atari2600

im glad but you seem to be in the minority then.

atari2600

thats fine, but once again it makes me appreciate NOT having read the comics.

devilshalo

And I think that's what makes this movie fail for me. This is a team movie and the writers take that aspect out of it by making it a Wolverine movie. He's getting his own solo movie so why force him to be the lead here when a better written script could have been written that gives Scott & Jean's relationship meaning and Scott's leadership a little more beefiness?

And really, why bother to put Juggy or Psylocke or Callisto in a film and change their powers/abilities/origins. Who would know or care? People who never read the comic books won't care. You could have Joe Shmoe Super Mutant and it wouldn't matter. Obviously, it's a nod to those that are fans of the comics because of name recognition, but in the end, why does it matter?

I kinda explained what they could have done here.

This I can't tell ya. I thought the first 2 films were ok. Nothing special.

fujishig

I guarantee you that even if they had gone with the "slowly building Dark Phoenix" up plot that you suggested, the fanboys would STILL be in an uproar because of the changes. Like we really need to have a live-action mohawked Superman-wannabe (Gladiator) in the film. I like the idea, though.

I agree, though, why have that purple haired girl be Psylocke when she doesn't do anything (maybe she turns invisible or something once?), and then gets killed anyway?

Neitzl

Ok sorry if this has been answered already, but I read 4 pages already, and didn't see it.
On the bridge at the end, when all the cars were being moved to the side by Magneto, the one SUV that was trapped with the family, wasn't that Jeans' family??
I could have SWORN that the parents were the same ones in the beginning. I was hoping it would be so that some aspects of the comic (#136) would come through. Such as when Jean/Dark Phoenix goes home (in the comic) and her parents find her in the living room at night. The father and mother grow scared of her, and Jean begins to read their minds, not on purpose but because she's just too powerful that she can't stop herself.
I was really excited when I saw certain things get setup but then nothing happened with them. I thought the movie was average. I was getting tired of Wolverine, Kitty Pryde was pretty good, and I thought how Dark Phoenix was tearing up the island was pretty awesome (though she was severely underused in the rest of the film).

Terrell

Based on what? Certainly not on any evidence. You just pulled it out of your backside as a way to strike down his opinion. I've said this a couple of times in this thread. Speak for yourself. Don't try and speak for everyone. Fact is you don't know what percentage of people liked or disliked the film. If I ventured a guess out of all the people that saw this film, I'd guess it was your opinion that was in the minority. But all I have is anectdotal evidence to back that up, and it ultimately proves nothing. The majority of critics liked it, even though it's close to being split down the middle. Everyone in my family liked it. All of the exit polls type data was positive.

Kal-El

Uh, if you read his previous posts, he actually likes the movie as well, and I don't think he was striking down anybody's opinion.

You really gotta relax man.

The Bus

Did you Marvel guys never read What If?

Did you DC guys never read an Elseworlds title?

As for the Harry Potter comparison, Harry Potter is a set of single books. X-Men is a franchise that has been handled by a hundred people for the past... what? Forty years? And this is with numerous and numerous plot lines happening all at once, not to mention annuals, specials, rebirths, etc.

Things I thought were "true" to X-Men in this third installment:
- The Magneto / Xavier relationship, especially when he says, (paraphrasing here) "Charles Xavier has done more for mutantkind than anyone else."
- Beast (perfect casting).

Things that weren't completely "true" to X-Men but had already been messed up by Bryan Singer:
- Storm not being a defacto leader.
- Phoenix / Jean Grey's story not being true to the Dark Phoenix Saga.

Things Brett Ratner messed up:
- Killing Professor X
- Killing Cyclops

My point is that both directors committed "errors" or changes in the way the X-Men story played out. Ultimately, X2 is the best film out of the three, but The Last Stand isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination.

raven56706

with you on that

Terrell

Sure looked like it, regardless of his opinion of the film.

atari2600

wow, did you misread my post BIG TIME. i didnt strike down his opinion. nor anyone elses.

chill out. thats exactly the OPPOSITE of what i did. i agreed with him, was happy that he also enjoyed the movie and basically supported him for liking the movie despite reading the comics.

having a bad day?

gotta be having a bad day.

i wonder if you even know that i enjoyed the movie - perhaps you could read my other posts in this thread.

atari2600

care to explain and support your unwarranted rant towards me?

kcbrett5

Ahhh but they did change spiderman and people still loved it. His most fundamental power of shooting webs was changed from being a mechanical device he created to a direct result of the spider bite.

See..he was changed and nobody cares.

McHawkson

I don't care that they changed spiderman's webspinner - I thought it's better than mechanical device. But the most important that they stick to Spiderman's true origin, that's why the movie is good.

Jackskeleton

I went into the film seeing X-men. Not Marvel comics presents What if.

Just because I've read a comic that shows you a specific alternative doesn't mean that you can change the original.

This argument doesn't hold water because we are dealing with a specific story arc. The Phoenix Saga. We are also dealing with Joss Whedon's Gifted story arc which had the cure. So it's not dealing with forty years of books. it's dealing with a specific story. Just because Harry Potter had some Quidditch side book doesn't mean they have to cram it into the film so we know every single aspect of the game.

To compare it with Potter again, it'll be like saying the Prisoner of Azkaban was just some dude from new york stuck in community service because it would be far too difficult to explain what exactly Azkaban is and most of all, get rid of those pesky dementors because how the hell do you explain them anyways?



at the very least singer did have a phoenix symbol in there. That's a major complaint. at the very least have a phoenix flame outline. Same with pyro. Why make him not do all the fire characters he does. Hell, he did it in a video game based on the film.... why not the film? You know why? cause they rushed production so badly post had little to no time to work on such fx shots. See the reason why colossus is pretty much stuck behind everyone.

as much as I hate brett, he's not to blame for the shit job. The script was all over the place and looked like it was written by 20


they didn't change his general powers or how he got them. He was bitten by a radioactive spider, not suffers multiple personality disorder. Most of all there's a connection with the whole spider aspect. Phoenix had nothing that even could be connected to Phoenix in her look or feel. See the major difference there when changing something small and changing the character completely around?

fujishig

I still say your Harry Potter comparison is way off. The movie is based on concepts developed in the comic book. For instance, in the Ultimate Xmen universe, they also take the concept of Jean Grey with uncontrollable powers, but it's a total departure from the original Claremont/Byrne run. As comic fans, we should be used to writers taking the core concepts and rewriting them, which is pretty much what the whole Ultimate universe is. Heck, look at Morrison or Whedon's run in the normal Marvel Universe... they changed a ton of things about the characters to suit their writing styles.

Going back to Spiderman, the movie takes the concept of Spiderman, keeps most of his origin, but changes a lot of things about his encounter with the Green Goblin and Mary Jane. The core X-men origin hasn't changed... they're still mutant outcasts who band together. It's not like they made them into aliens or something... the "origin" was roughly the same. This was not meant to be a straight adaptation of any single X-men story.

Rogue588

I wholeheartedly agree with Jack's latest post. It's not like they're doing a X-Men movie a year. If there's only one flick every 2-4 years, they should get it right. It should not be as lopsided as this one was thanks to FOX's efforts to get it out before Singer's Superman. That's pretty petty.

mikehunt

and pretty stupid
let's see, you have 2 good movies with 1 director and that director is willing to make the 3rd
Fox: "hey, let's change directors, and rush things"

devilshalo

Was that pun intentional?

musick

none of the movies are dealing with specific arcs
they are dealing with broad concepts

what part of this don't you understand

X3 was not meant to be a retelling of the Dark Phoenix saga or Gifted just as X1 was not meant to be Giant Size X-Men #1 and while X2 has elements of God Loves Man Kills again it is not meant to be a direct interpretation.

Supermallet

The Phoenix isn't a "broad concept", she's a specific character with a specific story arc. A story arc that this film pissed on, then lit on fire (but NOT in the shape of a firebird).

musick

with all the 'flaming' you have done in this thread it's a wonder you didn't provide the source of the Phoenix flame yourself


Maybe had I gone into a film titled "X3: The Dark Phoenix Saga" or "X3: Gifted" I might have reason to be disappointed but as I recall I didn't enter the movie with the promise of either.

Supermallet

Well, X2 did feature an outline of a flaming firebird, so I wouldn't say it was outside the realm of expectation.

And for the record, what I did was debate. If I recall, all you did was twist my words or bring up irrelevant asides, so it doesn't surprise me to see you make a cheap shot like you just did.

Jackskeleton

What part of this don't you understand?

Let's take a look at the description of the story arc Gifted...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/078...Fencoding=UTF8
Gee... sounds familiar... doesn't it.

Now if you're telling me that the Phoenix saga story arc or elements of that story weren't planeted at the end of the second film and carried out in this film then I don't even know what movie you are talking about.

That in itself shows that these aspects of the film were just a crammed together couple of story arcs from the comics.

Oooooh... Burn! You know, when you have to go to cheap shots and poke at potential flame bait you are pretty much saying you don't believe in your side enough to properly discuss it.

Have the Spider-man films been titled "Spider-man 1: Amazing Fantasy" It doesn't have to be called X3: Dark Phoenix Saga. But if you're going to use the Dark Phoenix story atleast get the character right. You don't make a James bond film and instead of making him some super spy you make him some wussy.

Besides that. The discussion is simply putting it like this.. if you're going to lift or translate a book story arc to film, atleast get the core of it right. Or else you might as well make Wolvie's claws made out of plastic.. cause why does it have to be like the book? right?

Havok83

the problem with the movie's plot is that they tried to do too much. The foundation was laid in the lsat film by Singer with the evolution of Jean into Phoenix. The movie built up to that. This movie should have ONLY been about the Phoenix story. By sticking the cure into it, they had to sacrifice character development as well as good story telling bc of time constraints. Jean in this movie wasn't a character; she was a weapon. She didnt do anything besides act crazy and its a shame bc she is one of the most dynamic characters in the Marvel Universe. I think had the movie only focused on the threat of Phoenix, then the film would have been much better.