danoyse
Snikt. Stab. Repeat.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 27,117
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 33
phoenixflight said:I agree, there was very little story development to most of the characters, however "the cure" storyline meant more to me than the premise behind X1 or X2. (Any oppressed group can relate to an 'eradication of who they are' in the name of 'helping' them out). X3 should have just focused on "the cure" and left Jean out for X4.
I agree. I thought the cure storyline was the best out of the 3 movies, but Jean seemed like they had to bring her back because of how X2 ended. Almost like an afterthought.
In reference to the 1-liners or lack of screen time, Singer did the same thing in X1 (Mystique's one line) and X2 (Lady Deathstrike's one line). Singer's X-Men focused too much on Wolverine and didn't really explore other characters to their greatest potential. Those who see X3 complain about the lack of connection between Professor X and Juggernaut in the film, however Singer did the same with Mystique and Nightcrawler. And where was Cyclops in X2? - that role was also very reduced.
Exactly...and the plotholes in this one were just as obvious as the plotholes in the first two. People are just willing to "excuse" them more because they didn't like X3 as much.
The X-Film universe is cluttered with to many characters (just like the comics), however I rather see characters appear than never show up. I enjoyed X3 tremendously. It wasn't the best film, but it was really good for the time period that Ratner was given.
Agreed again.
