I'm waching X2 and the scene in the bar with Mystique giving the guard some metal, there is a tv and on the TV there was a guy talking and underneath it said he was Dr. Hank MCcoy. but he wasn't blue nor did he have fur!
We don't everything of what Hank was doing in the X-Men movie universe. He could have had his secondary mutation from the time that interview happened, to where he is at the beginning of X3.
And if the character there isn't played by Kelsey Grammar - so what? We've had three different actresses playing Kitty Pryde, and two playing Pyro. I'm not hung up over some background players.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
So I suppose there might've been enough time for Beast to go through his secondary mutation (whatever the hell makes him blue), join the X-Men, and then maybe have to give it up because of the political role he obtained.
Or, if what you're saying is true, and it's simply a mistake, wouldn't it be Ratner's mistake?
I don't think we can assume Singer was going to include Beast in X3 (unless, of course, he had said he was going to). At least he knew how to keep the number of mutants in the movie down to an agreeable amount.
I found this neat little bit of trivia on the matter. I hope this helps give an idea as to what Bryan Singer might've had in mind when it came to Beast.
Initially, during the "Dark Cerebro" scene where it is attempting to kill all mutants, Bryan Singer had planned to show not only Cerebro's effects on the mutants in the Alkali Base, but mutants all over the world. During this scene, Hank McCoy, aka Beast (Steve Bacic), as seen earlier on the television during the bar scene, was to be shown in agony, transforming into his furry form, and fan-favorite Gambit was to be shown at a card game having his energy powers flare up. This scene was actually shot, using one of Hugh Jackman's stunt men, James Bamford as a stand-in for the role, shot from behind to remain ambiguous. For whatever reason, Singer decided to cut this sequence altogether and it remains unseen
But aren't you assuming that Singer would have included Beast in the next one, with blue fur and all, and then not explain it?
Ratner's the one who had the Beast who had once been an X-Man years earlier. He should've known that Hank McCoy had already appeared in the X-Men films, without his blue fur, so as to avoid including him and making the mistake of not explaining how he got there/how he got his blue fur...
I didn't say that, now did I? I always assumed that we would see Hank McCoy at the start of X3 and then he would become the Beast we all know and love. Which is how I assume Singer would have done it as well.
No, I'm not saying you did; I'm trying to understand why you think including the Beast in X3 and saying that he had already been an X-Man (even though we had already seen Hank McCoy, furless, in X2) is, at all, Singer's mistake. Wouldn't that be entirely Ratner's fault?
Because viewing it as a trilogy now, Hank McCoy is now a main character. It's Singer's fault for wanting to throw a useless cameo in and not having the character even look remotely close to his mutant form. His hands and feet are supposed to be huge even without the fur.
KMC Community Forums
May 30th, 2006 06:59 PM
