Well this could be a good sign. Bryan Singer is returning to direct the fourth (or is it fifth?) X-Men film.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=24109
I would really like to see Angel in a movie...ohh wait, they already screwed that up....*shrug* I could be interested in a classic X-Men line-up, but that isn't necessarily what we'd be seeing.
I started clapping when I read this last night. SO happy. I think he'd do well with the core X-Men at a young age.
Who's gonna be in it? Theres Jean, Storm, Beast, and Cyclops. Just those 4?
Quote from: gengoro on December 18, 2009, 06:07:09 AM
Who's gonna be in it? Theres Jean, Storm, Beast, and Cyclops. Just those 4?
Beast is kinda problematical...
In the movie franchise, Hank didn't grow fur until Stryker's tinkering with Cerebro. I have a bit of trouble suspending my disbelief at an un-furry Kelsey Grammar bouncing around and I suspect most everyone else would, too. I would frown on any storyline that conveniently ignored that bit of trivia, too.
I wouldn't be that upset if they completely recast, though. Except for Patrick Stewart as Prof X... I can't imagine anyone else in that role.
Quote from: BlueBard on December 18, 2009, 01:44:26 PM
Quote from: gengoro on December 18, 2009, 06:07:09 AM
Who's gonna be in it? Theres Jean, Storm, Beast, and Cyclops. Just those 4?
Beast is kinda problematical...
In the movie franchise, Hank didn't grow fur until Stryker's tinkering with Cerebro. I have a bit of trouble suspending my disbelief at an un-furry Kelsey Grammar bouncing around and I suspect most everyone else would, too. I would frown on any storyline that conveniently ignored that bit of trivia, too.
I wouldn't be that upset if they completely recast, though. Except for Patrick Stewart as Prof X... I can't imagine anyone else in that role.
When did that come out? I have no memory of that.
Dunno; Hank was in one of th first two movies, but he wasn't portrayed by Kelsey Grammar. He was on TV being interviewed, if I remember correctly.
That's true, but that is minor enough that they could wink at it. Also, that could have been file footage....err...I don't know, but it would be a shame to have classic X-Men without Beast, and Beast is best blue and furry in my opinion. Otherwise, he simply doesn't seem visually interesting enough..
Quote from: daglob on December 18, 2009, 04:37:34 PM
Dunno; Hank was in one of th first two movies, but he wasn't portrayed by Kelsey Grammar. He was on TV being interviewed, if I remember correctly.
Yeah, that's correct. The part Bluebard is talking about happened in a deleted scene, iirc. Also of note, Beast was in earlier drafts of X2 and X1, but they kept cutting him out because they wanted Furry Beast (makeup issues) instead of Simian/human Beast... still, first class movie could easily make use of Beast before his tranformation considering what they've established now, I would think. I'd be interested in knowing how they would round out the team of mutants though considering they removed Iceman and Angel from the older class and put in Storm. Of course, they can always pull a fast one and just keep Cyclops and Jean and build a whole new class around them or something just as wacky. Weirder things have happened, right? :P
Remember in the Wolverine movie, the kids that went with Prof X? There's your first class right there!
I got irrationally excited at first because I thought (contrary to the continuity of the movies) that this movie would be based on the excellent X-Men: First Class series that Prev. introduced me to. Without such being the case, I suppose that my interest in this movie his heavily contingent on what characters would make up said class. Who went with the Prof. in that movie?
guys seriously it's nothing to get excited about, it's still made by fox
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on December 18, 2009, 07:19:17 PM
guys seriously it's nothing to get excited about, it's still made by fox
Well Played Mr. Evil.... Well played....
Quote from: BentonGrey on December 18, 2009, 05:39:36 PM
I got irrationally excited at first because I thought (contrary to the continuity of the movies) that this movie would be based on the excellent X-Men: First Class series that Prev. introduced me to. Without such being the case, I suppose that my interest in this movie his heavily contingent on what characters would make up said class. Who went with the Prof. in that movie?
Quicksilver, Banshee, Emma Frost, Cyclops ... that's all I can remember.
Well, according to a news blurb I just read regarding an interview with Bryan Singer at the premiere of James Cameron's AVATAR...
Bryan said that he wanted First Class to focus on the relationship Professor X had with his first students and the event that sent Xavier and Magneto on different paths. He mensioned that all-new actors would be needed to play the main characters at earlier moments in their lives and he was not thrilled with the final looks of the "computer facelifts" used in X3 and Wolveine movies (used to make Magento and Xavier look far younger to fit their time in the shots requiring flashbacks).
The real question is would FOX use this film as a chance to reboot the franchise with the original five X-Men or tweak with the membership to fit within the previous movies in the X-Franchise?
- CQ
I doubt they'll be willing to reboot with so much built on it, but reboots are popular these days.
Banshee....I would be interested in a team involving a Banshee that acted like he should. I love the classic Claremont issues where he joins the team of the New X-Men.
Quote from: BentonGrey on December 20, 2009, 05:43:36 AM
I doubt they'll be willing to reboot with so much built on it, but reboots are popular these days.
Banshee....I would be interested in a team involving a Banshee that acted like he should. I love the classic Claremont issues where he joins the team of the New X-Men.
Honestly Banshee would be one of the last characters I'd want in it. He never really did much for me. I'd want more Nightcrawler and Angel. And a movie that actually used Cyclops well.
I'd love it if it was the Original 5, but who knows what direction they'll go in. Betcha they work in Wolverine somehow, even if only a cameo.
Quote from: BentonGrey on December 20, 2009, 05:43:36 AMBanshee....I would be interested in a team involving a Banshee that acted like he should. I love the classic Claremont issues where he joins the team of the New X-Men.
Banshee? Maybe, Just lets not have a John Proudstar in a movie with Professor X using extreme racism and reverse psychology to recruit him.
This should be good. Most of my films are Economy Class.
I thought the "computer facelifts" in X3 were really good, but not so much in Wolverine. That'll be a shame if Patrick Stewart isn't back as Xavier or McKellan as Magneto. I can't imagine anyone else in the roles.
Quote from: TheMarvell on December 20, 2009, 04:54:58 PM
I thought the "computer facelifts" in X3 were really good, but not so much in Wolverine. That'll be a shame if Patrick Stewart isn't back as Xavier or McKellan as Magneto. I can't imagine anyone else in the roles.
If Bryan does keep McKellan and Stewart in their respective roles then I'd imagine he would have the CGI company revamp it so it would look far better then any version before. And I also would find it hard to have anyone else in those roles now at this point.
- CQ
Quote from: TheMarvell on December 20, 2009, 04:54:58 PM
I thought the "computer facelifts" in X3 were really good, but not so much in Wolverine. That'll be a shame if Patrick Stewart isn't back as Xavier or McKellan as Magneto. I can't imagine anyone else in the roles.
While Patrick Stewart was absolutely PERFECT as Professor X, I never really cared for McKellan as Mags. He had a few good moments in X1 "Don't fear God senator, and certainly don't fear me....", but all in all, I felt like he just wasn't right for the part. They needed someone altogether more firey. It would be odd to see new people in those roles, though.
I'd love it if they just rebooted the whole thing with the actual original X-men (even though I doubt they'd do it).
Although, I'm guessing it will be Beast, Cyclops, Jean and probably Storm...They could also possibly throw in Havok and Polaris (perhaps Sunfire and Banshee?).
Dana
I always wanted Rutger Hauer to be Magneto. Although he's up there in age too, I always thought he would've been perfect.
I could live without McKellan in the role.
And based on X3, I could even overlook a total reboot that fixed that mess. I hated the way Jean was portrayed in it... all of that power but no lights on upstairs, if you get my drift. She was much too passive, too easily swayed by Magneto, and turned on her friends with too little rationale. (Not to mention being played as if she were sleepwalking most of the time.) What she did to Prof X was horrific but understandable. What she did to Cyclops was not.
When I first heard McKellen was playing Magneto I wasn't convinced. I'd always pictured Mags as taller and better looking, more ubermensch really. Rutger Hauer would have been perfect.
However, once I'd seen him in X1 and X2 my opinion was totally changed. Yes, he's not physically imposing and a bit smirky and sarcastic, but has enough moments where he's pushed a bit and displays his inner fire.
To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed with this news. Singer's giving us a prequel. Why not a new storyline after X3? OK, after X2 if you dont want to deal with a dead cyclops, depowered Magneto and dead but bodyswapped Charles.
First Class and a retold origin just sounds very safe and boring.
The should have done a Cyclopes spin-off, explaining his first years as an x-men
I was going to make a new topic, but then I figured someone must have made one already a while back. So I'm bumping this.
It's kind of old news (couple of weeks now) and I'm surprised nobody has said anything. Well, Bryan Singer is now no longer directing X-Men First Class, and is instead producing.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/x-mennews.php?id=9209
Kind of bummed really. He seemed really excited to get back into the X-Men films and realized he works best with an ensemble cast (acknowledging how Superman Returns wasn't his best effort). At least he's still attached I guess.
Plus, he said he's interested in doing an X-Men 4 as well.
seriously the x-men franchise is dead, fox will never give up the rights and just keep kicking the dead horse
Somebody at AICN or Superhero Hype or Newsarama should do a story of which superhero liscences are held by who right now. I think all of DC stuff is with Warner but it would explain a lot of what Marvel, Dark horse, Image and the rest are doing.
Well, we can do a bit of it right now: Warner Bros. has all the DC licenses, including Wildstorm & Vertigo, because Time Warner owns DC. Fox has the X-Men, Daredevil and the Fantastic Four, which includes Silver Surfer, Namor (I think) and the Super-skrull. Sony has Spider-man.
Hope these expire soon, marvel has been doing a bang up job of releasing movies. And while DC failed again and again over the years it looks like they might finally be in a good place AND with control of all their properties. I would not be surprised if they jump way ahead in the comics movie game soon... I mean unless they are commited to not making great movies.
New news... and it worries me:
Quote from: http://marvel.com/news/all.13712.x-men~colon~_first_class_casting_updateThe film, set to debut June 3, 2011, will follow the formative years of the X-Men and the relationship between Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, a.k.a. Magneto.
Deadline Hollywood had news earlier this week that January Jones, the Emmy and Golden Globe-nominated actress who plays Betty Draper on AMC's "Mad Men," will play Emma Frost. Jones will undoubtedly bring a chilly air to the telepathic villainess-turned-X-Man also known as the White Queen!
Also reported was Rose Byrne, set to play Moira MacTaggert, Xavier's longtime love interest in the X-Men comics. Byrne, who stars in the TV series "Damages" also seen in "28 Days Later," "Sunshine" and "Knowing," will undoubtedly make things interesting for the young Professor X, played by James McAvoy.
The demonic Azazel will be brought to the silver screen by British actor Jason Flemyng. Having previously worked with "First Class" director Matthew Vaughan on "Layer Cake," "Stardust" and in a brief cameo in "Kick-arse," the two have clearly developed a rapport that will continue here!
The young Zoe Kravitz joins the cast as Angel Salvadore, a character who first appeared in Grant Morrison's run on NEW X-MEN. Kravitz may not have many credits to her name just yet, but she's sure to make an impression on moviegoers and comics fans alike with her turn as this interesting mutant!
I loves me the comic book movies. But i don't think its possible for me to be any less interested in this film...
Some of the characters I've heard that are supposed to be in this movie are bizarre. I actually suspect (hope) that they're just being misleading.
Quote from: GogglesPizanno on August 20, 2010, 01:05:21 AM
I loves me the comic book movies. But i don't think its possible for me to be any less interested in this film...
Yeah, I feel more or less the same way.
Quote from: Previsionary on August 19, 2010, 11:22:59 PM
New news... and it worries me:
Quote from: http://marvel.com/news/all.13712.x-men~colon~_first_class_casting_updateThe film, set to debut June 3, 2011, will follow the formative years of the X-Men and the relationship between Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, a.k.a. Magneto.
Deadline Hollywood had news earlier this week that January Jones, the Emmy and Golden Globe-nominated actress who plays Betty Draper on AMC's "Mad Men," will play Emma Frost. Jones will undoubtedly bring a chilly air to the telepathic villainess-turned-X-Man also known as the White Queen!
Also reported was Rose Byrne, set to play Moira MacTaggert, Xavier's longtime love interest in the X-Men comics. Byrne, who stars in the TV series "Damages" also seen in "28 Days Later," "Sunshine" and "Knowing," will undoubtedly make things interesting for the young Professor X, played by James McAvoy.
The demonic Azazel will be brought to the silver screen by British actor Jason Flemyng. Having previously worked with "First Class" director Matthew Vaughan on "Layer Cake," "Stardust" and in a brief cameo in "Kick-arse," the two have clearly developed a rapport that will continue here!
The young Zoe Kravitz joins the cast as Angel Salvadore, a character who first appeared in Grant Morrison's run on NEW X-MEN. Kravitz may not have many credits to her name just yet, but she's sure to make an impression on moviegoers and comics fans alike with her turn as this interesting mutant!
That does not sound good. They are hyping it up way too much
Bryan Singer revealed some points about the movie:
http://movies.ign.com/articles/111/1114975p1.html
--The two leads will be in their late twenties.
--Xavier will not be in his wheelchair, but we will learn how he gets there.
--He'll also still have hair.
--Xavier and Magneto will create the X-Men together.
--This is not based on the comic book called First Class but rather is "a new beginning" for the series.
--Director Matthew Vaughn is "technologically inspired" by the James Bond tech of the '60s.
--The costumes will be more "comic bookish" than in previous films.
--Neither Cyclops nor Marvel Girl will show up, but Cyke's brother Havoc will.
--Kevin Bacon will play Sebastian Shaw and, yes, the Hellfire Club will figure into the mix.
--Filming begins with Xavier at Oxford University.
--The movie will have a much more international feel than previous installments. (The shoot will take place in England and the U.S.) Other locations will include Russia (though they won't actually film there).
--There are other characters in the film who have not been revealed yet.
Hmmmm. I don't know. I was hyped when Singer came back as director, but now, I don't know. First Class without Cyclops? Thought for sure he'd be the main one they'd want. So who does that leave? Beast, Emma Frost...and Havoc replacing Cyclops perhaps? Seriously, who are they going to use? Jubilee? I also don't like "the costumes will be more comic-booky". I'm a geek and all, but the costumes in the previous films were perfect, imo (yes, I realize it was mostly a lack thereof, but that's exactly the point).
Some good talent here, but these bits of news aren't very convincing yet.
At this point all I can really do is start ignoring first class and hope that it sneaks up out of nowhere and punches me in the gut with awesomeness. That way if it does suck, well, no skin off my back.
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 21, 2010, 02:19:50 AM
Hmmmm. I don't know. I was hyped when Singer came back as director, but now, I don't know.
Singer is just producing.
Its being directed by Mathew Vaughn who did Kick-arse, Stardust and Layer Cake.
I actually think Singer is overrated as a director, and doesn;t handle action very well. Ive generally liked Vaughn's stuff.... but its not enough to overcome the seemingly disorganized, convoluted and overly crammed hodge podge that this film seems to be.
Quote from: GogglesPizanno on August 21, 2010, 08:17:45 AM
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 21, 2010, 02:19:50 AM
Hmmmm. I don't know. I was hyped when Singer came back as director, but now, I don't know.
Singer is just producing.
Its being directed by Mathew Vaughn who did Kick-arse, Stardust and Layer Cake.
I actually think Singer is overrated as a director, and doesn;t handle action very well. Ive generally liked Vaughn's stuff.... but its not enough to overcome the seemingly disorganized, convoluted and overly crammed hodge podge that this film seems to be.
yeah, I know Singer is only producing now. I was just saying, he was originally announced as director, which got me excited, and then he backed off because he's filming something else (I really like him as a director)
Rotten Tomatoes has this news as one of the 3 rotten ideas of the week. I'll copy/paste:
"#3 THIS WEEK IN X-MEN: FIRST CLASS CASTING: NIGHTCRAWLER'S DAD AND NOT THE ANGEL WE WERE EXPECTING
The X-Men: First Class comic book was mostly about the original 5 members of the team (Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, Angel and Iceman), but the X-Men: First Class movie appears to have a much larger student body. Among those to join the cast this week were January Jones (Betty Draper from Mad Men), replacing Alice Eve as Emma Frost. Similarly, although there had been earlier reports of Rosamund Pike playing Dr. Moira MacTaggert, that role is now to be played by Rose Byrne (Get Him to the Greek). There had been rumors that not all of the roles that are being announced are necessarily what the roles really are, so that might be part of the confusion here. The role of Angel has also been cast, but instead of Warren Worthington, this Angel is actually Angel Salvadore, whose mutant abilities replicate those of a house fly (insectoid wings, the ability to spit acid). Jason Flemyng (Calibos from Clash of the Titans) joined the cast as Azazel, who in the comics belongs to an ancient race of mutants who looked like demons (complete with red skin and a tail) and is the father of Nightcrawler. Oliver Platt (Lake Placid) has also joined the cast as a non-mutant character called "The Man in Black" who doesn't appear to have a known parallel in the comic books (unless he's really someone we actually do know). In other mutant movie news, 20th Century Fox is reportedly now considering two different directors for X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2 (or whatever it ends up being called). The two candidates are David Slade (30 Days of Night, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse) and Robert Schwentke (The Time Traveler's Wife and the upcoming Red). Because Schwentke is already considering several movies as his next project (including R.I.P.D. as reported last week, Slade is perceived as being the likely director Fox will end up hiring. I am collectively putting all of this news in the "Rotten Idea" column this week because X-Men: First Class is sounding increasingly more like X-Men: The Last Stand, a movie with such a huge ensemble cast that there is no time for any individual characters to properly develop. The news about Wolverine 2 may not itself be rotten, but it gets lumped in here because Wolvie's an part of the team, whether he likes it or not."so, they're replacing Angel with Tempest? :huh:
and Nightcrawlers dad? I guess that's accurate to the comic origin (correct me if I'm wrong) but I kind of liked the X-men Origins Wolverine videogame take, where Wraith is the father (there's a cutscene where Mystique tells him they're having a baby, and he asks her what he thinks of the name Kurt. It makes sense, given his mutant ability, but I digress).
score yet another "not-so-good" sounding news
http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/106051-major-x-men-first-class-details-emerge
so let me get this right emma frost was freed by xavier but is now the white queen of the hell fire club. damn thats really disturbing under age prevy or some fast maturing
Since Emma was never named in Wolverine, they'll probably just pretend like that wasn't her at all, but some other diamond form mutant.
Dear owners of FOX
Please give it up. You had 2 great X-Men movies and a good spin off. Please quit while you're ahead. Give it back to Marvel. Thanks
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 22, 2010, 12:46:35 AM
Dear owners of FOX
Please give it up. You had 2 great X-Men movies and a good spin off. Please quit while you're ahead. Give it back to Marvel. Thanks
Good spin-off? When? :P
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 22, 2010, 02:53:06 AM
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 22, 2010, 12:46:35 AM
Dear owners of FOX
Please give it up. You had 2 great X-Men movies and a good spin off. Please quit while you're ahead. Give it back to Marvel. Thanks
Good spin-off? When? :P
X-Men Origins: Wolverine is heavily flawed but at the end of the day it is not bad as a comic book movie. My main pet peeves where how serious the story is and I found the fights to be weightless... too much shoddy wirework. But yeah, Jackman has always made Wolvie both charming and deadly and in Origins a lot of the charm is bled out.
I also dont mind X3... it has a lot of flaws but it also has a lot of really awesome moments. Still X2 set the bar REALLY high.
Quote from: lugaru on August 22, 2010, 03:58:06 AM
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 22, 2010, 02:53:06 AM
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 22, 2010, 12:46:35 AM
Dear owners of FOX
Please give it up. You had 2 great X-Men movies and a good spin off. Please quit while you're ahead. Give it back to Marvel. Thanks
Good spin-off? When? :P
X-Men Origins: Wolverine is heavily flawed but at the end of the day it is not bad as a comic book movie. My main pet peeves where how serious the story is and I found the fights to be weightless... too much shoddy wirework. But yeah, Jackman has always made Wolvie both charming and deadly and in Origins a lot of the charm is bled out.
I also dont mind X3... it has a lot of flaws but it also has a lot of really awesome moments. Still X2 set the bar REALLY high.
I didn't say it was bad, though I would certainly argue it is. I think it can certainly be classified as "not good," however. Ha, it was a semi entertaining action movie, but not much good as a comic movie....of course, Wolverine: Origin itself isn't a particularly good book....so it was at a disadvantage to start with. I actually enjoyed X3, too. It wasn't much good as an X-Men movie, really, and it was pretty deeply flawed, but it was entertaining. It was just a disappointment overall, considering what I had been hoping for.
Wolverine was a terrible movie...
I tried re-watching it recently thinking that maybe i was just being too hard on it when it came out... I wasn't.
i tried the same thing with X3 as well.
Again... really bad.
Now that i really think about it, X2 was really the only "good" x-men related movie.
Quote from: GogglesPizanno on August 22, 2010, 05:09:39 AM
Wolverine was a terrible movie...
I tried re-watching it recently thinking that maybe i was just being too hard on it when it came out... I wasn't.
i tried the same thing with X3 as well.
Again... really bad.
Now that i really think about it, X2 was really the only "good" x-men related movie.
Ehh, X-Men 1 was good, just rushed.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on August 21, 2010, 11:36:35 PM
Since Emma was never named in Wolverine, they'll probably just pretend like that wasn't her at all, but some other diamond form mutant.
You mean some other diamond form, all-white wearing, blonde female mutant?
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 22, 2010, 05:36:13 AM
Quote from: GogglesPizanno on August 22, 2010, 05:09:39 AM
Wolverine was a terrible movie...
I tried re-watching it recently thinking that maybe i was just being too hard on it when it came out... I wasn't.
i tried the same thing with X3 as well.
Again... really bad.
Now that i really think about it, X2 was really the only "good" x-men related movie.
Ehh, X-Men 1 was good, just rushed.
Yeah, a little rough in hindsight but a total game changer when it came out.
Yeah, Lugaru, exactly.
The more I read about Singer's new X-Men project the less interested I get.
I enjoyed the first 2 X-Men movies but X2 is the best of the bunch.
X3 was a horrible film that can never be forgiven. Honestly, who puts Colossus and Juggernaut in the same film...and never have them meet. We get Wolverine vs Juggernaut instead. A comicbook/cinematic crime.
Wolverine Origins was even worse than X3. I didn't think it would be possible to make it worse...but they sure showed me.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on August 22, 2010, 03:00:45 PM
The more I read about Singer's new X-Men project the less interested I get.
I enjoyed the first 2 X-Men movies but X2 is the best of the bunch.
X3 was a horrible film that can never be forgiven. Honestly, who puts Colossus and Juggernaut in the same film...and never have them meet. We get Wolverine vs Juggernaut instead. A comicbook/cinematic crime.
Wolverine Origins was even worse than X3. I didn't think it would be possible to make it worse...but they sure showed me.
I definitely agree about the lack of Colossus/Juggernaut....just stupidity. Still, I was entertained by the film when I saw it. It was a huge disappointment, but not necessarily terrible as an action flick. As a story about characters I love, though....well, that's something else.
I liked Wolverine for what it was... a semi-decent action flick that got carried away trying to sell me on other FOX projects (Deadpool, FC, Wolverine 2, etc.) and that needed a month or so of more dedicated cgi work.
Wolverine was SO much better than X3. It was actually pretty decent during the first half. Like lugaro said, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is just brilliant. Like with Iron Man, movie Wolverine is actually better than comics Wolverine. In X3, I didn't even notice if he was good because it is the worst movie ever in so many ways. I really don't see how they are able to make such bad X-Men movies as X3 and the end of Wolverine. They take the greatest possible source material, get good to amazing actors to play the parts, film some exciting action scenes, and then throw something totally random and stupid into the movies that really doesn't even sound anything but horrible and stupid on paper.
I will never, ever, understand the utter hatred for X3. Nor can I understand how anyone can say Wolverine was in any way better than it. Neither are perfect films, and both are easily considered not as good as the first 2 Singer films, but horrible? worst comic movie(s) ever? Seriously? I know it's been discussed to death on this board, and everyone's got their opinion so there's no need to get into it, but c'mon. If these are even remotely considered the worst of the comic movies, I think we're pretty well off. But in no way do these 2 movies even compare to the crap like the Schumacher Batmans, or even Fantastic Four or Ghost Rider.
X3 had the same problem that Spidey 3 had: too many characters, not enough time to tell all of their stories. Spidey 3 would have been great if they told Venom story. X3 would be good also if they would have went more in dept with the charcters, but there were too many and not enough time to tell them all
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 26, 2010, 01:58:24 AM
X3 had the same problem that Spidey 3 had: too many characters, not enough time to tell all of their stories. Spidey 3 would have been great if they told Venom story. X3 would be good also if they would have went more in dept with the charcters, but there were too many and not enough time to tell them all
Oh, there were far more then just
one problem with each film...
Quote from: kkhohoho on August 26, 2010, 04:19:20 AM
Oh, there were far more then just one problem with each film...
QFT, man, QFT.
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 25, 2010, 11:39:24 PM
I will never, ever, understand the utter hatred for X3. Nor can I understand how anyone can say Wolverine was in any way better than it. Neither are perfect films, and both are easily considered not as good as the first 2 Singer films, but horrible? worst comic movie(s) ever? Seriously? I know it's been discussed to death on this board, and everyone's got their opinion so there's no need to get into it, but c'mon. If these are even remotely considered the worst of the comic movies, I think we're pretty well off. But in no way do these 2 movies even compare to the crap like the Schumacher Batmans, or even Fantastic Four or Ghost Rider.
Ghostrider!? You're comparing Ghostrider to the Schumacher Batman films? Ghostrider was a pretty decent flick, nothing to write home about, but nothing glaringly wrong either. The Schumacher Batman films had BAT NIPPLES!
FF wasn't that bad, IMO. Yes, they took a lot of liberties, especially where Doom is concerned. But they had some really awesome action scenes and the acting was okay.
FF2 went further astray and I didn't care for that one so much. It should have been a better retelling of the Galactus story.
X3 was a horrible retelling of the Dark Phoenix story and way too much of a mashup of many different X-storylines. It was a mess. Visually, plotwise, and acting. About all it managed to accomplish was to be a disturbing movie to watch.
Ok, here's my categories of movies
Awesome Sauce:
Iron Man (1+2)
Nolan Batman
Good:
Xmen 1+2
Incredible Hulk
Spiderman 1+2
Decent:
Batman (burton)
Spiderman 3
Wolverine
BM Forever (I know, but I'm a two face fanatic. Deal.)
FFour 1+2
Ghost Rider
Watchmen
Bad:
X3
Batman Returns
Hulk
Superman Returns
Offense against nature:
B&R
You'll notice the old Superman films aren't on here... I have not watched them recently enough to have a view on them.
I mostly agree, just bump everything up one notch since I play devils advocate a lot with comic movies. Some honorable mentions though:
Daredevil: I love old hornhead but despite all its flaws it really had some cool moments. Hope this gets rebooted.
Punisher movies: brutal, funny, but horribly incosistent. Warzone is the victor for me though, it is grim, unforgiving but not too serious for its own good. It also turns The Punisher into a movie monster for criminals.
Ghost Rider: just not that much of a comic book movie... it needed some better villains than those demon dudes. Otherwise it was not all that bad.
Constantine: Not a terrible movie but has very few comic book roots beyond the demonic pact stuff.
Catwoman: Sexy, action packed but shot in the head by awful dialog and editing. Also the suit reminds me more of a mouse than a cat.
The Crow: perfect soundtrack, perfect dark mood, great directing and action packed.
And commenting on a couple that you mention: I have a soft spot for BM forever too, while I'm alergic to camp I did like Two Face and the Riddler in it. Fantastic Four gets beat on too much by comic fans... I think it is the most "comic booky" of the comic movies, fun, funny, full of adventure... just not a good movie at the end of the day. I also like to play devils advocate for Hulk... the editing and drama is perfect, the effects and action too, just near the end it collapses since it lacks a proper villain.
Quote from: BlueBard on August 26, 2010, 02:14:39 PM
FF wasn't that bad, IMO. Yes, they took a lot of liberties, especially where Doom is concerned. But they had some really awesome action scenes and the acting was okay.
FF2 went further astray and I didn't care for that one so much. It should have been a better retelling of the Galactus story.
X3 was a horrible retelling of the Dark Phoenix story and way too much of a mashup of many different X-storylines. It was a mess. Visually, plotwise, and acting. About all it managed to accomplish was to be a disturbing movie to watch.
See, this is what I don't understand. Why is it ok for FF to take liberties, but not X3? The Phoenix storyline is one of those comic book things that would be incredibly difficult to pull off on film. They kept it in the realm of the films believability and established rules. An entity from another galaxy possessing Jean just wouldn't work. Same thing with Juggernaut and Cytorrak. I'll agree, Jean's character was wasted (the ending where she just stands there is pretty lame) but I don't think it derails the movie to the degree that haters say it does. There was nothing wrong with the acting or the special effects (Wolverine, on the other hand, has specific scenes where the special effects are incredibly bad, like the bathroom scene, but we're talking X3 here). I think people just like to hate on this film because they killed off certain favorite characters.
and Benton, I wasn't comparing Ghost Rider to Schumacher's Batman films (not entirely). I'm merely saying that when it comes to the really bad comic movies, Ghost Rider is a hell of a lot more in the same ballpark as those movies than X3 is.
I thought X3 was pretty good. There were some bad moments as a result of them trying to do too much with too many people, but there were good parts. I think it mostly suffered from a sudden change in tone and direction because of Singer leaving. I think that was the biggest flaw.
You're wrong! X3 was completely not enjoyable, and almost everything about it was bad. Angel's role was pointless, Juggernaut looked so terrible as a throwaway character, that hedgehog guy looked stupid and the fake Psylocke with the "level three mutant" crap was stupid, the Astonishing X-Men 'cure' plot was poorly done and didn't tie in with the other terrible plot in which Phoenix kills Cyclops and Professor X then walks around with Magneto for a while and then Wolverine stabs her. And then there was something about morlochs and stuff. Boo. And I'm not giving spoiler alerts because they didn't alert me that they were spoiling the franchise.
In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, we get to see Wolverine's origins. We also get to see pure awesomeness at the beginning, and Wolverine fight several people. It's actually good fun action. But at the end, Deadpool is turned into a text adventure controlled monster, and Cyclops and "Emma Frost" just show up for no reason and I think Cyclops has his eyes taken out but it turns out not. Why all of a sudden is Cyclops thrust into a movie where he doesn't belong when he's killed off-camera at the beginning of a movie where he does belong?* Accepting X3 as canon in the movie universe degrades the quality of the rest of the movies.
*Yes, I know it was because they were mad at James Marsden for doing Superman Returns (which is better than both those movies and actually really good at what it tried to be), but still a stupid decision
Quote from: Tomato on August 26, 2010, 03:20:51 PM
Ok, here's my categories of movies
Awesome Sauce:
Iron Man (1+2)
Nolan Batman
Good:
Xmen 1+2
Incredible Hulk
Spiderman 1+2
Decent:
Batman (burton)
Spiderman 3
Wolverine
BM Forever (I know, but I'm a two face fanatic. Deal.)
FFour 1+2
Ghost Rider
Watchmen
Bad:
X3
Batman Returns
Hulk
Superman Returns
Offense against nature:
B&R
You'll notice the old Superman films aren't on here... I have not watched them recently enough to have a view on them.
Just for the sake of argument on the Superman films. Superman 1 and 2 were both great considering when they were made. Superman 3 was good but most of that was due to Richard Pryor and Robert Vaughn being the villains. Superman 4 SUCKED so bad that it deserves to be right alongside of Batman and Robin for suck factor.
With regards to X3, I've always maintained that the biggest problem with the film was BRETT RATNER. I suspect the only reason he got the job was because Red Dragon went well. Granted, he had Rush Hour 1 and 2 but those films were no reason to give him something like X3. Honestly, Red Dragon wasn't a good reason to either. From what I have read, Ratner got the job after Vaughn bailed (who was Singer's replacement) because he had experience with rushed productions due to the first Rush Hour movie. For what it's worth, he's not had a high profile gig since as a director. (Though, he has done some stuff in the producer role.)
A side note on Vaughn, he left the film because of the flawed script and because the studio was interfering on the project because they wanted the project rushed.
Watchmen was a good film. The problem with the film is that it tried so much to stay to the comic that the places where it differed were more than most die hard fans could deal with.
Constantine was an okay movie but wasn't a Constantine film. I think had the film been cast properly that the film would've been a LOT better.
Quote from: BWPS on August 27, 2010, 03:52:01 AM
You're wrong! X3 was completely not enjoyable, and almost everything about it was bad. Angel's role was pointless, Juggernaut looked so terrible as a throwaway character, that hedgehog guy looked stupid and the fake Psylocke with the "level three mutant" crap was stupid, the Astonishing X-Men 'cure' plot was poorly done and didn't tie in with the other terrible plot in which Phoenix kills Cyclops and Professor X then walks around with Magneto for a while and then Wolverine stabs her. And then there was something about morlochs and stuff. Boo. And I'm not giving spoiler alerts because they didn't alert me that they were spoiling the franchise.
In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, we get to see Wolverine's origins. We also get to see pure awesomeness at the beginning, and Wolverine fight several people. It's actually good fun action. But at the end, Deadpool is turned into a text adventure controlled monster, and Cyclops and "Emma Frost" just show up for no reason and I think Cyclops has his eyes taken out but it turns out not. Why all of a sudden is Cyclops thrust into a movie where he doesn't belong when he's killed off-camera at the beginning of a movie where he does belong?* Accepting X3 as canon in the movie universe degrades the quality of the rest of the movies.
*Yes, I know it was because they were mad at James Marsden for doing Superman Returns (which is better than both those movies and actually really good at what it tried to be), but still a stupid decision
k. First of all, they didn't kill off Cyclops because "they were mad at James Marsden for doing Superman Returns." Marsden chose to do Superman Returns because he felt loyal to Bryan Singer. The only reason why he appeared in X3 at all is because the actor wanted to be in it for the fans. So from a script perspective, the only logical explanation as to why Cyclops, leader of the X-Men, wasn't in the movie and taking part in the important events in the film, is because he's dead (and it's not like he couldn't return in an X4. They never actually showed his death). Anything else would have been a cop out.
Second of all, all of these complaints listed for X3 could easily be applied to the first two films. Angel's role in X3 was just as important/worthless as Nightcrawlers is in X2. Stryker needed to persuade the president to investigate mutants (Nightcrawler) in X2; in X3, Angel's father desperately wanted to cure his son of mutancy. Juggernaut looked stupid? So did Sabertooth. How would you have made him look any better?
The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 27, 2010, 11:46:04 PM
The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?
No, the legit complaint about X-men 3 isn't that it tried to do too much, but that everything it tried to do it did very
badly. Neither the 'Mutant Cure' storyline nor the 'Dark Phoenix' storyline were handled anything less than terribly. The movie was rushed by Fox to beat Superman Returns to the box office, and the only director willing to operate under such a tight schedule and deal with Fox's notorious interference was a hack.
X3 failed, to me, because the director didn't know what he was doing. X3 pulled so many stories from so many sources... Phoenix (which is enough for like, 2 movies on it's own) The mutant cure, the new brotherhood, Xavier's manipulations, Juggernaut... all these packed into one movie without any real concept of how to do any of them properly. Spiderman 3 had many of the same flaws, but I feel it was marginally superior because at least Raimi knew what he was doing... even if he was being forced to do Venom by FOX.
Quote from: Talavar on August 28, 2010, 02:11:36 AM
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 27, 2010, 11:46:04 PM
The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?
No, the legit complaint about X-men 3 isn't that it tried to do too much, but that everything it tried to do it did very badly. Neither the 'Mutant Cure' storyline nor the 'Dark Phoenix' storyline were handled anything less than terribly. The movie was rushed by Fox to beat Superman Returns to the box office, and the only director willing to operate under such a tight schedule and deal with Fox's notorious interference was a hack.
so, the "real" legit complaint, is that you think it's bad? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tomato on August 28, 2010, 02:59:09 AM
X3 failed, to me, because the director didn't know what he was doing. X3 pulled so many stories from so many sources... Phoenix (which is enough for like, 2 movies on it's own) The mutant cure, the new brotherhood, Xavier's manipulations, Juggernaut... all these packed into one movie without any real concept of how to do any of them properly. Spiderman 3 had many of the same flaws, but I feel it was marginally superior because at least Raimi knew what he was doing... even if he was being forced to do Venom by FOX.
This I can understand. Although I liked X3 better since it didn't have any emo "Anchorman" inspired scenes.
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 29, 2010, 03:47:31 PM
Quote from: Talavar on August 28, 2010, 02:11:36 AM
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 27, 2010, 11:46:04 PM
The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?
No, the legit complaint about X-men 3 isn't that it tried to do too much, but that everything it tried to do it did very badly. Neither the 'Mutant Cure' storyline nor the 'Dark Phoenix' storyline were handled anything less than terribly. The movie was rushed by Fox to beat Superman Returns to the box office, and the only director willing to operate under such a tight schedule and deal with Fox's notorious interference was a hack.
so, the "real" legit complaint, is that you think it's bad? :rolleyes:
I don't think it's bad, I know it's bad. None of it works - the Dark Phoenix storyline is not just terribly adapted, but terrible in general. Why is Jean evil now? The movie basically shrugs. What does she do now that she's evil? Kill a couple of people randomly, then wander around with Magneto for no good reason. In the process of making Jean more powerful, she's also apparently become a moron.
Now, how about the Mutant cure storyline? Again, not just bad because it's poorly adapted from the source material, but poorly done in general. Most of the main characters are outraged that such a thing as a cure for mutation exists, yet are freely using weaponized versions of it later because it's convenient, with never a moral objection raised. It's also never really resolved as a plot thread, other than the hint at the end that it's actually only temporary - making the whole thing pointless.
The rush job on X-men 3, Fox's executive interference, and Brett Ratner being a hack are all matters of public record.
Spider-man 3 had too much going on in it. It's not a good film, but parts of it work, and other parts could have worked if given more time and attention. X-men 3 could only have worked with a different script and director.
As to Wolverine: Origins, I don't think it's as bad as X-men 3, but it still isn't good. What sours most people on it especially I think, is that the worst & stupidest parts of the movie come right at the end, and taint whatever positive impression earlier parts of the movie might have been able to make on viewers.
Quote from: Talavar on August 29, 2010, 04:20:48 PM
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 29, 2010, 03:47:31 PM
Quote from: Talavar on August 28, 2010, 02:11:36 AM
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 27, 2010, 11:46:04 PM
The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?
No, the legit complaint about X-men 3 isn't that it tried to do too much, but that everything it tried to do it did very badly. Neither the 'Mutant Cure' storyline nor the 'Dark Phoenix' storyline were handled anything less than terribly. The movie was rushed by Fox to beat Superman Returns to the box office, and the only director willing to operate under such a tight schedule and deal with Fox's notorious interference was a hack.
so, the "real" legit complaint, is that you think it's bad? :rolleyes:
I don't think it's bad, I know it's bad. None of it works - the Dark Phoenix storyline is not just terribly adapted, but terrible in general. Why is Jean evil now? The movie basically shrugs. What does she do now that she's evil? Kill a couple of people randomly, then wander around with Magneto for no good reason. In the process of making Jean more powerful, she's also apparently become a moron.
Now, how about the Mutant cure storyline? Again, not just bad because it's poorly adapted from the source material, but poorly done in general. Most of the main characters are outraged that such a thing as a cure for mutation exists, yet are freely using weaponized versions of it later because it's convenient, with never a moral objection raised. It's also never really resolved as a plot thread, other than the hint at the end that it's actually only temporary - making the whole thing pointless.
The rush job on X-men 3, Fox's executive interference, and Brett Ratner being a hack are all matters of public record.
Spider-man 3 had too much going on in it. It's not a good film, but parts of it work, and other parts could have worked if given more time and attention. X-men 3 could only have worked with a different script and director.
As to Wolverine: Origins, I don't think it's as bad as X-men 3, but it still isn't good. What sours most people on it especially I think, is that the worst & stupidest parts of the movie come right at the end, and taint whatever positive impression earlier parts of the movie might have been able to make on viewers.
Well, first of all, this is all opinion, so saying things like "I know it's bad" doesn't change that. You think it's bad, and that's the only fact.
What Dark Phoenix does with Magneto and at the end are the only real weak points of the film I see. She has a dual personality in the film, and the evil one is evil because of what Xavier did. Thought the movie explained that pretty well. Now joining Magneto? The film doesn't explain that too well, but given Jean's state of mind, it's not that big of a stretch.
The cure storyline was done a lot better than Phoenix, even if the result was a stalemate. But none of the mutants in the film use the weaponized cure guns until the end of the movie to take out Magneto. So I'm not really sure what you're referencing.
also, why do you keep calling Brett Ratner a hack?
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 29, 2010, 05:34:25 PM
Well, first of all, this is all opinion, so saying things like "I know it's bad" doesn't change that. You think it's bad, and that's the only fact.
What Dark Phoenix does with Magneto and at the end are the only real weak points of the film I see. She has a dual personality in the film, and the evil one is evil because of what Xavier did. Thought the movie explained that pretty well. Now joining Magneto? The film doesn't explain that too well, but given Jean's state of mind, it's not that big of a stretch.
The cure storyline was done a lot better than Phoenix, even if the result was a stalemate. But none of the mutants in the film use the weaponized cure guns until the end of the movie to take out Magneto. So I'm not really sure what you're referencing.
also, why do you keep calling Brett Ratner a hack?
Why does Jean/Dark Phoenix do
anything that she does in the movie? It's not just a split personality, it's arbitrary. If anything like this had been hinted at or developed in the first two films, it could maybe be workable. As it comes out of nowhere, it's inconsistant, plot-driven writing (ie., she just does what is necessary for the plot to happen, not what makes sense for her character). Plot-driven storytelling of that nature is poor storytelling.
So none of the mutants use the weaponized cure until they do? I guess that's what I'm referencing.
I keep calling Brett Ratner a hack because he's never made a good movie, just generic, stylistically-void movies that might as well follow a checklist he's been handed by whatever studio has hired him. As much as I didn't like Spider-man 3, I respect Sam Raimi. Raimi actually has a directorial style, and he left Spider-man 4 because he didn't want to do what the studio was going to force him to do. That is something Ratner would never do.
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 26, 2010, 11:11:04 PM
Quote from: BlueBard on August 26, 2010, 02:14:39 PM
FF wasn't that bad, IMO. Yes, they took a lot of liberties, especially where Doom is concerned. But they had some really awesome action scenes and the acting was okay.
FF2 went further astray and I didn't care for that one so much. It should have been a better retelling of the Galactus story.
See, this is what I don't understand. Why is it ok for FF to take liberties, but not X3?
I didn't say it was okay. But FF1 didn't really tinker with the characters that badly, except for Doom. The plot still worked even with those changes. They managed to cover the origins of FF, they worked in the rivalry between Reed and Victor, and they managed to keep Doom's basic nature intact even though the origin of his powers changed. He was still armored (sort of), they kept the Doom mask, he still had energy blasts, and he was still an evil, arrogant, power-hungry person convinced of his superiority over everyone else.
As I point out, FF2 went much farther astray from the comics and it was notably less satisfying from a fan-based point of view. However, I can see why they felt they needed to change Galactus to make him more mysterious and threatening. The giant dude in the Kirbyesque armor might have seemed silly on film.
I won't go further into my opinion on X3's flaws. Those are already being debated by others. Let's just say that I agree with most of the negative reviews.
Also Fantastic Four could have completely changed the powers but the team interaction would have had me thinking "wow, these guys are a lot like the fantastic four". What I mean is that they got the spirit right... it was more about adventure, family and fun than straight up melodrama. And while I dont think that Jessica works as the traditional Sue Storm, she was still great in the role as her own invisible woman.
Quote from: Talavar on August 29, 2010, 07:16:08 PM
I keep calling Brett Ratner a hack because he's never made a good movie, just generic, stylistically-void movies that might as well follow a checklist he's been handed by whatever studio has hired him. As much as I didn't like Spider-man 3, I respect Sam Raimi. Raimi actually has a directorial style, and he left Spider-man 4 because he didn't want to do what the studio was going to force him to do. That is something Ratner would never do.
I will agree with you on Ratner being a hack. I have always contented that. I will disagree with you on rather or not he has made a good movie or not. Red Dragon was a good movie. A good enough movie that you can easily forget that Ratner directed it. However, that said, it is not a good movie because of Ratner's directing but because of the acting. It proves even hacks can get lucky. By the way, Ratner is not only a hack but a studio hack for the most part. X3 is proof that he is a studio hack and no all that great one at that.