DocLathropBrown:
I owe you a big apology. I somehow missed this post altogether and didn't go back through my subscribed thread list to double-check. I've been on the Hype less and less since I started working retail again, and I was almost sure nobody even remembered this thread. Sorry, man.
Thanks for posting, and I appreciate your endorsement of my character.
You already know that I'm very much against the "realism revolution" in comic book movies, primarily because of the extreme degree to which it desecrates excellent characters and stories. I'm 100% in favor of enhancing the experience of a superhero story by filling in certain gaps with realistic elements and closely approximating real-life phenomena, and that's something that I think comes through when I describe how I'd do certain things in my ideal movies. However, when core elements of characters and stories are cut out because the creators of the adaptation are too cowardly and uncreative to try and sell the fantasy, that's just plain wrong. If you're going to use the names and even
partial likenesses of these characters whom have starred in legendary and amazing stories, you should damn well actually use the
actual characters.
When it comes to superheroes, the costume is more often than not an essential character trait. Certain alterations can be made in certain cases (and that absolutely does not apply to Superman or Spider-Man), such as darkening the tones of certain costumes, but you can't take away Wolverine's mask, give him long leather sleeves and pretend that a 6'2" pretty boy could pass for him. That's just false advertising. Wolverine is 5'3", has bare, hairy arms while in costume and has worn a mask for more years than not while with the X-Men. Piggybacking on the clothing trends of 'The Matrix' and other leather-fests doesn't count for sh1t when it comes to actual superhero costumes.
It takes far more talent/creativity/balls to figure out a way to bring the original images to life than to say "screw it" and start over with a completely bland look. Also, there's nothing "realistic" about the Movie!X-Men costumes. You can't do what they do while wearing leather over foam rubber and get the job done. When the actors pass out from heat exhaustion, it's time to switch to tights, because athletes actually do their
Anyway, the costumes are the least of the problems with the X-Men movies, obviously, but it's a perfect visual representation of how they stripped away essential and some of the most interesting aspects of each character. Make them all fan-fic versions of themselves wearing flavorless, unimaginative clothing, and get rich doing it. Bastards.
If the story, script, action and filming are good enough, the fantasy won't spoil it. Beef up the "realism" in places where it doesn't hurt anything, but don't go bragging to the public about how your movie is a "realistic" take on the source material. You won't catch me doing something so stupid, because I because in being
right (as if you didn't know), and when you make movies like 'X-Men' and 'Batman Begins' and say that they're "realistic," you are clearly and obviously
wrong beyond description. I don't want to appeal to audiences who want "realistic" superheroes. I want to appeal to the same audience that sees 'Star Wars' and doesn't question whether it's a sci-fi movie or a "serious drama." Which audience is that?
Every-Goddamn-body, that's who.
X-Men is a classic fiction franchise that grew immensely popular and inspired countless take-offs and imitations. Why not show the people the real deal? I still believe that authenticity counts for something. I want to appeal to an audience that has an appreciation for the superhero and epic genres, and since I would never have the intention of over-emphasizing the "realism" of the films, I couldn't be called a liar when plenty of sci-fi and action elements don't match up with the real-life laws of physics. 'Batman Begins' has absolutely no excuse for the multitude of utterly unbelievable aspects of the plot, but I would have all the defense I need against claims of "unrealistic" filmmaking; I'm making a superhero story and trying to bring the subject matter closer to reality when feasible,
not the other way around.
Even if you couldn't explain a psychological or sociological occurrence in a movie (which is what I'm primarily concerned about in terms of "realism") in terms of real life, you can still make it work in your own fictional universe. So what if people in real life wouldn't believe a 6'3", 220 lb man in a grey and black costume that vaguely resembles a bat was an inhuman creature capable of superhuman feats? In the DC Universe, that's how it works, and you can't argue with that. So what if a real life movie-goer thinks that Wolverine in a skintight costume that's more than a few shades lighter than pitch black all over isn't as "cool" as the lanky hearthrob wearing a full-body rubber tire? Wolverine in the movie is still kicking as much ass as he ever would in any other costume. At least he is if you're doing it right. So what if the average viewer doesn't think Wolverine could be stealthy in anything but black clothes? He's either skilled enough to trick the eye and avoid the ear and remain undetected, or he's not. The only X-Man whose "realistic" stealth potential is in question regarding clothing is Nightcrawler. If he's able to disappear in shadows, I'm not going to give him white gloves and boots. Does that mean he's going to be all in black? Of course not; just substitute the same dark red in the center of his costume for the white, and it's
good enough.
Here's another main problem with the X-Men movies summed up briefly: If you think Cyclops doesn't have enough depth, charisma or gravitas to make him the central character of an X-Men movie, you simply don't know the source material, and you've got
no fecking imagination. Is the most stoic character the most interesting character? Not usually, but he can still hold his own if you give him enough to do and cover all the angles. You don't just *****fy him and make way for the cash cow. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have Wolverine upstage him when he shows up-- that's kind of inevitable, if you're being faithful to the older comics-- but I would never *****fy Cyclops. Singer gets the slightest bit more slack when it comes to Storm, since even I know that Storm was never a very "relatable" character. I don't expect these characters to be "relatable" to the average movie-goer, but Storm is even less relatable than Post-Crisis Batman. She's just... weird. Maybe wiccans and vegans with emotional repression issues can relate better, but even if she's distant and almost in a completely different world of her own, the filmmaker owes the audience a proper Storm. If she's not sellable enough by herself, then do what you're going to do with every other character anyway: reveal her character through interaction with others. These characters aren't nearly as interesting on their own as when they're with each other in the formative years of their respective memberships in the X-Men. That includes Wolverine. Sure, he can easily sell his own adventures on a weekly basis, but I always found him more interesting as an X-Man. Relationships in the X-Men movies were mostly shallow and underdeveloped, and some of the most important ones were ignored completely because the characters were unforgivably altered. Wolverine and Nightcrawler never sparred or shared a beer together. Why not? Because Movie!Nightcrawler was even more of a sham than Movie!Wolverine, and the two had nothing to talk about other than Weapon X. Escaped Weapon X assassin? Feck that "Ultimate" bullsh1t... I want the
real deal. Where was the charming, flirty way with women he has? Where was one single real action sequence where Nightcrawler was actually Nightcrawler and not some mind-controlled puppet? Where was the theatrical and carefree flair he has? No, awkwardly stating "In the circuses of Munich..." in a terrible accent doesn't count; it's the lowest form of lip service. How the hell can his religious fanaticism and tattoos be considered interesting when compared with the real Nightcrawler? Oh, look, he's not just hideously deformed and fantastically agile, he's a complete, self-mutilating nutcase who cowers in the shadows of a church instead of even
trying to be a part of the human race. Good going, Singer, you pretensious, egotistical assh0le. Why wasn't there a single believable moment of mutual affection between Jean and Cyclops? Because the filmmakers didn't care about that relationship. At all. They didn't care about the characters of Jean or Cyclops, period. Movie!Jean got more screentime because she was Movie!Wolverine's love interest, period. That's all wrong, and anyone who denies that is scum. Seriously, if you argue that it's appropriate to put more of an emphasis on Jean's feelings for Wolverine than her feelings for Scott, you're either a filthy liar or a deluded moron. This shouldn't be playing out like bad, teenage fan-fiction, it should be the very essence of these legendary characters. You know, I always found Cyclops and Jean very annoying as a couple, and I originally never liked Cyclops at all. After actually reading the older comics and seeing Cyclops in action, under extreme circumstances, I now know that he's a total badass and deserves recognition as such in the movies. I'm not going to say that I'm terribly entertained by Scott and Jean as a couple, but I've read more and have seen it play out more interestingly and compellingly than in the cartoon (the good one, not the pre-teen pandering bullsh1t 'Evolution'). The fact is, I'd have their relationship be one main focus of my ideal franchise, because I believe it can be interesting, or at least enough to keep from rolling your eyes too much while their relationship furthers the overall plot throughout several movies. Will that be the central theme of the franchise? Of course not. These aren't meant to be chick flicks, God dammit. Jean allows Cyclops to become more human and "relatable," and the contrast between how he is alone with Jean and how he is when he's on duty (which is almost always, as far as he's concerned) is supposed to be interesting. You get to see that his true badassery is grounded in love and compassion. You mess with the human race, and very likely a crimson beam of concussive force will knock you out cold. You mess with his loved ones-- the X-Men-- you get the sh1t beat out of you from his yellow-gloved fists. That's the Cyclops I want on the screen. That's the real potential of Cyclops, which we never got to see.
Ah, so much steam-of-consciousness ranting. Gotta love the predictability of me.
One last thing I'll say for now is that I'm realizing more and more just how much I'm likely to fall into the same trap of giving Wolverine a disproportionate amount of screentime and/or focus as Singer & Co. This is likely because I know more about him than the other characters, understand him well and relate to him more than any other fictional character. I also think he really is one of the most interesting and entertaining Marvel characters, especially if you have him evolve in a movie franchise the way he did in the comics (and yes, that has to be somewhat gradually). My defense is that at least my version would be the
real Wolverine and not some half-assed waste of screentime. When he does something, it will be meaningful and in character. Yes, it will seem harder at first to tell what is "in character for him" (for a layman newcomer, I mean, not for we who have read X-Men comics), but his many dimensions and drives will be revealed along the course of the movies and it will become less erratic, how he switches back and forth between antagonist and team asset. I honestly feel that, of these characters, he's got the most substance to him. That doesn't mean the other characters get marginalized; it means he's a stand-out character among a team full of other interesting characters.
Another thing about him in my ideal franchise is that his full potential will be explored, without making him omnipotent. He will be, pound for pound,
the best fighter in each movie, claws in or out. Some people write him off as a guy who throws out a few one-liners, pops his claws and gets knocked aside because they can't show too much violence in whatever story he's in (most people's reference point on these boards is the cartoon). Well, when the opponent isn't completely deserving of a swift death, he'll do some clawless fighting as well, and he can also purposely wound instead of kill with his claws (which is how I'd handle it in the video games that accompany the movies). His original station on the team is being the hand-to-hand fighter, and he'll also be the "get me out of these chains" guy in his movie, using absolute precision to free others from bonds with slashes that would be excruciating if off by one milimeter. He will grow to be the martial arts trainer of the rest of the team, an unofficial second-in-command to Storm when she's the boss, and a motivator for the rest of the team. He's the true inspirer of the X-Men, really, in the story and out of it, because he's the ultimate example of how compassion and belief in a dream can win over a hardened, cynical heart. He doesn't believe the dream will come true, but he believes that the dream is good, and he comes to believe that the X-Men are, to paraphrase Malcolm Reynolds of 'Firefly,' "His kind of stupid." He starts off as being not just asocial but sporadically antisocial-- as much a danger to the team as to the enemy, as witnessed when Nightcrawler innocently taunts him in a Danger Room exercise and nearly gets killed when Wolverine doesn't think it's so funny-- and then he becomes one of the most ardent supporters of Xavier's cause. Again, it's not about the result of their work, but the work itself. And yeah, the whole "family" thing, which becomes a huge theme by the time the new team gets comfortable with each other.
So much for a quick last note. Okay, one last thing: I was massively dissappointed with 'Superman Returns,' but we can't strictly argue about the virtues or flaws about that movie here or in any other Safe Haven thread (there is a Superman Haven), since the Havens are about noticing perceived flaws and improving upon them, but not defending what other people consider flaws. Unless you've got an equal or greater number of criticisms to expound upon, I suppose. Again, this isn't about being "strictly negative," but it's about imaginative progress and demanding more from products that don't fully deliver what their very titles promise.
Thanks again for posting Doc, and I'll see if I can't be more focused and cogent when I revisit this page. Again, I've been working retail during December... I'm pretty fried right now.
Happy Holidays, Havenites!