I apologize in advance, I have to get my Guardball on for this one.
why do you lot talk so much like a comic book fan one minute and a movie fan the next, you're contradicting yourselfs so you can find a negative on both sides.
No, not at all. I recognize that comic books and movies are 2 completely different things, and I treat them as such.
I understand your over protectiveness of the characters. But the way i see it is, X-Men is a universe of untold stories and could make good big screen movies... yeah some.
Agreed. Which is why I think that the closure brought in
X-Men: The Last Stand was the wrong way to go, because there was still stuff to touch upon. But alas, that's the direction they chose to take, and that's what we got.
Now those examples you gave me, Lord of the rings, star wars and star trek. Firstly star trek was a popular television show, the reason there hasnt been a spin off, even after having several movies and multiple star trek series is because the universe they created is soly based on space exploration. What the core original shows was about... several years later they created a massive universe of history via the television or movies. So right now there at a point where a new Star Trek Series on TV can have a spin off if they wanted to. Why do you think the re-invented the movie series.
Why do I think they re-invented the movie series? Easy. To make a buck. Which is exactly what re-boots and spinoffs are all about.
Secondly, when it comes to movies, even this remake realizes that
Star Trek is an ensemble piece. This isn't
Star Trek: The Adventures of Spock. And that is what we're talking about.
Lord of the rings was based on a book that followed on from the Hobbit... If your going to compaire this to anything... its like saying im going to make a story about the bible, but i want to make spin off's.... LOL.. X-Men original was one comic that devided into several comics spin offs that worked. What makes you think that wouldnt work on screen?
Because things that work in comic books don't work in movies. That should be pretty much a given considering that not one single comic book movie in the history of EVER has been 100% accurate. Not any of the
X-Men movies, not any of the
Spider-Man movies, not the
Fantastic 4 movies, not
Daredevil, not
Ghost Rider, not the Burton / Shumacher
Batman movies, not the Nolan
Batman movies. Not
Watchmen, not
300.
And finally Star Wars.
Simular premises to star trek really, it created its universe on screen..... And im surprised you bring up star wars considering its many spin offs....Cough Clone wars, Ewoks the battle of endor, Return of the ewok, The Great Heap...
None of which were movies. Most of what you just mentioned are straight to DVD, non canon children's movies.
But my point being X-Men Movieverse has a long history to maintain and will continue way beyond any other movie because you have the ability to move beyound the core characters from the original...
X-Men has no more history and longevity to maintain than any other comic book. Yet, no comic book franchise has gone on as long as you seem to think the X-Men franchise can. If BATMAN and SUPERMAN can't get past 4 without getting stale and needing a break, what makes you think that characters like Gambit, Storm, Mystique, Deadpool, Cable, etc... can maintain their own spinoff movies and franchises, when they don't have NEARLY the icon status that Batman and Superman have?
And if you think that a group X-Men movie can be manned by characters like Iceman, Colossus, Kitty Pryde, Havok, Bishop, etc... without the likes of Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean, Storm, Xavier (who are the FOUNDATION of the X-Men), then you are as naiive as what we in the sports world call a "homer".
And what you got to remember is there is nothing stopping bringing back several characters. Jean - well we are well aware of her comic book resserection tale... she has come back from the dead more times than resident evil. Xavier is hinted that his mind was trasnfered to his brother who was a non-concious body in Muir Island and as for Scott well there is no evidence he actually was disintigrated? For all we know he washed up on sure at Sinisters own personal lab...
-Jean Grey: In the movies, Jean Grey / Phoenix is NOT a cosmic entity that cannot be killed. Jean Grey is NOT actually a clone, with the real Jean Grey underneath the waters of Alkali Lake. Jean Grey is a mutant. A human. A mortal. There is nothing about movie Jean Grey that allows her to resurrect. She never resurrected the first time. Her instincts and powers kept her alive underneath the water. On Alcatraz, Jean Grey consciously, willingly, allowed herself to be killed. And as a mortal, that means she is dead.
-Professor Xavier: Sure, we DID see Xavier transfer his mind to another body, but if we're actually going to utilize that in a movie, then the movie franchise loses ALL credibility. That is not something that will work in a movie franchise, everytime a character gets killed off, they come back. I'd prefer movies based on my favorite fictional universe to maintain some kind of dignity.
-Cyclops: There is PLENTY of evidence that Cyclops was vaporized - we see the demolecularization effect on Cyclops when he is kissing Jean; Wolverine finds Cyclops' glasses with no other trace of Cyclops anywhere; Jean Grey flat out stated that she killed Cyclops; Xavier felt Scott's essence fade away, thus sending Wolverine and Storm to Alkali Lake; Xavier TOLD Jean Grey that she killed Scott. Xavier has a psychic bond with all of his students, if anyone is going to know their fate, it is him.
Do you actually WATCH these movies? Or do you get mesmorized by the colorful special effects?
Just to throw the nail in the coffin:
-Beast: Left the X-Men again to become the ambassador for the United States. He is no longer an X-Man.
-Nightcrawler: Never became a member of the X-Men, and after
X2 left the mansion (yes, I realize this was the fault of the
X-Men: The Last Stand team, but the fact is, in continuity, Nightcrawler is not part of the X-Men).
-Angel: Never joined the X-Men, and after the incident on Alcatraz, Angel stayed in San Francisco (as we see him flying through the skies of San Francisco over the re-built Golden Gate Bridge). He never joined the X-Men, and he didn't stay long enough to form any relationships with the other X-Men. He has no ties to the X-Men, and will not be going back to them.
Remember its X-Men nobody dies.
In the COMICS. That kind of stuff does not work in movies.
A limited edition Gambit run works in the comics. It will NOT work in the movies.
Wolverine works because his backstory actually is part of the full story of the X-Men film franchise. The MAIN CHARACTER of the trilogy is established to know nothing of his past. Promises to find the answers to his past are what kept him with the X-Men in the first place, essentially allowing these movies to happen.
In the 2nd movie, the man responsible for Wolverine's unknown past returns, triggering SOME memories, but no answers. The answers to Wolverine's past are STILL unknown to both Logan AND the audience.
A "spin off" movie to explain Logan's past to the audience is definitely not out of line, and arguably, necessary. In fact, I wouldn't even call it a "spin off", because if anything this is more of a prequel than anything. This is necessary information to fill in the gaps through the rest of the series.
A Gambit film does not enrich the X-Men film series. Nor does a Mystique movie (we don't need to know her origins, nor is she a character worthy of developing in a solo movie). Storm doesn't either. Hell, Magneto doesn't even deserve a spinoff. His origins were addressed already. We know who he is and why he does what he does. We don't need a movie to tell us more of the same.