Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How do you hate Spider-Man for being disloyal, but like X-Men?I'm curious as to how that works out.
-AC
The x-men movies were more faithful than the man spider movies in several ways. Also, they were better in acting, script, characters portrayal, etc.
Also , i liked the first two superman and batman begins, and they arent exactly as the comics. Its not a simpley change issue, its a what change issue.
Also, the costumes of the x men were a joke for me not for being unloyal to the comics( the ones of the comics would be pretty stupid in a movie too), the thing that i disliked is that all the group were wearing the same black lether, a la batman.
Originally posted by bakerboy
The x-men movies were more faithful than the man spider movies in several ways. Also, they were better in acting, script, characters portrayal, etc.
No they weren't. Magneto was an old, frail man, there was no hinting to the Rogue/Nightcrawler/Mystique family connection, no talk of the Wolverine/Yuriko connection, Sabretooth looked like a hobo, Storm was about as interesting as paint drying.
They weren't better than Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2. Everything in X-Men was wrong. Especially the third one.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No they weren't. Magneto was an old, frail man, there was no hinting to the Rogue/Nightcrawler/Mystique family connection, no talk of the Wolverine/Yuriko connection, Sabretooth looked like a hobo, Storm was about as interesting as paint drying.They weren't better than Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2. Everything in X-Men was wrong. Especially the third one.
-AC
Lets see, magneto is old in the comics too. He was a child survivor of the nazi holocaust in the 40s, so he was born in the 30s , just as Ian Makellen. Also, Makellen was great as magneto. The other stuff agree with you, except in the rogue , nightcrawller and mistique conection. I dont think that this particular point adds too much on the story, also with so many characters in the movie, its literally impossible developing all the relationships between those characters in 2 hours movie.
And no, i think that there are a lot of great stuff in those movies, specially in the first two. Jackman was great as wolverine, Stewart too, Makellen too, Janssenn too, Grammer too, Romjim stamos too, Park too, etc. The only actors that i disliked was mardsen, berry, paquinn, the guy who played sabretooth and the guy who played iceman. The plot was great in the first two movies and decent in the third one. It was very superior to the man spider movies.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Lets see, magneto is old in the comics too. He was a child survivor of the nazi holocaust in the 40s, so he was born in the 30s , just as Ian Makellen. Also, Makellen was great as magneto. The other stuff agree with you, except in the rogue , nightcrawller and mistique conection. I dont think that this particular point adds too much on the story, also with so many characters in the movie, its literally impossible developing all the relationships between those characters in 2 hours movie.
Yes, because ignoring the fact that three of the characters are immediate family isn't a plothole at all is it? Stupidness.
McKellen is a brilliant actor but he was a lame Magneto. Magneto, though old, is a very intimidating and imposing man. If McKellen pulled the role off I'd not have been bothered, he didn't. I didn't get the feeling from his performance that I got from Magneto in the comics.
Originally posted by bakerboy
And no, i think that there are a lot of great stuff in those movies, specially in the first two. Jackman was great as wolverine, Stewart too, Makellen too, Janssenn too, Grammer too, Romjim stamos too, Park too, etc. The only actors that i disliked was mardsen, berry, paquinn, the guy who played sabretooth and the guy who played iceman. The plot was great in the first two movies and decent in the third one. It was very superior to the man spider movies.
You say there was a lot of great stuff, so you name actos and actresses, why? Because they looked like their characters? Jackman was nothing like the Wolverine of the comics, they simply didn't have enough time to make Janssen like Jean Grey and Cyclops was only good because he's a whiney, pathetic idiot in the comics, just like he was in the movie.
The plot was shit, contrived and condensed into too short a time frame, anyone who has read that particular saga will tell you the same. They had way too many characters, it became like a feature show.
If you liked it regardless, that's fine, but to make such claims as there being less plotholes than Spider-Man is ridiculous. Spider-Man hardly had any plotholes. If you're all beat up about the genetic webbing, boo hoo, none of that is as bad as what they did in the X-Men movies.
-AC
Originally posted by Silverstein
i'm not a fan of the movies costumes, being all motor-bike-esque, generic, and black, but i also do not want 'yellow spandex' etc.What i want to bring up is, "Can they do a better job? Is it possible to make better costumes than the ones used in the x-movies?"
right on,well said..Okay the costumes dont have to be exactly like the comicbook.But there should be some kind of middle ground agreement reached where they can make them come close to looking like the costumes from the xmen comics instead of giving us these all motor-bike-esque costumes that are the exact same color for every character for god sakes. 🙄 oh and as you can tell,I dont like the xmen movies because of the costume changes,but unlike the man-spider movies,most the xmen fanbase seems to have accepted the costume changes and I know that I am in the minority on comicbook fans who dont like the first 2 xmen movies because of the costume changes.Unlike the man-spider movies,the wrath isnt present there for the first two xmen movies.Where with the man-spider movies,the wrath by fans is intense.The Xmen fans seem to be the easiest to please for some reason..
Originally posted by bakerboy
The x-men movies were more faithful than the man spider movies in several ways. Also, they were better in acting, script, characters portrayal, etc.Also , i liked the first two superman and batman begins, and they arent exactly as the comics. Its not a simpley change issue, its a what change issue.
Also, the costumes of the x men were a joke for me not for being unloyal to the comics( the ones of the comics would be pretty stupid in a movie too), the thing that i disliked is that all the group were wearing the same black lether, a la batman.
Thats the difference between me and Bakerboy.He could get past the costume changes and enjoy them where i cant.He is right though about the xmen movies.When I look at the movies as a movie on its own merits,they do have better acting,MUCH MUCH better screenwriting and story telling which is the most important thing for a movie, better character portrayals-other than rogue being a teenage girl of course,all the characters for the most part were pretty accurately portrayed in character portrayel
Originally posted by Alpha Centauriman-spider had countless plotholes that were pitiful.you want to talk about plots that are shit,the man-spider plots are far worse, 🙄 you have bad memory problem anyways because bakerboy like myself have pointed out countless problems with these movies in the past,it was much more then organics that ruined the movies for us. the organics were a small part compared to the idiocy writing thats present in the man-spider movies.
Yes, because ignoring the fact that three of the characters are immediate family isn't a plothole at all is it? Stupidness.McKellen is a brilliant actor but he was a lame Magneto. Magneto, though old, is a very intimidating and imposing man. If McKellen pulled the role off I'd not have been bothered, he didn't. I didn't get the feeling from his performance that I got from Magneto in the comics.
You say there was a lot of great stuff, so you name actos and actresses, why? Because they looked like their characters? Jackman was nothing like the Wolverine of the comics, they simply didn't have enough time to make Janssen like Jean Grey and Cyclops was only good because he's a whiney, pathetic idiot in the comics, just like he was in the movie.
The plot was shit, contrived and condensed into too short a time frame, anyone who has read that particular saga will tell you the same. They had way too many characters, it became like a feature show.
If you liked it regardless, that's fine, but to make such claims as there being less plotholes than Spider-Man is ridiculous. Spider-Man hardly had any plotholes. If you're all beat up about the genetic webbing, boo hoo, none of that is as bad as what they did in the X-Men movies.
-AC
Originally posted by Mr Parker
man-spider had countless plotholes that were pitiful.you want to talk about plots that are shit,the man-spider plots are far worse, 🙄 you have bad memory problem anyways because bakerboy like myself have pointed out countless problems with these movies in the past,it was much more then organics that ruined the movies for us. the organics were a small part compared to the idiocy writing thats present in the man-spider movies.
Genetic webbing wasn't a plothole, it was a change, an intended change.
Name plotholes. Plothole example: The Mystique/Nightcrawler/Rogue debacle from X-Men. Nothing like that happened in Spider-Man, not to that degree. Those who read the comics were sitting there thinking "She's their mother, what's going on?".
You have such a problem with Spider-Man for being "disloyal" by having genetic webbing, yet you love X-Men. The most disloyal of all the new-generation Marvel movies, arguably. You simply don't like things that happened in Spider-Man, it doesn't mean there were plotholes. There were in all X-Men movies.
-AC
Parker> You have to accept that when comic books are brought to the screen, there have to be some changes made for the audiences sake, they only have 2 hours or so to get the story across, all bases can't be covered.
Sure they changed things around, especially the Dock Ock background, but I was willing to let it go because in the movie, they pulled it off.
I hear your points, but they could have done so much worse with the Spiderman franchise, whatever was put on screen was well done.
Originally posted by Doc Ock
The only bad Spider-Man movie costumes so far are the Goblin ones IMO.
When will people stop ragging on the damn costume....
It wasn't that bad compared to it on print predecessor , because let me tell you no film-maker worth his grain of salt would put any sane human being in a spandex goblin costume (Unless it's in a comedy).
The costume also worked well in film continuity , it was (from what i could tell) body armour or some kind of Kevlar type body suit needed to be worn to pilot the glider .
The mask on the other hand was odd...I would have preferred the Ben Urich mask.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, because ignoring the fact that three of the characters are immediate family isn't a plothole at all is it? Stupidness.McKellen is a brilliant actor but he was a lame Magneto. Magneto, though old, is a very intimidating and imposing man. If McKellen pulled the role off I'd not have been bothered, he didn't. I didn't get the feeling from his performance that I got from Magneto in the comics.
You say there was a lot of great stuff, so you name actos and actresses, why? Because they looked like their characters? Jackman was nothing like the Wolverine of the comics, they simply didn't have enough time to make Janssen like Jean Grey and Cyclops was only good because he's a whiney, pathetic idiot in the comics, just like he was in the movie.
The plot was shit, contrived and condensed into too short a time frame, anyone who has read that particular saga will tell you the same. They had way too many characters, it became like a feature show.
If you liked it regardless, that's fine, but to make such claims as there being less plotholes than Spider-Man is ridiculous. Spider-Man hardly had any plotholes. If you're all beat up about the genetic webbing, boo hoo, none of that is as bad as what they did in the X-Men movies.
-AC
Lets see. To start with, clearly, the x men movies are more difficult to be adapted to cinema than spider man, because in x men there a lot of main characters, but in spider man there are only one main character. The x-men movies scripts are much better and are more faithful witht the characters than the man spider movies. Wolverine is cinic, cyclops is whynny, magneto is impossing, etc.
I dont know what x-men comics are you reading, because in the ones that im reading, magneto is as Ian Mackelle portrays him, impossing and intimidating. His work was excellent. As Stewart was. As Jackman was, he is wolverine, his portrayal of the character was fantastic. And im not saying that because they looked the characters. Jackman is clearly taller than wolverine is in the comics, but his portrayal was amazing. he talks as wolverine and he behaves as wolverine.
Again, in a movie with many and many characters like x men, all the characters couldnt be developed in the right way. The mistique/nightcrawller thing doesnt add anything to the story. Also, mistique is a supporting character and nightcrawller only was in a movie, and in a suporting role. ¿ Whats is the importance of that?
Off course , they have so many characters because they are the x-men, a lot of heroes fighting a lot of villains. But they condensed it very well in the movie story, specially in the first two movies.
And , for you, whats is so great about the man spider movies? The story was shit, the peformances werent anything special, beasides Dafoe's , Molina's, Simmons and Harris. Many changes were dumb( why spidey isnt funny? So, for Sam Raimi, the web shooters would be incredible in a superheroe movie with many and many bizarre things, great logic, mary jane acts as gwen, green goblin costume was pathetic, etc).
Tell me, im curious on know what is so good about those movies in your opinion.
And please, dont be a liar. Nobody is saying that those movies sucked only for the organics, nobody is saying that. Its a lot of factors.