X-Men Movie hate threads

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Fianna
So when exactly are they going to stop? .....we've seen a 2 minute clip and people are already slating it...I know people want it to be faithful to the comics but that's totally not possible in a movie medium...

I agree they're not exactly inspired, but come on, they are good movies and at least they're not Daredevil....so let's have some postive thoughts on the movie and give it a chance....if you go on to watch the movie with a closed mind then of course you'll find faults with it...

......anway...this will probably get closed or merged but meh...

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Fianna
..I know people want it to be faithful to the comics but that's totally not possible in a movie medium...Yeh, people don't always get that.... I've seen gripes about the Ruby of Cyttorak being omitted? Or that if Angel is in it Apocalypse - a mutant thousands of years old with alien technology from the future - should be in it? Even the Shi'ar? I don't think any movie studio in the world would let those pass through preproduction.

botcherby
I loved the Xmen movies, and I'm a massive X-fan. if I were to hate, I'd say that there should have been more representation of all the team's powers (more cyclops :P)

Movies have to cater for different demographics than that of the comic people... so naturally they can't be faithful to the comics.


and for the record... I enjoyed daredevil! I thought it was kickass

Disappear
daredevil > elektra > van helsing...

to say it's "totally not possible" to include actual continuity is a joke. some things deserve omission, and i agree the shi'ar would overly complicate things, as would any mention of octessence-related magics. but the movies have stuck so meagerly to the x-men's established history, changing up characters and relationships and affiliations and ages and everything like that just to "fit a demographic." what kind of excuse is that? why would a non-comic demographic NEED pyro to be part of the school, or iceman and rogue to be teenagers, or jean to be thirty with nil telepathy, or yadda yadda yadda? those were unnecessary changes made to SELL the movie, not to enhance a plot or ease the transition for non-comic viewers. and when it changes from a necessary change to a financial decision, i think the fans have a right to be pissed.

and, from all the information that's been being collected since the announcement of ratner as director, this movie's gonna have some of the most meaningless changes of the three.

people assuming the movie will be bad is less unfounded than people assuming it will be good, at this point.

Draco69
Welcome to the real world. Movies are products. Products are made by Firms. Firms that make movies as products are movie companies. Movies are sold just like any other product in the most profitable manner. If it means omitting superfluous bits of comic book continuity than so be it.

I never got the whole "movies based on comic books/books should be plagarizing the source material" arguement. It's not new. It's not inventive. And it's not going to fly in live-action movie.

Fianna
In the end it's a movie based on the comic books....not a movie of the comic books or the comic books in a animated form....so it has to be treated as one....and sold as movie...

Draco69
Exactly. Key word: BASED. Not: Plagarized. Even if the damn movie was complete like the book fans would still complain.

X-Fan: The movie sucked. Wolverine has THREE extra whiskers on his costume when it should have been TWO. A unnecessary change to comic continuity.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Disappear
daredevil > elektra > van helsing...

to say it's "totally not possible" to include actual continuity is a joke. some things deserve omission, and i agree the shi'ar would overly complicate things, as would any mention of octessence-related magics. but the movies have stuck so meagerly to the x-men's established history, changing up characters and relationships and affiliations and ages and everything like that just to "fit a demographic." what kind of excuse is that? why would a non-comic demographic NEED pyro to be part of the school, or iceman and rogue to be teenagers, or jean to be thirty with nil telepathy, or yadda yadda yadda? those were unnecessary changes made to SELL the movie, not to enhance a plot or ease the transition for non-comic viewers. and when it changes from a necessary change to a financial decision, i think the fans have a right to be pissed.

and, from all the information that's been being collected since the announcement of ratner as director, this movie's gonna have some of the most meaningless changes of the three.

people assuming the movie will be bad is less unfounded than people assuming it will be good, at this point. I usually try to avoid assuming either.

I don't think any of the changes you mentioned were profit driven - they were more changes made to fit the story the writers and director wanted to tell (with possibly the exception of Iceman being a teenager) and/or to be congruous with a good actor they wanted to cast. How does making Jean thirty or so - Famke is actually forty if I recall (and still smokin' ), Halle Berry, Hugh Jackman both in their forties as well - a change that's profit driven. Her powers were lame in general TK and telepathy in the first movie probably because they wanted a great deal of contrast between ordinary Jean and Phoenix Jean.

Pyro - a character whose never had a huge amount of characterisation - being part of the school sets up a nice character dynamic between him and Iceman.

Rogue being in her teens was again imo a change to fit the story of the first movie - I'm sure most people wanted her to be flying around without any explanation throwing trucks - but she doesn't need help getting away from Toad and Sabretooth if she can do that. I'd guess they wanted her to project a vulnerability and portray what it's like for someone in the X-Movie Universe to discover that they are a mutant.

Disappear
because making fun of a superfluous misrepresentation of my argument's doing a great job strengthening yours.

movies are products, but they are entertainment nonetheless. comics, also products, are also forms of entertainment. there's really no reason for the majority of the changes in the movies, as the movies turned out poorly anyway in terms of plot and acting. a movie that stuck more closely to continuity would likely have done just as well, and not gotten such a negative feedback.

and here's the real ringer; complaining about bad movies is universal. my girlfriend, an avid harry potter fan, spent the whole hour trip to the theater bitching to me about things she'd heard were wrong with the movie (before she'd seen it.) "they're too old, they'll have to drop a lot of the information, the special effects can never match up to what's written in the books..." and she spent the entire ride back, after seeing it, complaining about everything else. the same always-complaining principle happened with the blade movies, all of which sucked, it's happening with the buzz around the narnia movies, people have mixed opinions about fight club... any movie "based" off something else is subject to this type of stipulation. so, as much as you're entitled to "giving it a shot" before judging it, others (including myself) are entitled to take what we know about the movie and form presumptive opinions on it.

edit: x, all of the changes they made, in hopes of setting up certain "dynamics" or appealing to certain groups, could have been done within the confines of the comic universe without causing any "confusion" for non-readers. the changes, which clearly show the emphasis was put on fluffing out a sellable story as opposed to adhering to continuity, just weren't necessary. they could've strapped a load of comic writers to the script, and let them find better ways to portray whatever scenarios and emotions were desired, without getting confusing and without abandoning a boatload of continuity. why shouldn't it be understandable for comic fans to be disappointed with a movie diverging from a "movieverse" representation of our hobby? it's like expecting philadelphia natives to cheer for any team named the eagles, even if it's just some random team in the mid-west.

quiqueg34
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I usually try to avoid assuming either.

I don't think any of the changes you mentioned were profit driven - they were more changes made to fit the story the writers and director wanted to tell (with possibly the exception of Iceman being a teenager) and/or to be congruous with a good actor they wanted to cast. How does making Jean thirty or so - Famke is actually forty if I recall (and still smokin' ), Halle Berry, Hugh Jackman both in their forties as well - a change that's profit driven. Her powers were lame in general TK and telepathy in the first movie probably because they wanted a great deal of contrast between ordinary Jean and Phoenix Jean.

Pyro - a character whose never had a huge amount of characterisation - being part of the school sets up a nice character dynamic between him and Iceman.

Rogue being in her teens was again imo a change to fit the story of the first movie - I'm sure most people wanted her to be flying around without any explanation throwing trucks - but she doesn't need help getting away from Toad and Sabretooth if she can do that. I'd guess they wanted her to project a vulnerability and portray what it's like for someone in the X-Movie Universe to discover that they are a mutant.



Well Put!!!

quiqueg34
The movies rock and the third one is gonna rock too!

wannabe
FINALLY some sensible people with sensible thoughts about the movies.

I'm an X-Men hardcore fan, but i actually LOVED the movies.
As it was already stated they are not an extension of the ongoing 616 comic universe, but interpretations (and commercial products) of that world and more like an alternative universe, if it makes it easier for you to see it this way.
I liked it how they managed to integrate a comic world that usually features numerous alien races, cosmic beings in stupid costumes, large amounts of super science, wild magic and heroes from past and future into a believable copy of todays real world...RESPECT!!!

bitca730
I completely agree with ya Draco69, I'm an X-Men fan more than any other comic but having a movie that is retelling the SAME story that has been seen in the comics & successful cartoons (Phoenix Saga in particular) would just be boring and unoriginal for me and too "out there" for maintstream film goers... Studios want to make money from as many sources as they can, not just the hardcore fans that know who the 5 original X-Men were... (for example)

Draco69
Originally posted by Disappear


movies are products, but they are entertainment nonetheless. comics, also products, are also forms of entertainment. there's really no reason for the majority of the changes in the movies, as the movies turned out poorly anyway in terms of plot and acting. a movie that stuck more closely to continuity would likely have done just as well, and not gotten such a negative feedback.

Two words: HELL. BOY.

And god knows that movie sucked to hell.

The ONLY based movie that stuck directly to source material that was remotely good was Sin City. And it was a very good movie. But it some cases stuck TOO closely to source material because certain lines and certain scenes were too cheesy....

Originally posted by Disappear
and here's the real ringer; complaining about bad movies is universal. my girlfriend, an avid harry potter fan, spent the whole hour trip to the theater bitching to me about things she'd heard were wrong with the movie (before she'd seen it.) "they're too old, they'll have to drop a lot of the information, the special effects can never match up to what's written in the books..." and she spent the entire ride back, after seeing it, complaining about everything else.

No offense to your girlfriend, but maybe she should have watched the movie as I don't know a MOVIE. Instead of whining about every scene that wasn't added to the movie. For god sake's, the book is 700+ long. If they added EVERY scene, the movie would have stretched into three sequels....

I watch movies for what they are. MOVIES. Not Movies that are clone copies of the books.


Originally posted by Disappear
the same always-complaining principle happened with the blade movies, all of which sucked,

Blade 1 was good. Blade 2 was alright. Blade 3 sucked so hard it created it's own black hole...

i Originally posted by Disappear
t's happening with the buzz around the narnia movies, people have mixed opinions about fight club... any movie "based" off something else is subject to this type of stipulation. so, as much as you're entitled to "giving it a shot" before judging it, others (including myself) are entitled to take what we know about the movie and form presumptive opinions on it.

Who said, I'm judging? I have my opinion that people should stop bitching about a movie that didn't follow the source material word for word and just relax and enjoy. And not have strokes after the movie because Hermoine didn't have her dyed pink in the Goblet of Fire. As if that scene is SO intergral to the actual plot...

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Disappear
as the movies turned out poorly anyway in terms of plot and acting. a movie that stuck more closely to continuity would likely have done just as well, and not gotten such a negative feedback.Well that's one opinion I guess. Most of the people I know enjoyed the movies, they were successful in terms of profit, and in terms of acting Stewart, Jackman, McKellen have all performed notably well, after seeing Famke in Nip/Tuck I'm pretty sure she can convincingly play the bad girl. Mystique hasn't had that much acting per se but I still think Rebecca has performed well in the role. William Stryker was also played well imo. Halle, Marsden... eh.

Maybe it's not the movies. Maybe it's you. big grin

If they had stuck rigidly to the comics then no I don't think they would have been significant financial successes nor would they have been that enjoyable/believable films for anyone other than diehard X-Men comic fans.

Disappear
as i saw it, character interaction within the first two movies was sub-par, despite good portrayals by stewart and mckellen, and jackman to a lesser degree. even scenes that could translate to comic gold on-panel (what do they call you, wheels?) just seemed forced and awkward. i don't think all the actors had good grasps on who their character was, particularly famke, and it was disappointing. of course, i do have high standards in those regards, but i still think there was a margin for more applaudable acting even disregarding my prejudice.

i don't see why a movie that actually stuck to a comic base would've been any less successful than these two/three flicks. the marketing for the first two movies involved approximately NO characterization of any character, so it's not like non-comic fans were drawn in by it's distinct openness in that regard. a comic-based movie could've been marketed the same way, with flashy images and whatnot, and nobody would've been the wiser before seeing it. and it's not as though every comic story is fashioned in some multi-faceted way to decades of intricate continuity. a comic-friendly movie could've been put out, with some references for comic fans that wouldn't detract from the film itself, and achieved the same viewing fanbase.

also, x, before it slips my mind again, what was that pink glob of angry ice-cream from your previous sig? i'm pretty sure i meant to ask for a few months, and just never got to it.

xmarksthespot
Krang. Lord Imperial of the Universe.

Disappear
he sure looked like it...

mr.smiley
I loved both X movies.Their where gripes I had about them since I am a huge fan.I understand Wolverine had to be the star in the first film but I was pissed they totaly discarded Cyclops in the second.I agree with you guys though.And besides,an exact translation would be boring cause you would know exactly what would happen.

Disappear
not true. adhering to continuity doesn't mean plastering a story from years past onto the big screen. ages, powers, affiliations and relationships could be the same as they are in the comics, and a completely original story could spin out from that. it's happening ALL THE TIME in the comics, why not have some writers sit down and put an idea on the silver screen?

mr.smiley
Well a lot of these characters have a huge history.And to start from the beginning for most of these characters would be somewhat weird.and long.I think some of the changes are just suiting.Like Rogue.In the comics she out spoken and has a lot of southern hospitality.I think the movies gave her a very good make over and made her a little darker.I think some changes like this work well.

hotsauce6548
Hey, I think this movie is going to be kickass, but I have shared my opinions on some of the ways the characters looked. However, I'm not stupid enough to think how well the characters looks is equivalent to how well the movie will be. erm

Juggernaut looked like a friggin neanderthal. I understand this, though, but that doesn't mean I like it.

Angel's wings are fake looking. Completely. These they could have done better, definetly.

Beast is growing on me, I must admit, but I still think the actor is going overboard with his character. erm

I like Storm's hair. Makes her look pretty cool. Better than the fake-ass white wig in the last ones.

Jean is going to be awesome. I loved the scene where she destroyed the vault door and threw it aside as if it were paper.

Fianna
Originally posted by Disappear
not true. adhering to continuity doesn't mean plastering a story from years past onto the big screen. ages, powers, affiliations and relationships could be the same as they are in the comics, and a completely original story could spin out from that. it's happening ALL THE TIME in the comics, why not have some writers sit down and put an idea on the silver screen? Because X-Men probably has one of the most convoluted and confusing histories of comic book characters....if you started trying to bring in comic histories you'd have to bring in many many more characters and it would just get far far too confusing for people who haven't read the comics...

pr1983
Fi, as much as i love you...

if the previous two movies havent accurately captured the x-men, why should we believe the third one will?

Fianna
Originally posted by pr1983
Fi, as much as i love you...

if the previous two movies havent accurately captured the x-men, why should we believe the third one will? Damn it Paul..how is it you always know how to shut me up..stick out tongue ...I have nothing to say to that...

I'm glad you were here for the short time you were hug kisses ...take care and come back soon...

Alpha Centauri
As I said before, this pathetic loyalty to the cause is exactly why corporations can get away with making movies as bad or as un-adhering to storyline as this.

How can you say "Don't slate it, we've only see two minutes" then be hypocritical enough to say "be positive about it"? We've only seen two minutes of fast cut action scenes. If those are enough to make you get wet over a movie that for all intents and purposes, will probably suck, then you are the one being sucked into seeing it unrealistically.

Spider-Man had genetic webbing, fine with me. When it comes down to such drastic deviation from story as X-Men, it's disgraceful. It's been reduced to cameo city.

Stop making excuses for the fact that the movie just looks like more of X-Men 2 esque material. Though we all know that all of you will probably come out of the movies, love or hate, and say you liked it.

You can tell it's been reduced to making excuses because people are citing Jean destroying a door and Storm's hair as a plus. HER HAIR!

-AC

Fianna
AC...do you ever get bored of saying exactly the same thing over and over again but in more long winded ways?

The point of this thread was to get some positive views on the movies rather than people slating it outright from a small clip....I never said it was going to be fantastic amazing, true to the comics movie, at best it would probably be fun, but I personally found the movies entertaining and though they didn't stick to the comics they still are quite good as movies....

I just think people should so optimism for once....hard as it may be for some....

hotsauce6548
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You can tell it's been reduced to making excuses because people are citing Jean destroying a door and Storm's hair as a plus. HER HAIR!

-AC

yes

It's because they were basically the only things good about the trailer.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Fianna
AC...do you ever get bored of saying exactly the same thing over and over again but in more long winded ways?

The point of this thread was to get some positive views on the movies rather than people slating it outright from a small clip....I never said it was going to be fantastic amazing, true to the comics movie, at best it would probably be fun, but I personally found the movies entertaining and though they didn't stick to the comics they still are quite good as movies....

I just think people should so optimism for once....hard as it may be for some....

A) Technically not the same thing then is it?

B) Exactly. How can you say it's ok to be positive about a two minute clip and then be less than encouraging about the negative responses?

If you accept one you have to, in turn, accept the other. As much as there are people slating it from a small clip, there are people praising it from a small clip, you're not telling them to not judge first are you? History is on the negative side.

-AC

Neptune
The trailer is nothing special but i think the movie will be great. The only thing i hate is that they flat out ignored Gambit and all the fans who have been saying they want him in since X1. Yeah i know i'm another whiny Gambit fan but just think about this: The reason they didn't put Gambit in X-3 is because they wouldn't be able to do the character justice with all the mutants they're introducing now. But why didn't they just write him in, in the first place? The first reports about X-3 stated that Gambit, Angel and Beast would be in. So basicly they lied to us.

Britrogue
Originally posted by Fianna
So when exactly are they going to stop? .....we've seen a 2 minute clip and people are already slating it...I know people want it to be faithful to the comics but that's totally not possible in a movie medium...

I agree they're not exactly inspired, but come on, they are good movies and at least they're not Daredevil....so let's have some postive thoughts on the movie and give it a chance....if you go on to watch the movie with a closed mind then of course you'll find faults with it...

......anway...this will probably get closed or merged but meh...

You tell 'em woman! I think the trailer looks fabulous and I'm really excited.

nathan summers
Originally posted by Neptune
The trailer is nothing special but i think the movie will be great. The only thing i hate is that they flat out ignored Gambit and all the fans who have been saying they want him in since X1. Yeah i know i'm another whiny Gambit fan but just think about this: The reason they didn't put Gambit in X-3 is because they wouldn't be able to do the character justice with all the mutants they're introducing now. But why didn't they just write him in, in the first place? The first reports about X-3 stated that Gambit, Angel and Beast would be in. So basicly they lied to us.

Not do him justice? I hardly think they didn't introduce Gambit because they couldn't do him justice. The last thing on the producers, writers and directors minds for this movie is portraying the characters like the comics. I mean they didn't exactly do ANY of the character's justice, aside from Xavier. Gambit isn't exactly the most convoluted character to portray. If they're screwing everyone else up why not Gambit? Let's just get Orlando Bloom some red and black contact lenses, give him a long trench coat and give'em an " Australian " accent. Yes, I know he has a supposed Nawlins' accent but I was making a point.

pr1983
i thought storm's hair looked crap personally... erm

good to see you too fi... smile

FistOfThe North
Xmen 1 sucked bad. I mean Elektra bad, lol.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.