors in Hollywood today. Deathstrike could've and should've been a great character, and this should've been Kelly Hu's chance to shine, yet Singer totally wastes her with 15 minutes of screen time, one irrelevant line, and then killing her off(and she still manages to be easily one of the best things in either film, even with such poor material to work with).
How someone can have such great characters to adapt and still come up with such paper thin, less than run of the mill films is a mystery, but that incompetent hack Singer and his crew certainly found a way.
The fact that he's gone to go butcher another comic book franchise is why I still have some faith in X3.

Point and shoot? You even see the film?

The whole Nightcrawler scene, the opening shot to the W/Y battle as the camera jumps back perfectly, and the entire raid on the mansion was shot beautifully.

Of course though you probably think that Lean couldn't film a scene to save his life.
 
Mee said:
I guess alot of what you guys hated I didn't mind because I haven't read many of the comics. Just some of the Jim Lee ones and Whedon and Cassiday's Astonishing. So alot of the changes in the movie, I didn't even know they were changes.

For me it wasn't even just a matter of changes, it was an utter lack of substance.

They changed Pyro's characterization from the comics, but I was ok with it, because he atleast had some.

I think most of the characters in these films are either adapted very poorly, or just have no depth at all.

I'm not looking for blueprints of the comics when they're adapted into films, but imo these are very, very bad films, and even worse adaptions.
 
Stormyprecious said:
For me it wasn't even just a matter of changes, it was an utter lack of substance.

They changed Pyro's characterization from the comics, but I was ok with it, because he atleast had some.

I think most of the characters in these films are either adapted very poorly, or just have no depth at all.

I'm not looking for blueprints of the comics when they're adapted into films, but imo these are very, very bad films, and even worse adaptions.

How does any character outside Storm (Mainly because Belle can't act her way out of a paper bag) lacked depth and it what way?
 
DarthSkywalker said:
Point and shoot? You even see the film?

The whole Nightcrawler scene, the opening shot to the W/Y battle as the camera jumps back perfectly, and the entire raid on the mansion was shot beautifully.

Of course though you probably think that Lean couldn't film a scene to save his life.

The Nightcrawler scene and the Deathstrike/Wolverine fight were well shot, the mansion was ok.

Overall it's very straightforward.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
How does any character outside Storm (Mainly because Belle can't act her way out of a paper bag) lacked depth and it what way?

I explained that on the previous page(and Berry's acting is no worse than most in these movies, she's just given very little to work with, like most in these movies).
 
Comic book Stryker is like Pat Robertson on steriods.


Also,GAH if youre gonna make a thread about a two-year old movie,then at least put it in the forum dedicated to it.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
How does any character outside Storm (Mainly because Belle can't act her way out of a paper bag) lacked depth and it what way?


Berry wasn't given much to work with.
 
Stormyprecious said:
The Nightcrawler scene and the Deathstrike/Wolverine fight were well shot, the mansion was ok.

Overall it's very straightforward.

It is a straightforward story. Still he managed to film it as something anything other then bland.

The use of the flashlights in the mansion adds to the whole nameless killer vibe of the soldiers, while the shot of the kids and the big man running through the passage ways has this great shaky cam quality that really gives you that comparison of the situation to that of the holocaust.

Not to mention he did all this in like half the time he should have had.

Still if anyone thinks he is a bland film maker, just look at what has been released from Superman Returns. Some incredibly epic shots.
 
X2> Haters. :o :up:

But seriously, I found both X-Men to be brilliant movies and I loved what Singer did with his own vision. Regardless of what many fanatics believe or say, his vision isn't too far off from the original source material.

Granted there were some changes to characters and changes to certain origins. But you know what? None of them really ruined the film for me. I loved how Singer made the X-Men deeper, emotional, and added a sense of loss in both movies.

I got choked up when Logan held Rogue in his arms, as he thought she was dead.

Then to see Cyclops break down in Wolverine's arms after watching Jean "die"? Singer added a necessary emotion to X-Men and for that alone I'm grateful for what he did.

So in the end, X1 and X2> Haters.
 
Stormyprecious said:
I explained that on the previous page(and Berry's acting is no worse than most in these movies, she's just given very little to work with, like most in these movies).

Please. You going to actually compare her to McKellen or Stewart? The reason she is given so little to do is because she was a studio pick in the first place. Singer wanted nothing to do with her, and it is pretty obvious why.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
It is a straightforward story. Still he managed to film it as something anything other then bland.

Bland is exactly how he filmed it. I liked the stories, it was the piss poor execution that ruined the films for me.

The use of the flashlights in the mansion adds to the whole nameless killer vibe of the soldiers, while the shot of the kids and the big man running through the passage ways has this great shaky cam quality that really gives you that comparison of the situation to that of the holocaust.

I've seen flashlights in the dark in plenty of movies, it didn't add much.

Not to mention he did all this in like half the time he should have had.

He had more time and money to work with on X2, and he still couldn't make a movie that was anywhere near good.

Still if anyone thinks he is a bland film maker, just look at what has been released from Superman Returns. Some incredibly epic shots.

I think it looks less than mediocre.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
Please. You going to actually compare her to McKellen or Stewart? The reason she is given so little to do is because she was a studio pick in the first place. Singer wanted nothing to do with her, and it is pretty obvious why.


Singer wanted nothing to do with the character.He's said before that he didn't "get her".Which is why she ended up such a poor adaptation.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
Please. You going to actually compare her to McKellen or Stewart? The reason she is given so little to do is because she was a studio pick in the first place. Singer wanted nothing to do with her, and it is pretty obvious why.

I don't think I did compare her to McKellan or Stewart.

And Cyclops, Jean, Rogue, Iceman, Deathstrike... weren't given any more to do.

Most of them aren't given much, since these are very shallow films by a horrid filmmaker.
 
Abaddon said:
Singer wanted nothing to do with the character.He's said before that he didn't "get her".Which is why she ended up such a poor adaptation.

And the explanation the character is still terrible in the new film?

And please someone give me an example of how the film is bland from a cinematography point of view.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
And the explanation the character is still terrible in the new film?

And please someone give me an example of how the film is bland from a cinematography point of view.


Last time I checked the new film has a new director.
 
There are a few examples of where it's not bland, and they've been covered(and when I say point and shoot, I'm not referring simply the camera-work, I'm referring to not adding any depth to what was on the page).
 
Stormyprecious said:
I don't think I did compare her to McKellan or Stewart.

And Cyclops, Jean, Rogue, Iceman, Deathstrike... weren't given any more to do.

Most of them aren't given much, since these are very shallow films by a horrid filmmaker.

And how is he horrid and/or shallow? Usualy Suspects obvious doesn't fit that bill. The films are a little over two hours long (Or at least the second is) how is he suppose to give them all the same amount of depth?

Storm is a secondary character in this story. Same as Deathstrike. Same as Iceman. Rogue though gets quite the arc in the first film, and is in no way shut out in the second.

Jean and Cyclops are both used quite well as for the simple fact as they were obviously building up for a payoff for them in the 3rd film. Something that was never able to be done.

The story is told from Logan's point of view because he is like the audience. New to the situation. He is entering a place that no one understands. It works well for these films are not for the fans as much as for anyone that wants to enjoy going to theater.

Not to mention that the films are like they should be about Xavier and Magneto. This is after all their war.

Abaddon said:
Last time I checked the new film has a new director.

That was kind of my point. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,509
Messages
21,742,862
Members
45,573
Latest member
vortep88
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"