X2's Firey Phoenix or X3's Phoenix

[BMM]

The thing is, the 'zombie' look is part of the Dark Phoenix look in the comics, as you can see above. Shadowy, demonic eyes and not necessarily a firebird.

No, not really. Even the one out of context frame you’re attempting to use to support your argument doesn’t really suit it.

I think people do need to differentiate between comic book visuals to show powers (like the wavy lines around Magneto, the yellow flash around Colossus when he transforms) and what would make a movie look more believable.

That’s not the same. The Phoenix aura is a physical manifestation of Jean’s power. It is integral to the character just as much as Cyclops’ optic blasts, Nightcrawler’s bamf, or Wolverine’s claws. It isn’t an extra bit of flair used to spice up an otherwise visually dull occurrence in print such as Jean’s telekinesis, Magneto’s magnetism, or Xavier’s telepathy. No one is expecting yellow shards to protrude from Siryn’s mouth when employing her sonic scream or thought bubbles to protrude from Xavier’s head when using his telepathy. To try to lump Phoenix’s aura in the category is silly.

 

[BMM]

Fanboys surrendered all common sense the moment they spoke the words "I don't like it because that's not how it was in the comics."

You’re still exercising your right to complain about Sabretooth’s portrayal in X-Men 10 years later. I don’t see how this is any different.

 

[Peter McCabe]

You’re still exercising your right to complain about Sabretooth’s portrayal in X-Men 10 years later. I don’t see how this is any different.

I don't follow...

 

[JP]

That’s not the same. The Phoenix aura is a physical manifestation of Jean’s power. It is integral to the character just as much as Cyclops’ optic blasts, Nightcrawler’s bamf, or Wolverine’s claws. It isn’t an extra bit of flair used to spice up an otherwise visually dull occurrence in print such as Jean’s telekinesis, Magneto’s magnetism, or Xavier’s telepathy. No one is expecting yellow shards to protrude from Siryn’s mouth when employing her sonic scream or thought bubbles to protrude from Xavier’s head when using his telepathy. To try to lump Phoenix’s aura in the category is silly.

Not only is her display of power in X3 out of continuity, but also a blatent rip off of Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

 

[Matt.S99]

Well to be fair, Dark Willow was based off of DP from what I heard, but obviously loosley. X3 totally ripped off Dark Willows looks.

 

[X-Maniac]

No, not really. Even the one out of context frame you’re attempting to use to support your argument doesn’t really suit it.

Yes, really. How can a comic book frame that shows shadowy eyes and outstretched arms (just as in the movie's fight with Xavier at the house) be out of context when it illustrates the point that the X3 portrayal does resemble some of the comic images.

That’s not the same. The Phoenix aura is a physical manifestation of Jean’s power. It is integral to the character just as much as Cyclops’ optic blasts, Nightcrawler’s bamf, or Wolverine’s claws. It isn’t an extra bit of flair used to spice up an otherwise visually dull occurrence in print such as Jean’s telekinesis, Magneto’s magnetism, or Xavier’s telepathy. No one is expecting yellow shards to protrude from Siryn’s mouth when employing her sonic scream or thought bubbles to protrude from Xavier’s head when using his telepathy. To try to lump Phoenix’s aura in the category is silly.

[/QUOTE]


Of course it's the same. And of course peiople here expect exact comic book imagery! Where have you been hiding for the past decade?

The Phoenix aura is used to depict a physical manifestation of Phoenix's power - in the comics. In the comic, we had a solar flare involved in the evolution of Jean Grey into Phoenix, a Phoenix whose power was 'backed by the raging sun itself', a Phoenix who shot energy blasts from her hands - the character was a cosmic force that went far beyond the movie concept of a split personality.

I'd be interested to see a live-action film use more energy effects, but it;s hard to say if X3 would have benefited from them. One thing is for sure - beyond the comic book hardcore fans, the mainstream didn't expect them or mention them as an absence.

 

[JP]

I'd be interested to see a live-action film use more energy effects, but it;s hard to say if X3 would have benefited from them. One thing is for sure - beyond the comic book hardcore fans, the mainstream didn't expect them or mention them as an absence.

I wouldn't say that. The general audience's intro to X-men is usually from the animated series. Because of that, a lot of them where expecting a cosmic fiery being (Though I'd argue that the explanation of Jean's power, and the split personality are a lot closer to the source than the animated series). These are the same people who say "Where's Gambit?" when each film comes out.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Removing the flames in X3 really made their appearance in X2 seem really random. I really don't like what it does to the continuity.

 

[Ol'Canucklehead]

Yea wouldn't make sense unless they are planning to bring her back as The Phoenix after the death of The Dark Phoenix.

 

[DCnightwing23]

Well when we first see Jean/Phoenix in X3 come out of the lake in front of Cyclops she has fire around her i believe, which was cool.

 

[Matt.S99]

Which you see off screen/ on Scott. And really, it was only a big, bright light.

 

[DCnightwing23]

Ah true just remembered that. Yeah well i kinda did like the blackness in her eyes. It just showed how the Phoenix has completely taken over and how evil and powerful it is.

 

[Slim]

Nightcrawler's smoke is a result of him transporting to a brimstone-filled dimension in the comics. The smoke was in X2, was that too much fantasy for that movie?

Whether or not Jean's powers in X2 was a nod to the fans doesn't matter, because it's still in continuity regardless. I don't think it was just a nod, though. It was clearly estabished and built upon throughout the entire movie. Jean wearing a Phoenix necklace is a nod, but something as important as the effects in the climax is significant, not just a nod.

X3 was lazy, pure and simple. Add some veins, make her eyes dark, levitate some random things. As others mentioned, it really was Willow-esq. If they absolutely didn't want the psionic fire and break continuity, there were other options that would have been much more epic.

I will say that that shot of Jean in her house where time froze was spectacular. Other than that, the effect completely failed.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Yes, really. How can a comic book frame that shows shadowy eyes and outstretched arms (just as in the movie's fight with Xavier at the house) be out of context when it illustrates the point that the X3 portrayal does resemble some of the comic images.

Of course it's the same. And of course peiople here expect exact comic book imagery! Where have you been hiding for the past decade?

The Phoenix aura is used to depict a physical manifestation of Phoenix's power - in the comics. In the comic, we had a solar flare involved in the evolution of Jean Grey into Phoenix, a Phoenix whose power was 'backed by the raging sun itself', a Phoenix who shot energy blasts from her hands - the character was a cosmic force that went far beyond the movie concept of a split personality.

I'd be interested to see a live-action film use more energy effects, but it;s hard to say if X3 would have benefited from them. One thing is for sure - beyond the comic book hardcore fans, the mainstream didn't expect them or mention them as an absence.

Agreed.

 

[Peter McCabe]

Removing the flames in X3 really made their appearance in X2 seem really random. I really don't like what it does to the continuity.

Continuity isnt written in stone.

Let me repeat my earlier post regarding the little of Phoenix you saw in X2:

Her powers looked the way they did in X2 PURELY as a nod to fans from Bryan Singer. At that point, when X2 was in post-production, there was no script for X3. The Phoenix we see in X3 is the way she is to suit the story the movie is telling. She is not an intergalactic leviathan. She is not a cosmic destroyer. She is an extraordinarily powerful mutant - who's powers were caged by another extraordinarily powerful mutant. This was a grounded, organic and darker take on Jean's hidden secret, a real metamorphosis - not just Jean Grey meets Johnny Storm.

*X-Men Origins: Wolverine is proof that continuity isn't inexpendable, Sabretooth being the best example. Liev Schreiber redefined that character.

 

[DCnightwing23]

X3 killed the franchise, ill say it. Brett Ratner needs to stick to Beverly Hills Cop and Rush Hour. Fox killed the franchise to. Fox didnt fight for the guy that put comic book films back on the map? Wow. Lazy. And it showed in the movie. X3 was just sloppy and lazy. Even Famke who played Jean lashed out about how horrible the movie was. With tons of meaningless subplots and a horrible ending. As soon as Singer left everything was rushed you can totally tell. Comic book films usually have some kind of influence and it seemed like this film had none. X3 was horrible. They killed the franchise for the die comic book fans. And the Phoenix was completely miss used.

 

[JP]

Continuity isnt written in stone.

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

Her powers looked the way they did in X2 PURELY as a nod to fans from Bryan Singer.

It was how Singer envisioned the manifestation of Jeans powers to look.

At that point, when X2 was in post-production, there was no script for X3. The Phoenix we see in X3 is the way she is to suit the story the movie is telling. She is not an intergalactic leviathan. She is not a cosmic destroyer. She is an extraordinarily powerful mutant - who's powers were caged by another extraordinarily powerful mutant. This was a grounded, organic and darker take on Jean's hidden secret, a real metamorphosis - not just Jean Grey meets Johnny Storm.

What does her aura in X2 have to do with intergalactic leviathans and cosmic destroyers?

 

[Slim]

But continuity isn't something that should be broken so easily, especially when it can diminish something established by a previous, vastly superior movie.

Just because Jean had a fire effect does not make her an intergalactic being. Just like how having Nightcrawler teleport in a puff of smoke does not mean that other dimensions or alternate universes exists in the movie-verse. The bottom line is that this was a Dark Phoenix adaptation, Jean's personality called itself the Phoenix, therefore some sort of fire-like manifestation would have made "Phoenix" actually make sense in the movie. An explanation could have gone something like this "Jean's manifestation resembles a fiery bird + back from the dead = Calling itself Phoenix"

This is a case where if your not going to do something in a particular way, don't do it at all, imo. Obviously intergalactic beings and aliens should never ever be around these movies, but something so fundamental as an iconic image should be.

 

[Peter McCabe]

X3 killed the franchise, ill say it.

No it didn't.

Or haven't you heard about this upcoming movie called X-Men Origins: Wolverine?

Fox killed the franchise to. Fox didnt fight for the guy that put comic book films back on the map? Wow. Lazy. And it showed in the movie.

FOX didn't kill anything.

(X-Men Origins: Wolverine - May 1, 2009)

*Oh and that guy you're talking about is an obsessive complusive Superman fanatic who jumped at the chance of directing a Superman movie and abandoned the X-Men franchise he created.

He abandoned his own franchise to direct the third movie in someone else's.

X3 was just sloppy and lazy.

Yet it still made more money than X2, Superman Returns, X1 and every other comic book movie dated before 2006 aside of the Spider Man movies and Burton's Batman (1989).

Even Famke who played Jean lashed out about how horrible the movie was.

Famke never said it was horrible. She just indulged the interviewer who had a very negative mindset towards X3. She only said she wished they'd done more with Phoenix, not that the movie was horrible.

With tons of meaningless subplots and a horrible ending.

Not really.

As soon as Singer left everything was rushed you can totally tell.

Well, they had to get to work since Singer left them out to dry. The final product still delivered and banked more than Singer's 3 comic book movies.

Comic book films usually have some kind of influence and it seemed like this film had none. X3 was horrible.

Just because you think so doesn't mean America agreed with you in the summer of 2006

They killed the franchise for the die comic book fans. And the Phoenix was completely miss used.

True, the fans of the source material hated it.

But those fans don't pay the bills.

General audiences who don't read comics do.

 

[Peter McCabe]

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

Why not? Its written in english.

It was how Singer envisioned the manifestation of Jeans powers to look.

It was how Singer envisioned the manifestation of Jean's powers to look in his nod to the fans.

That's all that was - a nod.

What does her aura in X2 have to do with intergalactic leviathans and cosmic destroyers?

That aura, that nod to the fans, represented the intergalactic leviathan/cosmic star destroyer that Phoenix was in the comics.

The Phoenix in X3 isn't the Phoenix from the comics - therefore the look displayed in Singer's nod to the fans becomes expendable.

She is something entirely different in X3. Something grounded and organic.

 

[Slim]

I'm starting to not be able to follow the logic. It wasn't a nod, it was a storyline. And it was faithful, without going overboard. How shocking that he envisioned the effects to be something like the comics. Call X3 organic all you want, it still didn't make any sense whatsoever unless you bend over backwards to explain it, which the writers failed to do in the movie.

Bad, lazy writing is okay if it makes money? That's sad that the quality of movie doesn't matter. But the first two movies made X-men into a bankable name. X3 made twenty million more than X2. With the potential and goodwill generated by X2, I was expecting the box office to be bigger. The bloated X3 budget doesn't help things either.

 

[DCnightwing23]

No it didn't.

Or haven't you heard about this upcoming movie called X-Men Origins: Wolverine?



FOX didn't kill anything.

(X-Men Origins: Wolverine - May 1, 2009)

*Oh and that guy you're talking about is an obsessive complusive Superman fanatic who jumped at the chance of directing a Superman movie and abandoned the X-Men franchise he created.

He abandoned his own franchise to direct the third movie in someone else's.





Yet it still made more money than X2, Superman Returns, X1 and every other comic book movie dated before 2006 aside of the Spider Man movies and Burton's Batman (1989).



Famke never said it was horrible. She just indulged the interviewer who had a very negative mindset towards X3. She only said she wished they'd done more with Phoenix, not that the movie was horrible.



Not really.



Well, they had to get to work since Singer left them out to dry. The final product still delivered and banked more than Singer's 3 comic book movies.



Just because you think so doesn't mean America agreed with you in the summer of 2006



True, the fans of the source material hated it.

But those fans don't pay the bills.

General audiences who don't read comics do.

You said it yourself. They did make Wolverine. Whats that spin off? I was talking about the X-men franchise henz the three films.

And Singer didnt walk out. Fox mis handled everything which there known for.
Singer wanted to do X3 or he wouldnt have had done a script for it. But he also wanted to do Superman. They were both during the same time. And he wanted Fox to serperate the two so that he could do both. But instead Fox said no and let him go.

And of course X3 was gonna get more money, with all the promos and ads ppl thought it was gonna be such a great film. But instead ppl leave the theater afterwards saying "wtf" it had the worst reviews of all three movies and thats why they ended up doing spin offs.

I dont get why your arguing this, probably the majority of ppl on SSH think that X3 sucked and could have done way better. Phoenix was the most mishandled character. Its really quite sad that your defending such a horrific film.

 

[Peter McCabe]

I'm starting to not be able to follow the logic. It wasn't a nod, it was a storyline.

A storyline based on 2 five second displays of CGI fire?

Call X3 organic all you want, it still didn't make any sense whatsoever unless you bend over backwards to explain it, which the writers failed to do in the movie.

It made perfect sense.

*I can already tell you are refuting it completely out of dissatisfaction for it.

And I'll tell you what doesn't make any sense at all - a mutant in Singer's grounded universe to be producing an aura of fire when she is a psychic.

Bad, lazy writing is okay if it makes money? That's sad that the quality of movie doesn't matter.

This is an old and tired statement. Movies, specifically comic book movies are a business. Comic book fans forget that sometimes and deem movies like X3 and Spider Man 3 "failures" when in fact they did their job and now we have sequels/prequels to those so called failures.

 

[Slim]

It was a developed subplot throughout X2. Jean's fire eyes started earlier in the movie, we saw it when she fought Scott, and in the climax. It grew and progressed throughout the movie, and X3 ignored it all. It's just silly to ignore something that the entire movie developed in a subplot. Like I said, an explanation would be needed if that effect was used in X3.

What doesn't make sense is for Jean to have a super-powerful, evil, personality and call itself Phoenix, when there is absolutely NOTHING that linked Jean with anything Phoenix related, ergo lazy writing. Oh right, it's "scary". I already said this, but I'll say it again:

this was a Dark Phoenix adaptation, Jean's personality called itself the Phoenix, therefore some sort of fire-like manifestation would have made "Phoenix" actually make sense in the movie. An explanation could have gone something like this "Jean's manifestation resembles a fiery bird + back from the dead = Calling itself Phoenix"

Again with the Nightcrawler comparison, but is it grounded to have him teleport in smoke when smoke has nothing to do with teleportation? It's iconic and fundamental to the character, just like Jean's phoenix effect.

People deem them failures because the critical reception, and the fan reception was very negative, unlike other movies in the series. Just because a movie spawns something else does not make it a success. By this logic, since Fantatstic Four got a sequel, that means that that movie was good. And Wolverine would have been made whether or not X3 was any good.

 

[BMM]

Yes, really. How can a comic book frame that shows shadowy eyes and outstretched arms (just as in the movie's fight with Xavier at the house) be out of context when it illustrates the point that the X3 portrayal does resemble some of the comic images.

Simple. I don't think they look much alike.

Of course it's the same. And of course peiople here expect exact comic book imagery! Where have you been hiding for the past decade?

I disagree. To compare the Phoenix aura to something as trivial as Magneto’s squiggle lines, as though people don’t know the difference between the relevance of the two and are instead expecting something unreasonable, is silly.

The Phoenix aura is used to depict a physical manifestation of Phoenix's power - in the comics. In the comic, we had a solar flare involved in the evolution of Jean Grey into Phoenix, a Phoenix whose power was 'backed by the raging sun itself', a Phoenix who shot energy blasts from her hands - the character was a cosmic force that went far beyond the movie concept of a split personality.

Because an aura of energy surrounding a character or energy blasts are out of the question in a universe in which women control the weather and young adults manipulate fire with their hands and transform themselves into living ice beings?

I'd be interested to see a live-action film use more energy effects, but it;s hard to say if X3 would have benefited from them. One thing is for sure - beyond the comic book hardcore fans, the mainstream didn't expect them or mention them as an absence.

I don’t think anyone is particularly equipped to speak on behalf of the general audience. Moreover, I’m beginning to think it wouldn’t matter if members of the general audience decided to voice their criticisms via outlets like these, as they would probably just be dismissed as fans who surrendered all common sense, while unreasonably expecting exact comic book imagery.

Continuity isnt written in stone.



Let me repeat my earlier post regarding the little of Phoenix you saw in X2:



Her powers looked the way they did in X2 PURELY as a nod to fans from Bryan Singer. At that point, when X2 was in post-production, there was no script for X3. The Phoenix we see in X3 is the way she is to suit the story the movie is telling. She is not an intergalactic leviathan. She is not a cosmic destroyer. She is an extraordinarily powerful mutant - who's powers were caged by another extraordinarily powerful mutant. This was a grounded, organic and darker take on Jean's hidden secret, a real metamorphosis - not just Jean Grey meets Johnny Storm.



*X-Men Origins: Wolverine is proof that continuity isn't inexpendable, Sabretooth being the best example. Liev Schreiber redefined that character.

That’s all fine and well, but the fact is you aren’t Bryan Singer and aren’t equipped to say whether or not his portrayal of Phoenix is little more than a nod to fans or, instead, a staple of things to come. Given Singer’s consistency with the X-Men’s powers and the obvious symbolism and continued progression of Phoenix’s powers throughout X2, odds aren’t in your favor that it was little more than a nod for the time being.

And I'll tell you what doesn't make any sense at all - a mutant in Singer's grounded universe to be producing an aura of fire when she is a psychic.

Jean Grey is a telepath and telekinetic described, in the movie you’re defending no less, as a person of limitless potential—a goddess who can do anything. Manipulating molecules at her will seems right up her alley. Besides, I don’t particularly buy the grounded excuse, especially considering your ideas for a sequel to Singer’s grounded universe consist of Apocalypse, Xavier walking around in his twin brother’s body, and a thumbs up to someone else’s idea of Cable introduced as a combined being formed by the psyonic energy present due to the destruction of Cyclops and Jean Grey’s psychic link when both were killed.