X-Movies: A sad representation of the comics?

[ShadowBoxing]

The movies were way too serious and dark.Took itself way too seriously.

I agree.

 

[Silvermoth]

The movies were way too serious and dark.Took itself way too seriously.

I wouldn't expect anthing less from a film about prejudice and bigotry

 

[The Batman]

while the x films have their moments, they failed to capture what made the comics truly great.

Sure, the themes are important, but it was the characters and their roles in the stories that took the x-men to another level. People care about these characters, not just the theme they represent. They care about logan, scott, jean, ororo, hank, kurt, kitty, rogue, peter, etc.

The films made it a wolverine fest, where he assumed some of the crucial roles of other x-men.

the relationships between characters was forgotten. The older squad of xmen(scott, jean, ororo, hank) probably could give two craps about the younger squad (Bobby, Kitty, Peter) in the films, where as in the comics, they were all family.

The X films miss what made the x-verse truly rich. Its not about having cable or bishop in the movies for comic fans. its about portraying the characters to the fullest, representing the important interactions in the comics

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I wouldn't expect anthing less from a film about prejudice and bigotry

But the comic doesn't "take itself too seriously". In fact the comic, if anything, explores these non-serious worlds and very fantasical elements while staying true to it's theme. If your too lazy to write a good adaptation of a movie where both the fantasical and the real exist, then perhaps X-Men is not your thing.

Look at LOTR, that has very serious themes, but at any point does it take itself seriously. Nope. Talking trees, Golums, all seeing eyes. It's not afraid to attempt very fantasy based events and settings.

 

[Retroman]

Even though they're not perfect (no movie is) I loved the X-films (X1 and X2)But i think that it really wouldn't have mattered how good movies or how comics acurate they were. There are always going to be people who hate a different interpretation and adaptation of the comics.Your never going to please everyone.

One thing i'm glad they ditched are the colorful costumes. Sure in the comics it works but on-screen? Wolverine in yellow spandex and a mask?

They got the essence of the X-Men right for me. In terms of characterization and looks Wolverine, Beast, Cyclops, Xavier, Magneto, Nightcrawler, Mystique and few others were spot on.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Look at LOTR, that has very serious themes, but at any point does it take itself seriously. Nope.

LOTR takes itself very seriously; the fantasy elements are grounded and gritty, and they certainly aren't played for laughs.

The difference between LOTR and X-Men is that LOTR is set in Middle Earth, and can't be done any other way, while X-Men is set in our world, more or less, and so Singer opted to adopt a style of realism which served the films quite well (especially since this was the first major comic book film in the new era, when there was no clear record of previous comic movies being taken seriously).

 

[ShadowBoxing]

LOTR takes itself very seriously; the fantasy elements are grounded and gritty, and they certainly aren't played for laughs.

The difference between LOTR and X-Men is that LOTR is set in Middle Earth, and can't be done any other way, while X-Men is set in our world, more or less, and so Singer opted to adopt a style of realism which served the films quite well (especially since this was the first major comic book film in the new era, when there was no clear record of previous comic movies being taken seriously).

X-Men is set in earth 616, and like a fantasy (which no, does not take itself seriously). Fantasies like X-Men, Spider-Man and LOTR set their rules in the beginning and follow them through. Arguably LOTR is set in our world, more or less, since the environment and peoples are all humans in various forms. Same with X-Men.

X-Men doesn't "take itself seriously" when you have a world where people shoot lazers from their eyes and wear hairdo's like Logan's. Munich is a movie that should be uptight about things like what is real.

We've seen what is happening with Transformers which has already inspired fan backlash. That is a movie that takes itself seriously, even to the point of questioning whether the robots should speak.

Just because a movie deals with a serious topic (like LOTR) does not mean it takes itself seriously. If that were true it would have abandoned Middle Earth entirely. Do not confuse grit and story with "grounded and reality". Talking trees are grounded in what reality, should I go ask my forrest...maybe they can tell me . The chances that they speak english, that they look human. If LOTR "took itself seriously" they would have abandoned these concepts in lue of something realistic. But they did not. They stayed true to the story, which was fantasical and at times unbelievable. Star Wars much the same.

Movies are good when they take risks. FOX did an X-Men franchise by the numbers. Don't make them out there, don't make them wear superhero like attire (not one here is even asking for yellow spandex), don't use characters besides Wolverine and Magneto (any one remotely familiar with the comics can tell you why that is a problem), don't use space, don't use unbelievable mutant powers...etc.

Superhero movies are only good when you don't take it seriously and have fun making them. When you throw caution to the wind, and attempt those major SFX battles and scenes you can only get in Superhero franchises. Batman, Question, Nightwing and DareDevil may be able to get away with smaller more realistic stories. But X-Men, Avengers, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and Superman should never be brought down so as to restrict them. The comics ought to stand as a template, and X-Men is anything but realistic.

- I think in the end, it was the cast (and not necessarily their portrayals) that saved this movie. While the may have not stayed true to the characters (which mainly they didn't) they did do a good job. Ian Mckellen, despite wanted to turn humans into mutants (something Magneto would NEVER do...mutation is a gift and superiority to him) in X-Men 1, did a great job of capturing Magneto's attitude and manuerisms. Kind of like Joker in Batman 89, not a definitive version or even exactly like the comics...but we knew he could do the part. Same with Stewart, who really struck us as Professor X. Even Cyclops, Storm, Colossus and Wolverine looked enough like their characters to at least fool us into believing they were them for an hour and a half. But if it weren't for those actors and actresses I think people would have seen through the crappy interpretation.

 

[RPG swordmaster]

X-Men is set in earth 616, and like a fantasy (which no, does not take itself seriously). Fantasies like X-Men, Spider-Man and LOTR set their rules in the beginning and follow them through. Arguably LOTR is set in our world, more or less, since the environment and peoples are all humans in various forms. Same with X-Men.

X-Men doesn't "take itself seriously" when you have a world where people shoot lazers from their eyes and wear hairdo's like Logan's. Munich is a movie that should be uptight about things like what is real.

We've seen what is happening with Transformers which has already inspired fan backlash. That is a movie that takes itself seriously, even to the point of questioning whether the robots should speak.

Just because a movie deals with a serious topic (like LOTR) does not mean it takes itself seriously. If that were true it would have abandoned Middle Earth entirely. Do not confuse grit and story with "grounded and reality". Talking trees are grounded in what reality, should I go ask my forrest...maybe they can tell me . The chances that they speak english, that they look human. If LOTR "took itself seriously" they would have abandoned these concepts in lue of something realistic. But they did not. They stayed true to the story, which was fantasical and at times unbelievable. Star Wars much the same.

Movies are good when they take risks. FOX did an X-Men franchise by the numbers. Don't make them out there, don't make them wear superhero like attire (not one here is even asking for yellow spandex), don't use characters besides Wolverine and Magneto (any one remotely familiar with the comics can tell you why that is a problem), don't use space, don't use unbelievable mutant powers...etc.

Superhero movies are only good when you don't take it seriously and have fun making them. When you throw caution to the wind, and attempt those major SFX battles and scenes you can only get in Superhero franchises. Batman, Question, Nightwing and DareDevil may be able to get away with smaller more realistic stories. But X-Men, Avengers, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and Superman should never be brought down so as to restrict them. The comics ought to stand as a template, and X-Men is anything but realistic.

- I think in the end, it was the cast (and not necessarily their portrayals) that saved this movie. While the may have not stayed true to the characters (which mainly they didn't) they did do a good job. Ian Mckellen, despite wanted to turn humans into mutants (something Magneto would NEVER do...mutation is a gift and superiority to him) in X-Men 1, did a great job of capturing Magneto's attitude and manuerisms. Kind of like Joker in Batman 89, not a definitive version or even exactly like the comics...but we knew he could do the part. Same with Stewart, who really struck us as Professor X. Even Cyclops, Storm, Colossus and Wolverine looked enough like their characters to at least fool us into believing they were them for an hour and a half. But if it weren't for those actors and actresses I think people would have seen through the crappy interpretation.

yep. i was about to say that

 

[The Kid]

eh, could easily have been a lot worse. Looking at everything in perspective, 2 good ones and one mediocre one is actually about average in terms of hollywood's comic book movie making ability.

They just need to stop and don't do any more.

 

[Max J Power]

No, I like them the way they are.

 

[Spade]

The first X-Men film, to me, was excellent. I have no qualms with it. Granted, I feel there were movies that were just plain better. But, overall, I think Singer excellently modernized the concept. Are some fans still red in the face that Wolverine isn't in his traditional yellow spandex in the trilogy? Sure, but I'm not one of them. I like the wife-beater look and think the more logical change was made with the claws. The suits in general are just a fan nitpick to me. While they look a tad silly, I think that no matter what any uniform chosen would have looked odd. The black leather look was the best to me, and still is. I also found the plot to be solid- Sabretooth doesn't work to develop an already-developed Wolverine while still having screen presence, Magneto feels like Magneto due to McKellen's superb acting, and outside of Storm I feel all the characters were re-envisioned for this franchise in a great way.

My qualm starts with X2- unlike most other fans, I found it to be a step down. The pace of the story is the same boring pace I found in Superman Returns, using lots of dark imagery and a background too centered in real life. An example would be the secret base the movie has the third act at, which felt more like a parking garage gone mad than a secret government base. The plot is also another issue. I respect David Hayter as a writer and as the only VA possible for Solid Snake, but his script should have gone through some massive tune-ups before being made into a film. I found the 'dog-on-a-leash formula' trite, and Magneto's involvement sort of injected into the film so as to tie off the first's loose ends. The Phoenix subplot was excellently handed, though, and I found the more globalized threat appealing. But- this time, will much more pungency- Wolverine became the underlying issue for me. Hayter and Singer overdeveloped him to the point that he overshadows everyone, and the way Jean just falls for his drab one-line attempts at romance is sort of insulting to her intelligence. The Wolverine/ Deathstrike bout could have been much more exciting as well, for all the focus they put on it.

X-Men: The Last Stand was just a bad film, quite simply. Everything that shouldn't have been done was done in this film. For one, the studio exerted way too much power. I think that even if Cyclops died, they just jumped all over the idea of belittling James Marsden's involvement with SR. There was no need for an offscreen death; if death is going to be done in the first place, don't do low-blows. Cyclops' vacancy opens up a huge gap in the Phoenix Saga, one that Wolverine definitely did not close with his ill-chosen romance. The Phoenix Saga itself was gutted. I don't think anyone was asking to see alien influences or giant gladitorial fights- heck, not even the Hellfire Club- but the Saga was just mutilated. Jean came across as just a crazy lady with powers, and the SFX was pitiful to say the least. The awe-inspiring sequence where Xavier dies is basically the most amazing thing she does (I say 'she', since the script is so busy confusing Phoenix with Dark Phoenix they were still debating about her status in the audio commentary). My biggest issue was the lack of progression- we see this amazing part in the middle of the film, and then some water sprinkles and a nonsensical bit where Wolverine survives being atomized multiple times solely on Main Character Power is how the film finishes off. No build-up, just a waste of my time and some relatively nice SFX. Wasting less time on a Rogue/Iceman/Kitty triangle that is rendered useless by the all-powerful Cure that doesn't even do a permanent job could have helped that aspect, huh? Ratner thinking that all of this was a good idea is an excellent reason why he should never direct anything superhero-related for the rest of his career. Penn's characters all felt boring. Angel sees limited screen time, and most everyone else of relevancy was dumbed down to the point of being painted on. I'm glad Gambit wasn't here in hindsight- he would have been painted on as well. All in all, this was a bad film that should have been heavily fixed before being produced let alone shown to the masses. There was little to no input the screenwriter or director put into developing the story, and it relies too much on explanations that require commentaries to understand what was intended for it's own good.

My final thoughts: we don't need a restart, but this franchise is in desperate need of change. That Singer has forgone focus on the X franchise in favor of 'MOS' is a sign even he can recognize it needs an overhaul. For one, this is not 'Wolverine and Friends'- he's getting a seperate film and has basically been the over-developed main character of the trilogy, and does not need even more development in the future. Cyclops was an actual character with massive purpose in the comics to tap into, and went out worse than Mace Windu in ROTS. The Rogue/ Iceman/ Kitty triangle should be trashed, as it was a waste of time and a faulty attempt to add dimension to their relationship. Jean Grey's character-rape in the third film and the Phoenix Saga ravaging that Penn allowed should never be repeated in any sequels. I'm not saying I'm in favor of direct comic adaptions (as I never am) but some understanding about what you're doing with these characters in the modernization doesn't hurt. In summation- I'm in favor of better management, plot development, and respect for what the fans want to see. To me, it's not an automatic yearning for a restart, just well-handed sequels that can recapture what I felt with the first film. Not every franchise requires a restart such as Superman and Batman's feature films did, and it should not be used as an option every time faults are noticed.

 

[TheCaptain22555]

They weren't sad. They totally sucked in a bunch of people who knew nothing about the X-Men and gave them 30 years of pages in a few movies. These movies are creating new, little fans and renewing the interest in comics for others that have been away for awhile.