A BUTCHERING OF THE X-men

when i first saw the first x-men movie i was sketchy about seeing it because a movie based on such a wide universe, i knew there were going to have to be changes to fit the constrictions of film, and for the most part the changes were minimal, no key changes except the transformation of rouges character into jubilee , but i could live with that and the movie was actually good on some kind of distant plain far from the x-men lure , it sucked as a comic adaptaion but good as a movie, and i heard singer say that the first film was just a trailer to the next two. Well i dont know where he got that the second film was boring beyond belief with some eye candy here and there, the dialouge was simple and dry, and the plot was nothing of x-men heritage it felt empty and rushed with no appeal to a true x-men fan AND PLEASE GOD DONT BRING JEAN BACK AS THE PHEONIX IN THE NEXT ONE PLEASSE somthing like that should be left to profeesionals

Most people at this forum will disagree with you...if it did butcher the true essence of X-men, people still like it for character portrale and eyecandy, if you're expecting positive replies in your opinion...I wish you the best of luck.

i don't believe Brian Singer butchered the comics. What brian Singer did with the movie was simplify it so that even a non X-men fans would love it. That worked for me because now i am a X-men fan. How can you say that X2 is boring. I couldn't watch this movie all at once. I had so much adrenaline in my body that i had to walk away. I started to get dizzy of all the excitement. I'm pretty sure that everyone will say that you suck.

he second film was boring beyond belief with some eye candy here and there, the dialouge was simple and dry, and the plot was nothing of x-men heritage it felt empty and rushed with no appeal to a true x-men fan

it sucked as a comic adaptaion

I am royaly confused here, I thought you were criticising the movie. I love the movie, it's ruined every other marvel movie i've seen.

So did I, Brian Singer wanted to change the movie on purpose...for those who aren't X-men comic reading fans he made it easier to understand for them and it's better than comics to me.

I do like that approach, I don't think the movie would have done so well or X-men comics loving would have been as big as it is now if it weren't for this strategic plan, yeah it leavs out the details, but who cares, more people For the Marvel Comics side!

Rages> you being a fan I understand you're disapointed but this movie isn't just for fans. Ppl that don't know the x-men must like it. Otherrwise it would never be made. Plus you have to change stuff because a movie isn't comics! Most stuff would look stupid plus the time is very limited.
They were both very good. Probably the best comic adaptation ever.

It is because of the fans why there is even an x-men movie and though at first it seemed like singer wanted to make this movie mainly for those people ( fans of the x-men) it seems he changed his mind for the second and went twords marketing, and the fact that people are getting dizzy off of un climatic action ,with fight scenes that consist of blotchy close ups and face shots rather than actual fighting is no surprise to me. just look at the movies that are being pumped out in the theaters that call for no intellect what so ever and X-2 is sadly one of them but what can youexpect when you have the guy who wrote the script for The Scorpion king? NOT MUCH, in the past there was one time when x-men stories made you push your imagination to the limits and actually made you think it seems those days are gone though. im not trying to bash the fans of this movie, i mean most fans of the x-men now were introduced with the movies and they have no way of knowing the true x-men characters im just an over hard core fan of the comics whowas expecting to have nothing less, batman fans got it with the first batman, supreman fans got it and even spirman fans so whats left for the old X fans?

X-men is a 40 year old comic. Theres too much. The story has gone round and round.
The movie doesn't exist because of the fans. There are a lot of comics being turned into movies. This was another.
Lots of books are turned into movies not because of the ppl that like them but because the story is good. There's too much fantasy in the comics too look good on film. Some stuff just can't be made.

Kes- im not trying to argue with you but you say -----------------------------------"Ppl that don't know the x-men must like it. Underwise it would never be made. Plus you have to change stuff because a movie isn't comics! Most stuff would look stupid plus the time is very limited."----- if thats true then what about the original batman, superman and spiderman, some of the biggest money makers and most popular movies which scripts and plot lines are straight from two or more comics of the series. and x-men has been in the works since back in 97 Not with singer but its been going through re writes and change of directors but singer started working on story development in 98 , it doesnt matter though again im just arguing every aspect of this movie so that maybe one day i can find a way to like it

Batman is one character. X-men is a group. Its very difficult to work with lots of characters.

ragesRemorse, I've been a diehard X-Men fan for about 15 years now (since I was 8) and I am still impressed with how Bryan Singer has handled the movies. One of the key things Singer has gotten right with the characters in the movies is that they ARE TRUE to the comic characters' personalities. Wolverine is still the loner who has a deep (but secluded) heart, Cyclops is the stalwart leader, Jean is more than willing to lay down her life for her friends, Xavier is the strong father of them all and Magneto is still the villain who truly believes he is doing right and can't see he has become the monster that haunted his childhood. The characters in the movie all react to a situation just as the comic versions would. Yes, he has changed much of the backgrounds on the characters. But he recognizes what the essence of each of the characters is and honors that.

The trick that Bryan Singer has amazingly managed to pull off is that he keeps the stories semi-plausible. You could almost believe that this could all be happening in real life. To add something like explaining how Jean is possessed by a cosmic force that needs her help to protect a crystal, that is damaged by a mad alien emperor, because it is the nexus of all realities just wouldn't work in a movie. It is so "uncanny" that it only really works in comics.

You cite Superman, Batman and Spider Man as being faithful comic-to-movie adaptations. Well, talk to any die hard fan of these and ask them their opinion on the adaptations. Superman: Jonathan Kent dies at the beginning, yet he most certainly didn't in the comics. Batman: hmmm...Joker killed his parents? Wrong. Vicky Vale as the main love? Wrong. Spider Man: Genetically-enhanced spider bites him? Wrong. He has organic webbing? Wrong. And don't mention the bridge scene to any Spidey fanatic. They'll go off on it for hours. But, like X-Men, these movies stayed faithful to the essence of the characters and, as such, were accepted by the fans of the comics.

And, as for your thoughts of the second movie sucking (to which I strongly disagree), go pick up the X-Men trade paperback "God Loves, Man Kills" by Chris Claremont. This is what X2 is an adapatation of, and is a pretty good one to boot.

Yeah i thought the same way after i saw the first movie, i thought he made some good descions to keep the heart of the x-men pumping blood through the story. The second just seemed to go all down hill it seemed like he stop caring about the x-men as a whole

you comment on the slightest of meanings in batman,superman and spiderman. there the most tru to art adaptations of any characters, supermans boy scout character is more than apparent, in batman even though joker diddnt kill his parents that was just incoorperated to show batmans tru meaning of becomming batman for vengeance and justice, spiderman was the most perfect example the whole movie felt like a comic , spidey was always a superhero story on a down note which was expressed perfectly, and every comic reader knows that spidey did in fact get his powers from a spider bits though it seemed they just kind of bi-passed the whole web cartridge thing, well that was just so they wouldnt have to take the extra half hour to explin the un intellectual group out there how he made the webbing chemical, i diddnt care bout that much gave them more time to focus on the characters, and the bridge scene is like somthing spiderman would do in a comic, talkabout bad endings talk to die hard x-men fans about the last scene in the first movie, its like singer just kind of got bored and decided to end it with the first thing that came to mind

No the 1st thing that would come to mind is Jean turning blind like she does in the book.
The characters are done very well, with some changes but well done.Like I said, its agroup not one character. Its very difficult to do an entire group of ppl that have fans that like them all.
X-men is the only comic book adaptation that actually seems kinda (KINDA) real.

But you didn't like it, like i said in my 1st post to you. I understand. But take another look at the beginning with Nighcrawler, at the attack at the manson, at the fight between Wolvie and Lady.

ragesREMORSE....I don't like you. 🙂

Why did you attached that dragon in your 1st post?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
and the bridge scene is like somthing spiderman would do in a comic

That's the problem with it, ragesRemorse. That scene is almost directly out of the comics. Except, you gotta replace Mary Jane with Gwen Stacey. In the comics, that scene (Green Goblin making Spidey choose between the girl and the unknown innocents) occurs, but Gwen dies from the shock of the fall. Gwen was Peter Parker's first true love, and her death became just as traumatic for him as Uncle Ben's death. If ever there was a butchering of a comic, that is it in Spider Man.

Blopster I love your 1st post.