Originally posted by dadudemon
No "they" don't, obviously. They don't have to, either. And they can and did adjust personalities, abilities, and plot. Different universe, man. That's how it works. Of course, the people that would be upset about those minor differences are usually comic book fans who don't like things changed too much from 616. I am a comic book fan who does NOT mind things being changed. Of course, I can be disappointed by the changes, but I can still appreciate it as a separate universe.
then what's the point in making a movie and using those names if they aren't going to actually be somewhat faithful to the characters? bar money of course...
You must be joking.You're making an argument how Cyke's differences, and other differences like it, made the movies worse or less enjoyable for you. Obviously, they have to keep closer to 616 for you than it was actually done. My point still stands, though.
actually, no, they don't.
the x-men show in the 90s AND x-men evolution both took massive liberties when adapting their universes, and i still enjoyed them. i enjoyed the first, what, 70, i think it was, issues of ultimate x-men.
so no, they don't have to have it identical to 616.
Originally posted by Raoul
then what's the point in making a movie and using those names if they aren't going to actually be somewhat faithful to the characters? bar money of course...
I see your point here and I agree with it.
They should at least follow the personalities and the powers to a T...from there, they can adjust the plot or make stories unfold with those characters as they see fit. (Mind you, keeping back stories, families, and past relationships as close as reasonable.)
Originally posted by Raoul
actually, no, they don't.the x-men show in the 90s AND x-men evolution both took massive liberties when adapting their universes, and i still enjoyed them. i enjoyed the first, what, 70, i think it was, issues of ultimate x-men.
so no, they don't have to have it identical to 616.
You should note that I didn't post "identical" or "exactly" or any term that indicated an extreme closeness to 616 plot. There's a reason for that, too. If you will note that it was exactly worded, "they have to keep closer to 616 for you than it was actually done.", to avoid what you posted above. (But it failed in avoidence.) Obviously, the implied contrapositve, contextually derived from my side of the conversation, implies: they did not have to keep closer to 616 than was was done. However, I digress. I would like to have, at least, seen Scott be an actual leader and NOT die. 🙁
I could actually go down each film and, piece by piece, tell you what I didn't like about the alterations to characters and powers. A list, I am sure, you would agree with.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I see your point here and I agree with it.They should at least follow the personalities and the powers to a T...from there, they can adjust the plot or make stories unfold with those characters as they see fit. (Mind you, keeping back stories, families, and past relationships as close as reasonable.)
You should note that I didn't post "identical" or "exactly" or any term that indicated an extreme closeness to 616 plot. There's a reason for that, too. If you will note that it was exactly worded, "they have to keep closer to 616 for you than it was actually done.", to avoid what you posted above. (But it failed in avoidence.) Obviously, the implied contrapositve, contextually derived from my side of the conversation, implies: they did not have to keep closer to 616 than was was done. However, I digress. I would like to have, at least, seen Scott be an actual leader and NOT die. 🙁
I could actually go down each film and, piece by piece, tell you what I didn't like about the alterations to characters and powers. A list, I am sure, you would agree with.
most likely.
so the debate was about what, exactly?
Originally posted by Raoul
most likely.so the debate was about what, exactly?
How you disliked the general change of various things and how I liked the general change of things...with exceptions to each of our respective interpretations.
To put it better into perspective, 5 being neutral, 10 being the best, 1 being the worst...
Our perspectives on the films (not rating the film, but rating the nature of the adaptations), you would rate them a 4 and I a 6.
Ergo, our slightly, yet different, opinions.
Now, I'm sure you enjoyed the films...but probably not as much as I did. Amirite?
Originally posted by dadudemon
How you disliked the general change of various things and how I liked the general change of things...with exceptions to each of our respective interpretations.To put it better into perspective, 5 being neutral, 10 being the best, 1 being the worst...
Our perspectives on the films (not rating the film, but rating the nature of the adaptations), you would rate them a 4 and I a 6.
Ergo, our slightly, yet different, opinions.
Now, I'm sure you enjoyed the films...but probably not as much as I did. Amirite?
oh, right.
i enjoyed parts of each movie.
as far as number one went, i felt it was a generally solid movie, if lacking just that little extra oomph to make it complete. it's the one of the trilogy i can watch straight through with few complaints. there's even a deleted scene i like.
two, i can watch three scenes, if you can even call them that:
the nightcrawler scene, the plastic prison scene (great dialogue between xavier and magneto, and then the fight which is one of the few decent cyclops moments), and the part of the attack on the mansion where colossus puts those two guys through the wall.
that's it. i actually won't ever watch the other parts again. and i am a massive kelly hu fan too.
third movie, any of the scenes with xavier and magneto conversing. the fight between wolverine and juggernaut (i just love that shot where he puts him through the ceiling in one room, and he comes back down in another), and the highway part where magneto plays with the convoy. that, and any scene with frasier as beast.
that's pretty much it for me.