X-Men Movie hate threads

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...

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...

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 😛)

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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 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 😮‍💨 ), 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.

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.

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 😮‍💨 ), 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!!!

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

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!!!

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)

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...

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.

Maybe it's not the movies. Maybe it's you. 😄

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.

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.

Krang. Lord Imperial of the Universe.

he sure looked like it...

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.

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?