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

does anyone else think the movies suck like hell? Honestly, the characters arent even close to the ones in the comics.

So you come to the X-Men forum to talk about how the X-Men movies suck...

Originally posted by hotsauce6548
So you come to the X-Men forum to talk about how the X-Men movies suck...





Yeah, I'm thinking that this is a slightly suicidal move.................

Cheerio! Nudge nudge!

you could have said it in the better way like:
'do you think that movies weren't as good as they should have been judging on the greatness of comic books?'

hehe.
I think the first one sucked, but the second one was great.

Clovie always has the hottest ladies in her sigs.

i dont think there that bad at least they tried to get it similer to the comics patrick stuwart was the right idea for exavier lol and hally berry is just wrong

Yes. Halle was VERY wrong.

agreed

Originally posted by Dark Thor
does anyone else think the movies suck like hell? Honestly, the characters arent even close to the ones in the comics. They're more like the characters in the comics then the characters in Evolution.

I said they were okay, because they definitely could have done more justice to MANY of the characters (Rogue, Storm, Iceman, even Cyclops...)

in x-men 1, toad almost beat storm

Originally posted by Dark Thor
in x-men 1, toad almost beat storm

true...almost

The X men movies where handled very good.Sure they could have changed storm and made Cyclops a better character,but looking at it from a non fans point of view it was a neat movie.

the movies was alrite.....i liked the action...mystic was played veryy good and so was kurt...

and woverine was hilorious...

Im not a fan of the comics, not because I dont like them, but because I just dont read them (there's so many I dont know where to start). To me the movies were very good. Although, I know some of it was noticably wrong from what I knew of the X men already.

I'll agree that the second was better then the first

The movies in my opinion kicked ass, but there were some definate improvements needed for some characters. I maintain my belief that Anna's portrayal of Rogue in X-Men was very good. She pulled off the frightened and confused young character that was originally Rogue very well. Unfortunately, that character should have begun to blossom into the Rogue we all know and love in the second film, and she clung on too desperately to little Miss Pathetic. Halle's portrayal of Storm was in my opinion too wooden and lacked the strength and compassion of the true character. Hugh was fabulous but too tall! Marsden's portrayal of Cyclops was very good and he looked the part, but the character was not given enough screentime to develop in.
Mystique really annoys me in the films, why the hell is she naked?! What, are skin tight catsuits no longer appealing enough to the male population? Get a naked man in there, even things out!

Originally posted by blaise
the movies was alrite.....i liked the action...mystic was played veryy good and so was kurt...

and woverine was hilorious...


Wolverine not suppose to be funny...not spiderman "just hanging around funny" mabye..."going down bub..knock you off a building funny."

Originally posted by Dark Thor
in x-men 1, toad almost beat storm I know he was overpowered.
and Lady Deathstrike was Under powered

Overall Both Movies are Great, however X2 is far superior than the original. The only thing that bothers me about the film is the following..

:Wolverines fighting abilities are drastically reduced, when infact he is
master of several arts of combat. They really should kept that aspect of him,because it makes him much more interesting, but the high doesn't bother me in the least.

:Cyclops is drastically underused, because they choose to focus the series to much on Wolverine and Rogue, which they shouldn't.

:The costumes should have already evolved more into X-Men like appearances. The creators should individualize them more, and make them more like there comic counterpart, minus the spandex.

:Halle Berry is very miscast as Storm. Iceman is pretty serious in the films, but in the comics and other toons he is more mellow and a joker, and those are his coolest attributes. They still should have retained that aspect of him.

:Many of the more intersting characters are pretty much ignored.

:One thing that always bothered me was their selection of X-Men characters in X1 and X2. Since they knew they wanted to put together a trilogy, then they could have mapped out what characters to use and actually gave alot more of them history.

:Cyclops, Jean, Iceman, Angel and Beast (human) could have still made up the original movie roster with Wolverine thrown in there, then introduce 3-4 more mutants in X2 and have them developed in X3 to conclude it. But they focus to much time on one or 2 characters and then ignore the rest.

But overall the movies are still great in their own right.

mystique cant heal nor relive like she did after wolverine stabbed her in the Statue of Liberty

Originally posted by Dark Thor
does anyone else think the movies suck like hell? .....
Ok the first one sucked that I can agree with you on that,but the second one was good.

Originally posted by Dark Thor
mystique cant heal nor relive like she did after wolverine stabbed her in the Statue of Liberty

Wolverine didn't kill her there. He just kinda stabbed her...

^ yeah!

Originally posted by Dark Thor
mystique cant heal nor relive like she did after wolverine stabbed her in the Statue of Liberty

why not?

Mystique has a healing factor..but it's not as advanced as Logans....healing factor may not be the correct word...I read that she can shift her organs around to avoid being fatally injuried though

Originally posted by Mainstream
Mystique has a healing factor..but it's not as advanced as Logans....healing factor may not be the correct word...I read that she can shift her organs around to avoid being fatally injuried though slight health replenition ability

Originally posted by Azrael23
Overall Both Movies are Great, however X2 is far superior than the original. The only thing that bothers me about the film is the following..

:Cyclops is drastically underused, because they choose to focus the series to much on Wolverine and Rogue, which they shouldn't.

But overall the movies are still great in their own right.

I totally agree!! Even with some problems here and there I think the movies were great.

All I'm going too say is that X3 had better be alot better than the first movie or I'm going to be super P.O.

Originally posted by Britrogue
Marsden's portrayal of Cyclops was very good and he looked the part, but the character was not given enough screentime to develop in.

You really hate marsden as cykes don't you?,I actually thought he was fine it was the way he was written that sucked.

Originally posted by LISA-J
You really hate marsden as cykes don't you?,I actually thought he was fine it was the way he was written that sucked.

it was both imo... i don't think marsden suited cyclops...

people say he looked like him, i dont think so...

if he did, any white guy with brown hair, a side part and a visor can be cyclops...

Originally posted by LISA-J
You really hate marsden as cykes don't you?,I actually thought he was fine it was the way he was written that sucked.
I SO agree.

Originally posted by pr1983


I know, we've had this conversation before. I really had no problem with him though.

Originally posted by pr1983
it was both imo... i don't think marsden suited cyclops...

people say he looked like him, i dont think so...

if he did, any white guy with brown hair, a side part and a visor can be cyclops... The truth is any good looking actor(with brown hair and the right age group) who could do an american accent could be cyclpos.Still doesn't change the fact that james was fine,he was just under written.

Agreed

Originally posted by LISA-J
The truth is any good looking actor(with brown hair and the right age group) who could do an american accent could be cyclpos.Still doesn't change the fact that james was fine,he was just under written.

he was nowhere near fine... underwritten? you mean we should have had to sit through even more of his murdering of the character?

no prescence, no sense of authority, no leadership...

can anybody be kind enough to tell me wat "imo" stands for?

Originally posted by Dark Thor
does anyone else think the movies suck like hell? Honestly, the characters arent even close to the ones in the comics.

Well something sucks around here, and its not the xmen movies. I don't want to give it away, but to give you a hint, look in the mirror.

Originally posted by spiderboy5
can anybody be kind enough to tell me wat "imo" stands for?

imo = In My Opinion...

Originally posted by Gotham Girl
Well something sucks around here, and its not the xmen movies. I don't want to give it away, but to give you a hint, look in the mirror.

and u had such a sweet smile...

yea she does... ummm anyway... umm... damn ADHD... uh... oh yea... yea i agree i dont think he had enough leadership either but he is still a good role 4 it

Originally posted by pr1983
imo = In My Opinion...



and u had such a sweet smile...

Originally posted by pr1983
u had such a sweet smile...

nice...

i think the movies were well done... yes there are differences with the comic... but in all reality is there really any way to keep completely true to comics... i;m sure script writters try to stay true but sometimes public interest and budget are more important than fans fantasies.... sorry everyone....

ahem...

batman 1, 2 and begins...

spiderman 1 & 2...

blade...

superman...

sorry... but mary jane did not kiss spidy in the rain in the comic thank you.

Batman begins had differences. You cant say that Batman 1 and Begins stay true because they are different stories... especially the way his parents die... thats contradiction

and blade.... no one watches that......

Originally posted by aceofgambit2
sorry... but mary jane did not kiss spidy in the rain in the comic thank you.

Batman begins had differences. You cant say that Batman 1 and Begins stay true because they are different stories... especially the way his parents die... thats contradiction

and blade.... no one watches that......
I like Blade

Originally posted by aceofgambit2
sorry... but mary jane did not kiss spidy in the rain in the comic thank you.

Batman begins had differences. You cant say that Batman 1 and Begins stay true because they are different stories... especially the way his parents die... thats contradiction

and blade.... no one watches that......

it was true to the characters...

thats the important thing...

and i own blade 1 and 2 on dvd...

Originally posted by Gotham Girl
Well something sucks around here, and its not the xmen movies. I don't want to give it away, but to give you a hint, look in the mirror.

you know im somewhat having a problem with this anti wolverine sentiment...everyone is jumping on the hate wolverine boat but everyone is also forgetting the reasons why wolverine is such a big part of these movies.he was also such a big part in the comics...if you have an x men movie without wolverine being one of the biggest characters in it then that becomes detrimental to the comics and start to veer off from the true story of the x men. i for one was glad and happy as hell that they made wolverine the spot light of the movies..he was an awesome chracter played by the right actor for the job..maybe a bit to tall..but still did an amzing job on him.. i have heard people say..they should have gotten Glenn Danzig to play Wolverine..yeah that would have been awesome ... but i dont think i could see wolverine played by anyone else now...i dont know just my thougts..

Did you mean to say Elektra and Catwoman movies suck ?

just x-men...

Xmen 1 and 2 are dar from sucking. It had a story, unlike alot of these other hero movies

Yeah the dude who casted the people must of been on some kinda crap like marijuana. halle berry terrible storm and hugh jackman was to tall and to skinny for wolverine any x men comic fans know that wolverine was huge they should have tried to get a body builder or somethin for that part. and the suits were horrid mystique was never naked and had alot more hair last time i checked. Pyro wasnt Australian in the movies not cool and nightcrawler had on lame clothes Sabretooth looked more like a hobo than anything else toad was nothing like the original !!!!!!!! So there are some of the many flaws i believe and they have messed up all my fav characters except gambit if they mess him up they better pray i dont find them

Originally posted by metalmikey
you know im somewhat having a problem with this anti wolverine sentiment...everyone is jumping on the hate wolverine boat but everyone is also forgetting the reasons why wolverine is such a big part of these movies.he was also such a big part in the comics...if you have an x men movie without wolverine being one of the biggest characters in it then that becomes detrimental to the comics and start to veer off from the true story of the x men. i for one was glad and happy as hell that they made wolverine the spot light of the movies..he was an awesome chracter played by the right actor for the job..maybe a bit to tall..but still did an amzing job on him.. i have heard people say..they should have gotten Glenn Danzig to play Wolverine..yeah that would have been awesome ... but i dont think i could see wolverine played by anyone else now...i dont know just my thougts..

the true story of the x-men does not include all the other characters standing in the background while logan gets all the attention...

and i've always hated him, even when most people liked him...

Originally posted by Superman 24
Did you mean to say Elektra and Catwoman movies suck ?

They did... horribly...

X2 was awesome! It was the first time in my whole life I've seen Wolverine actually kill people in the video media. That was awesome when those troops broke in and he just went berserk. You never see that in the cartoons...