Days of Future Past 'X-men: DOFP' Official CAST Thread (announcements and discussion) - Part 2

[spideyboy_1111]

I've said this before, but just because you disagree with Scott's death doesn't make it "stupidity", and I wish people would stop villifying creative decisions just because they disagree with said decisions. It's incredibly childish and petty.

Maybe if you actually stop thinking it was a well thought out creative decision....

It was a last minute decision once they got marsden added back to the cast. It was the only option "how do we bring marsden in and wrap up his story in a day or two of filming? " "we kill him"

Just because you weren't around or arnt privy to the information many of us (me and JP included) following interviews and what not around the time, doesn't suddenly mean because you arnt aware, your thoughts are true.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I've said this before, but just because you disagree with Scott's death doesn't make it "stupidity", and I wish people would stop villifying creative decisions just because they disagree with said decisions. It's incredibly childish and petty.

it was a stupid creative decision... that better?

 

[JP]

Exactly. Didn't either Kinberg or Penn confirm that is was basically a discussion by FOX (albeit a spiteful one) because of the scheduling conflict they had with Marsden?

 

[DigificWriter]

it was a stupid creative decision... that better?

No. "A creative decision that I disagree with and would like to see undone" would be better because it's not vindictive.

As for my own thoughts on it, I'm ambivalent; regardless of what may or may not have motivated it, it was the decision that was made. It makes sense within the context of TLS' storyline, and that's all that really matters to me in the end.

I ultimately don't care whether or not people do or do not agree with the decision; I'd just like the attitude of 'because I disagree with something I'm going to villify the decision by referring to it in negative, vindictive, and dismissive terms" to go away because I think it detracts from actual discussion.

 

[JP]

No. "A creative decision that I disagree with and would like to see undone" would be better because it's not vindictive.

And yet it was a vindictive decision.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Exactly. Didn't either Kinberg or Penn confirm that is was basically a discussion by FOX (albeit a spiteful one) because of the scheduling conflict they had with Marsden?

Yes. Marsden was originally cut from X3 entirely after he went on to do SR. Marsden and the writers pleaded with FOX to work with marsdens schedule (which was unfortunately very limited) to put Scott back in the film. They all felt his absence would hurt the film. Marsden even offered to do the film for free.

So once he was back he only had a couple if days to shoot. And all the writers could really do was kill him off. It was not some well thought out creative decision. I even remember reading that one of the writers even admitted they even hated writing it and it pained them to have to kill of Scott. But it was the only way to explain his disappearance in such a short amount of time. They were also hopeful and even were the ones who decided to make it an off screen death for the hope a future installment might find a way to bring him back. That was the only slightly thought out piece. In comic book and movie lore.... "if you don't see the body, there's always a way they can return"

 

[Angamb]

they could have easily written that Jean attacked him so hardly that left him in Coma for the rest of the film, to wake up at the end.

but well, maybe that was too much to ask for

 

[Majik1387]

I always say Alpha Flight should have been hinted at having him in custody.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

they could have easily written that Jean attacked him so hardly that left him in Coma for the rest of the film, to wake up at the end.

but well, maybe that was too much to ask for

Eh we saw that with Xavier already in X1. And that's even more upsetting.... He's comatose while everyone else deals with jean... And wakes up to learn Wolverine killed his fiance?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I always say Alpha Flight should have been hinted at having him in custody.

I think sinister having him works better personally.... Its something sinister would do. And having a villain keep him away from his "family" makes more sense anyway.

 

[BeholdMe]

I agree it was a stupid creative decision, that may have came about because a number of reasons. That dosent make my comments any more vindictive I dont see how that benefited the movie it didnt make Pheonix stop it just made her mad once she realized what she did. There's a chance to bring Scott back,none of us know fully what Singer has in store.

 

[Majik1387]

I think sinister having him works better personally.... Its something sinister would do. And having a villain keep him away from his "family" makes more sense anyway.

I rather no Sinister involvement personally unless Apocalypse follows. I just can't get behind any support for Mr. Sinister, nothing sounds that interesting about him to me.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I've said this before, but just because you disagree with Scott's death doesn't make it "stupidity", and I wish people would stop villifying creative decisions just because they disagree with said decisions. It's incredibly childish and petty.

I do disagree with their moves regarding Scott. However, you'd be mistaken to think that my position is informed by childish or petty notions.

It is a well-documented fact that Scott's death in X3 was fueled by studio politics involving James Marsden, Bryan Singer and 20th Century Fox (Thom Rothman to be specific). Therefore the decision to kill him off was not "creative" as you put it. In fact, it was an action motivated by the very childish and petty behavior you're speaking of.

This is an argument you simply cannot win DigificWriter. I recommend you check the facts before you dole out the condescension.

 

[Majik1387]

It's all in the X3 threads as well as the internet itself.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

And yet it was a vindictive decision.

Exactly right. Bryan jumped ship for Superman Returns and FOX fast-tracked X3 to "keep up" and actually beat SR to arrival at the box office in the spring of 2006. Many corners were cut, and some of them affected the quality, writing and even SFX for the film. In the end, SR--though critically lauded--was a huge box office disappointment, while X3--though a box office blockbuster--was a critical failure. No one won that silly ass competition...but Superman and X-Men fans lost big-time across the board.

If FOX had simply waited for Bryan to return, much of that could've been avoided. The failure of SR actually damaged Bryan's reputation, especially in the CBM fan community. He has yet to redeem himself along those lines (hopefully DoFP will be a return to form for him). And James Marsden saw his character shafted in the hands of FOX's new writers...and in a Dark Phoenix storyline that was MADE for him nonetheless.

Now that's vindictive.

 

[Specter313]

The whole thing with Scott in X3 is also why many who were around back then to see it all unfold find the whole recent Quicksilver news fishy on Fox's end.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

The whole thing with Scott in X3 is also why many who were around back then to see it all unfold find the whole recent Quicksilver news fishy on Fox's end.

Yes. This. All of it.

Glad I'm not the only one who is a bit leery of that decision as well.

 

[DigificWriter]

Lightning Strykez, I used the terms I did solely in reference to using vindictive terms to refer to the decision to kill off Scott. To me, it doesn't really matter what might've or might not've motivated the decision; I still think it's childish and petty to villify the decision and the people who made it just because you disagree with it.

I vehemently disagreed with a decision that Joss Whedon made in the seventh season of BtVS, but I never vilified him for making that decision. I see a distinction between disagreeing with something and villifying the decision and the people who made it.

 

[psylockolussus]

Yeah, I don't get it. It can't be considered a prequel because it has future scenes, but it CAN be considered a sequel despite also focusing on the past?

This logic is not sound.

Wherever the present/modern day Wolverine and the modern-day X-Men go is the *PRESENT*.

That's my simplest explanation for what I was trying to say.

 

[JP]

And it still makes little sense.

 

[mkilban2]

Wherever the present/modern day Wolverine and the modern-day X-Men go is the *PRESENT*.

That's my simplest explanation for what I was trying to say.

if the crew from 2013 goes to 1975, they are in the past not the present just because they are there. They are *Presently* in the past, but just because they are there does not make it the present. Unless that 2013 crew permanently stays in 1975 then it becomes their current present. (i'm confused just writing all that)

 

[psylockolussus]

if the crew from 2013 goes to 1975, they are in the past not the present just because they are there. They are *Presently* in the past, but just because they are there does not make it the present. Unless that 2013 crew permanently stays in 1975 then it becomes their current present. (i'm confused just writing all that)

But still the original cast/present people setting their feet in the *past* makes the past not really the past because they are altering the events there.

What we will see in this *past* w/ the original cast/people from the future is NOT the things that already *happened in the past*. So it can't be a prequel. The original cast/present people going to 1973 hasn't happened in the past before unless OT Professor X/OT Magneto did meet the 2010s X-Men in 1973.

 

[mkilban2]

yeah.. I don't know, my brain hurts from that stuff lol. I'll just watch and see, the time travel is not a big deal to me.

 

[psylockolussus]

yeah.. I don't know, my brain hurts from that stuff lol. I'll just watch and see, the time travel is not a big deal to me.

This is how I view it

FC= people from the past
OT= people from the present

So wherever the present-day Wolverine and present-day X-Men go, whether its 1930 or 2100, it will look like its the present for them simply because the things that they will encounter hasn't happened before.

 

[DigificWriter]

Once again I have to bring out the Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."