Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I'VE BEEN AN X-MEN FAN SINCE THE EARLY EIGHTIES AND HAVE AMASSED A COMIC BOOK COLLECTION OF ABOUT 5000 BOOKS, DEVOTING THAT COLLECTION PRIMARALY TO X-MEN RELATED BOOKS.
LIKE A GREAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM THAT ERA I WAS, AM, AND ALWAYS WILL BE A FAN OF WOLVERINE. THAT BEING SAID, WHEN I READ THAT HUGH JACKMAN HAS NOT SIGNED ON FOR X-MEN 3 I FIND MYSELF THINKING "NO BIG LOSS THERE". I THOUGHT HE DID A BETTER JOB IN THE SECOND MOVIE, BUT WAS NEVER REALLY IMPRESSED WITH HIM AT ALL. IN TRUTH ANY TIME I THOUGHT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING A LIVE-ACTION X-MEN MOVIE I ALWAYS ENVISIONED ROBERT DINERO AS WOLVERINE. NOT FOR HIS STAR STATUS BUT BECAUSE OF HIS VERSATILITY AS AN ACTOR AND THE DEPTH HE BRINGS TO THE ROLES HE PLAYS. JUST LOOK AT "CAPE FEAR" AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT I MEAN. ANOTHER THING THAT HAS BOTHERED ME IS THAT CHRIS CLAREMONT WAS NOT BROUGHT IN AS A CONSULTANT IN THE MAKING OF THE FILMS AND HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE METEORIC RISE IN POPULARITY OF THE X-MEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. I HAVE TO SAY THAT I DO APPRECIATE FINALLY HAVING THE X-MEN ON THE BIG SCREEN, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE STORY HAD TO BE DONE IN THE FASHION IT WAS WITH A COMPLETLY DISJOINTED TIMELINE. SPIDER MAN FOR THE MOST PART STAYED TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL STORY AS DID SUPERMAN. BATMAN'S HISTORY WAS WRITTEN SO LONG AGO THAT IF THEY DEVIATED MAKING THOSE MOVIES I WOULD'NT EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT.(I'M PRETTY MUCH A MARVEL FAN ANYWAY) SUPERMAN'S ORIGIN I REALIZE IS EVEN OLDER THEN BATMAN BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW HIS STORY THEN YOU'VE PROBABLY BEEN LIVING UNDER A ROCK AND IT DOSEN'T MATTER TO YOU ANYWAY. MY MAIN POINT IS THE SUCCESS OF THE X-MEN WAS PREDICATED ON STORY LINES, VERY SPECIFIC STORY LINES, THAT ENDEARED THE CHARECTORS IN THOSE STORIES TO US AND IT IS A SHAME TO BASTARDIZE THEM FOR THE WORLD TO SEE.

I hadn't thought about the Claremont part.... but I agree with you on that!!!!
I thought it was enough with Stan Lee's approval....

HI,CINEMAFAN,I LOVE WOVERINE TOO, HE IS
MY FAVORITE X-MEN CHARACTER,IF HUGH
IS NOT GOING TO PLAY HIM,WHO IS??????

My knowledge of X-men is from the original cartoons, thats it. I was a bit surprised by them casting Jackman as Wolvie but I think he did an amazing job. One of the best in the movie. Also... DeNiro, indeed a versitil actor is old. He doesnt and never will again look like he did in Cap Fear

Both Spider-man and Superman are centered in 1 character. The hero with supporting roles, but its pretty much about them. X-men is an ensemble its a bit more difficult. I like the fact that Singer went away from the comic stories...those on-screen would look kinda stupid. He made a somewhat serious film...which is very cool Like if they did the Phoenix story with the aliens??! It would be extreamly stupid not to mentian an alien movie instead of x-men movie.

Last I heard he was in negotiation for a 2 movie deal.
Probably X3 and the wolvie spin-off.

Exactly. The difference between those heroes and the X-men is that most of them have a single-timeline story (1 main character, some supporting roles, and a set of badies that never die and can therefore be used and used again, no matter in which order).
X-men brings another problem : the multiplicity of the characters oblige the writers of all kinds to take the evolution of their relationships. Plus there are multiple timelines, parallel universe,...(as a X-men comics collector, you must know that sometimes a writer decides to kill or to get rid of a character) . The movie adress all kind of audience, so as it has been done before, Singer and Co. can create their own timeline in order to make the story accessible to any audience.

Right on G.P.

WOW, I NEVER EXPECTED SO MANY PEOPLE TO SEE THIS SO QUICKLY BUT I'LL TRY TO RESPOND TO ALL THE COMMENTS MADE. FIRST JACKMAN IN AN INTERVEIW SAID AN ACTOR SHOULD NEVER SAY DEFINITLY YES TO A ROLE WHICH TO ME SOUNDS AS THOUGH HE IS BEING COY AND WILL PLAY THE PART BUT WANTS TO SCORE A HUGE PAYDAY, I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PART. AS FOR DINERO I WAS SPEAKING OF WHEN I WAS GROWING UP AND WISHING FOR HIM TO PLAY THE PART ANY TIME MARVEL HINTED AT MAKING A MOVIE. I DO HAVE TO SAY THOUGH THAT AROUND THE SAME TIME THAT DINERO MADE CAPE FEAR HE MADE A MOVIE CALLED AWAKENINGS WHERE HE WAS THIRTY POUNDS OVERWEIGHT ONLY TO DROP DOWN TO 4% BODY FAT FOR THE CAPE FEAR ROLE, SO IN TRUTH I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE BEYOND HIM TO DO SOMETHING IN A LIKE FASHION NOW. WOLVIE IS SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEWHAT GRIZZLED LOOKING. AS TO THE TEAM VERSUS SOLO HERO STORY I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IF THAT IS WHAT THEY DID, BUT THEY DID NOT FOCUS ON THE X-MEN TEAM IN WHICH ANY ONE CHARECTOR COULD STAND ALONE. FOR THE MOST PART BOTH MOVIES WERE ABOUT WOLVERINE. THE STORM CHARECTOR OF THE MOVIES IS AN ABORTION AND CYCLOPS CHARECTOR IS A SIMPERING CRYBABY, NOT THE IMPRESSIVE AND FOREBODING FIELD GENERAL FROM THE BOOKS. I WON'T EVEN GET INTO ROUGE OR MYSTIQUE.(AS IF SHE WOULD EVER BE MAGNETOS STOOLIE) AS TO THE DISJOINTED TIMELINES AND THE MULTIPLE WRITERS ON THE VARIOUS BOOKS I ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS WHEN I SPOKE OF CLAREMONT, ALTHOUGH THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CLEAR TO THOSE WHO WERE NOT READING THE BOOKS AT THE TIME. I'M NOT SURE WHEN CLARMONT CAME ON TO THE BOOK BUT FOR A LONG TIME THERE WAS ONE X-MEN BOOK WITH ONE WRITER, CHRIS CLAREMONT. THERE WERE SPINOFFS SUCH AS X-FACTOR, WHICH WAS BASICALLY THE ORIGINAL TEAM OF X-MEN MINUS PROF X BUT THE STORIES DID NOT INTERTWINE UNTIL THE INFERNO CROSSOVER, WHICH I ADMIT I LOVED AT THE TIME BUT IN RETROSPECT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE END. WHEN THE MULTIPLE X-MEN BOOKS BEGAN AND THERE WERE VARIOUS DIFFERENT WRITERS HANDLING THE SAME CHARECTORS IS WHEN CLAREMONT LEFT AND CHARECTOR DEGRADATION BEGAN.

He is to old. He will never look like that again no matter how much he works out. I understand where you are coming from. You always imagined an actor playing a part and you were disappointed. Its normal.



Thats the problem. They have to introduce the characters and tell a little of each one. But the story has to have a focus, Singer choose Wolvie. It cant just be a team thing...it would make sense. Unless the movies werent related stories. Yes there are some big differences and yes Storm should be more kick ass...thou she is in the 2nd and Cyclopse just has a small part Not sure what you mean about Mystique and Rogue is a teenager with out the powers the Rogue you are use to has.They can not be compared.
Please stop using Caps Lock.It looks like you're screaming.

What I meant about Mystique is she never worked for Magneto in the books. Magneto although his methods were evil his motivations were not, which is why he was placed in the heros shuttle at the beginning of the Secret Wars. Mystique was always self serving, even when she tried to kill Senetor Kelly to stop the Mutant Registration Act it was more for her own ends then the greater good of mutant kind. That being said she was her own person and would never be sub-serviant to another, even if it was Magneto. As far as Rouge goes she was raised by Mystique and Destiny and the idea of creating this bond between Wolverine and Rouge is ubsurd. If wolverine had had his way he would have killed Rouge rather then have had her join the X-Men because of what she did to Carol Danvers. It seems to me they took the strong bond between Kitty Pryde and Wolverine from the books and substituted Rouge in her place. So yeah, I don't like the fact that she dosen't have the powers that she should at this point but it goes deeper then that. Her character will never be what it should be, and the unique bond eventually formed by Rouge and Wolverine will never be because the history is not there. I understand this is all very difficult to translate onto the screen, but if that's the case just don't do it. Stan Lee is a great man but these X-Men are not his own. Again, they should have had Claremont involved, the true heart and soul of these characters that we all love.

Well mystique is a cool character. to have her in the movie they had to do it this way. She doesnt really work for Magneto, she works with him. I guess they could have made Rogue being rased by Mystique and having Danvers powers but her character would have to be older. Has for her relationship with Wolvie I'm also cool with that. It surprised me becasue I was use to him and Jubilee but its cool this way to.Makes sense he would feel protective over the youghest female member.Personally I like the way things are. I've never read the books thou. I stilll think X-men is the best comic adaptation (with Superman).
Dont know and never heard of Claremont but writing a book or comics is waaaaay different then writing a movie

Forgot to respond to this.
He never said that, he said he'd love to do another movie and a spin-off but his MANAGER says never to say yes before reading the script (or somathing like that). It's is manager that says that. And that was a long time ago. FOX said they were in negotiations for 2 movies.

How would you feel if Frodo went with Boromir instead of Sam in the movie. Or what if Frodo was not the ring bearer at all or never had an Uncle Bilbo. Now I am in no way saying the X-Men comic books are on par with Tolkien but the analogy still stands. Also without the original comics the cartoons as well as the movies would never have existed at all, so they have to have some merit. Your views are all after the fact, the movies have been made, you liked them and as far as you are concerned that is that. My point of view is coming from a loyal X-men comic book fan for twenty years and what I'm thinking is if the movies had been true to the books the general public would be just as pleased and the hard core fans would have been satisfied. As far as books being different then screenplays, The Shining, Harry Potter, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, First Blood(Rambo part one) the list really does go on and on. Of course there have always been omitions when translating literature into films (there is just too much content) but there is a big difference between taking artistic licence when doing a film and dressing people up to look like a certain character, giving them the same physical attributes and saying "look here we have" so and so. A character is not summed up because he happens to have claws sticking out of his hands, that's what I'm trying to say.

But would they make a movie after 40 years if that was to do exactly the same thing ?
Even then translating comics would be impossible : Jackman is too tall, he's not as facetious and gruff as Wolvie, Marsden and Berry aren't tall enough, their personnality are not as strong as they should. Where are their doubts, their character,etc.
You cannot make a movie that is a 3D replica of a comic book

Of course it is not perfect, but that why it is...otherwise, there would be no movie. When you decide to make a movie, you do it because you think you can bring something to the plot...

It is the strength of the stories that has carried these characters, my whole point is that it dosen't matter what they look like but the depth of the character that matters. The depth of the character being predicated on the experiances accumulated through the story lines. I don't want to see Halle Berry dressed up as Storm but still being Halle Berry or Jackman dressed up as Wolverine and still being himself. These people are supposed to be actors after all and I'm just not seeing it. I would rather have had no name character actors who know how to become some one else then a bunch of people who try to let their name carry the part for them. A perfect example of this is Prof X, who most people recognize from Star Trek TNG, but who heard of him before that? He did a great job with Prof X because he is a character actor and can lose himself in a part.

I see what you mean...

About Patrick Stewart: even though he was made famous in the U.S by TNG and some movies in the 80's, don't forget he had performed for decades in the United Kingdom (Royal Shakespeare Company,...).
But yes he was proposed the part mostly because the producers of X-men were the same as on the Star Trek movies...

An important thing we cannot ignore is the fact that the movie (the 1st one) was only done because some men at the 20th C. Fox had thought it would make some money...Thus the great budget and the need for professional actors (not superstars, but not trainees either)

I agree with cinemafan, .. MORE MUSCLE BOUND MEN IN YELLOW TIGHTS!... covered in honey!!!!!!... wait scratch that lol

i dont agree at all i believe that both halle and hugh did great jobs of BEING storm and wolverine, but because halle is so regognized for her other works alot of ppl automatically associated her with other characters that she has played. And as for Hugh he was, to alot of people, an unknown actor before X-Men and i cant think of ne one who could have done it better. As for me i thought Patrick Stewart did a great job but i couldnt see him as nething other than from Star Trec and same for Magneto i cant see him as anything other than Gandorf, its really not the actor who bacomes the character its the way you view them.

cinemafan I understand your point of view. But in 40 years of X-men they have changed so much, this is just another change.
IMO I think Hugh Jackman was excelente in it. He's 1 of the best cast, along with Ian as Magneto and Patrick as Prof. X.
Tell me before the x-men where did you see Hugh Jackman?

He was in a movie called Swordfish with John Travolta and, surprisingly enough, Halle Berry. Which was a very big Hollywood movie of which he was the star, along with Travolta. Before that I honestly don't know what he did. I did really like him in that though and I am looking forward to seeing him in Van Helsing also. Maybe I have been a little unfair with Jackman I did only see X2 once and I remember thinking he did a much better job with it then the first one, but my original point was that if he wants to play coy and not commit to the third movie and he ends up losing the role to someone else that would be fine with me, I'm sure there would be actors lined up literally drooling to play Wolverine.

Swordfish came out after X1.
He wont lose the part. They want him for a spin-off too. Right now he's the actor they must get, they wont give it to someone else.
Problem is he's doing a play and he has a 2 movie contract for Van Helsing...so time is an problem.

You were right about the release dates I would have sworn Swordfish was first. But I don't think the movie studios will wait too long for him, look at what almost happened to Toby Maguire with Spiderman. They were ready to take the part away from him when he said he wasn't ready to shoot. By the why, how good was Maguire in Spiderman? FANTASTIC

I think its different Spider is 1 movie.
They could do it like Batman.
Hugh, IMO, is the reason these movies were so good.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My point of view is that the movies were not VERY GOOD, but only good. My point about Macguire was that even though the first movie was so good and financialy successful he almost lost the part going into the second movie, not the first.

Most spiderman fans would greatly disagree with you.

Fans under the age of 20 or over 21? I have a lot of Spiderman books and Maguire is Peter Parker. The way he was first drawn he was short, skinny, and a very big DORK. That's the character, he may have evolved into something else today but they weren't doing a story based on Peter having been Spiderman for years, they went back to the begining and they got the story for the most part right. Except it was Gwen Stacy the Goblin dropped of off the bridge in the books and she died. Spiderman is the best movie Marvel has put out to date.

I liked it cinema!!!

alot of ppl, i dont kno specific ages, were not happy with his acting skills and didnt like him for the part, i never saw it because i hate kirsten dunst so i refused to see it

I loved her in "Interview With the Vampire"........NO!!! WAIT!!! I hated her!!! she was evil with Tom Cruise and she made Brad Pitt cry!!! .... little brat..... but as MJ she was ok

she made brad cry?....... she needs to die!!!! I dont like because she reminds me of a girl i knew when i was little who used to tell me i was to skinny and had an ugly nose

don't worry about that girl...... she must be bullimic (sp) by now .........

Oh come on, we're being a little unreasonable now. I didn't know you met Kirsten Dunst, what did she do to make you hate her? Oh! I see, you just didn't like her in another movie or something like that. Listen I would never recommend a bad movie to anyone(unless I hated that person) but you really should see this movie. It was great.

Hey Paola Brad cried because he loved her and she died, she didn't, like, hurt his feelings or anything. Lestat lives!

That movie totally freaked me out. Never again do i want to see Tom cruise looking all messed up like that.

well shes not the only reason why i wont see the movie, i also hate spiders that could be a major reason, i was gunna see it tho but my friend told me not to bother because it sucked so bad that a hole group of them walked out of the theatre

This gives you the chance to be a rebel then, to...stand out from the crowd, to make a name for yourself...damnit TO BE YOUR OWN PERSON YEEHAAA! (if you're not laughing that's okay, cause I am)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/images/moresmilies/offtopic.gif

You are correct sir, we were supposed to be talking about how much better they could have done at portraying Wolverine, the greatest comic hero ever and professional Scott Summers ass kicker.

Claudia is a bad girl!!!!

Que es?

1 member started a thread saying how much Spiderman sucked (he was a huge comic fan) he really hated the fact that the web was part of Parker instead of being made by him
But I disagree, I think X-men is the best adptation around.

Oh and to the member that asked who Claudia is, she's the character that Kristin Dusnt (sp) plays in Interview with a vampire. Now lets not talk about that again, nor about Spider-man.

Back to Hugh Jackman please

I think if Jackman's character had claws that came out of his gloves that would be a big deviation, but the webs coming of Parkers wrists instead of artificial is not. The best movie marvel has done to date is Spiderman because they stuck to the story. In the books Storm, Wolvie, Nightcrawler, Collosus, and Banshee all joined the team at the same time.

Well yeh. It's a little detail and I personally prefer this way cos him making the webs was just too unbelievable.
But some fans didnt like it. They also didnt like the end.
But back to x-men.

Well I think the younger teen-age girls didn't like the end because it wasn't a fairy-tale ending with Peter getting together with Maryjane, and I think the reason they chose Anna to play Rouge was aimmed at that same audience to bring in the 11 to 15 year olds. An older Rouge would'nt have been as appealing to them. If that's the case I think they could have given Rouge less of a part (while keeping their story intact) and instead given Kitty a good part and concentrated on the relationship between her and Wolverine like it was in the books.