X-MEN: FIRST CLASS Post-Release Discussion - Page 12

This is weird, but I'm kinda going to defend something about "X-Men: The Last Stand". I just want to address one point that's been brought up. Beast does sort of defend Rogue, doesn't he? Storm says something like, "we're fine the way we are, we should be proud of our uniqueness, blah blah blah", and Beast says something like, "Is it wrong to want to be normal? You don't leave fur on the carpet".

I'm paraphrasing because I only saw the movie once, recall it only vaguely, and have no desire ever to see it again. Still, I think that my recollection of that exchange is fairly accurate and it does legitimately and seriously address Rogue's choice, even if Beast's line is half wisecrack.

Also, I'm not sure it's true that "X-Men: First Class" was so well-received partially because people were so relieved that it was better than "X-Men: The Last Stand" and "Wolverine". Was "X-Men: The Last Stand" really as hated by the general public as it is by the more analytical, discerning online fans?

That's not the impression I got. When it came out, I think a lot of people were fooled into thinking it was excellent because it went 'bigger' than the previous film in terms of scope, and killed off major characters. A friend of mine called it his favourite of the X-Men movies apparently because he felt Xavier's death gave it a shock factor that carried more emotional weight.

I was really disappointed in him over that. I hate when people who write movies kill off a major character to try to generate some resonance without earning it. The only thing more depressing is when the public falls for that. It's like this "Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan" syndrome. People assume that just because it made that movie so powerful, the tactic will always work. This same faulty thinking lead to the horribly misguided ending of "Star Trek: Nemesis".

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I remember talking to a friend who was pissed that Rogue would even DARE to consider taking the cure.  "Rogue would NEVER do that!"   

 

This discussion has been covered on CHUD before, but I think it's a really good one.  From what I recall of that previous discussion, McKellan's issues with the screenplay was largely based around this.

Well I never understood that. I never felt it was about her wanting to be normal and fit in. Truth is I don't think Rogue cared about acceptance from the entire world. I think she cared more about NEVER BEING ABLE TO TOUCH PEOPLE. Imagine going through your whole life never being able to even hug a person much less have sex with them. She knew seeing Bobby move away was just the first of many to drift away because yeah good luck find someone who loves you in a romantic way but has no interest in touching you. Not to mention what was she really losing? Her power wasn't the ability to fly or heal. She could drain the life from someone, possibly by mistake, killing them. Sorry but that is only good for combat and not even that unless she gets close enough. 

I get that they always used mutation as a parallel to being gay or a minority and given that it is easy to why McKellan had an issue. But at a certain point you have to look at the actual story. Yeah there isn't anything wrong with being born different and you shouldn't have to change to fit in with society. But what happens when the thing that makes you different is actually dangerous and keeping you from not being happy in life? Not society's problem with it but the very thing itself? So the alternative is she keeps her powers and stays a proud mutant......forever seperated from people including the other mutants that truly accept her. I can't imagine anyone doing that in real life.

That was the way I saw it as well.  The mutation/homosexuality metaphor could only take so much stretching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

 

 

"HAAAAAAAARGH!!!

"KYAAAAAARGAAAAH!!!!

"OVER 9000!!!!"

 

"NOOOOO!!!"

 

 

 

And that was actually the HIGHLIGHT of the battle!  I'd bring up the lack of a Colossus/Juggernaut fight, but Gabe covered that.  So I'll just say howzabout that backlot they were shooting on?  We know how you kids like stuff to be gray!

I'd also add that the summarily offing of Cyclops not only puts Wolverine in the "den mother" role that is totally wrong for the character, but does so 1/4 of the way in to the movie, making it difficult to make an actual, y'know, arc out of that transformation.
 

The problem about the Rogue thing is that, even if you do allow her the choice, the movie paints her as a sap and throws her under the bus. Wanting to change makes sense from a character position. But then she changes and goes BACK to Bobby, who was already straying with another woman? If he loved her, he wouldn't have been on the down low with Kitty. She should have said, Now you can touch me, but I won't let you, so fuck off.

Also, the cure doesn't WORK, further undermining her choice. It's an awful, terrible, stupid decision in a movie made by fucking morons. But I'm a broken record.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

That was the way I saw it as well.  The mutation/homosexuality metaphor could only take so much stretching.

In some ways Rogue's problem seems more akin to the stance of certain members of Deaf culture regarding "cures" like cochlear implants. You can understand why people would want to identify with and take pride in how they experience the world, but you can also see how some people just want to hear stuff.

Is it wrong that I actually prefer WOLVERINE to X3? Neither film is even remotely good but I found Wolverine to be weird as all hell, while X3 was just boring.

Evi, Of course not! X-Men Origins Wolverine is the...2nd best X-Men Film to date.  I would rate them like so...

1) X-Men First Class

2) X-Men Origins Wolverine

3) X2 X-Men United

4) X-Men 3

5) X-Men

X-Men Origins Wolverine is unfairly...X-Coriated, despite being...X-Cellent.  The one...Minor flaw, is Logan meeting the older couple.  Everything Else, I loved!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

The problem about the Rogue thing is that, even if you do allow her the choice, the movie paints her as a sap and throws her under the bus. Wanting to change makes sense from a character position. But then she changes and goes BACK to Bobby, who was already straying with another woman? If he loved her, he wouldn't have been on the down low with Kitty. She should have said, Now you can touch me, but I won't let you, so fuck off.

 

Also, the cure doesn't WORK, further undermining her choice. It's an awful, terrible, stupid decision in a movie made by fucking morons. But I'm a broken record.

But see thats where it is difficult. In movies and real life people cheat and go back all the time, specifically when things are bad. I don't approve of cheating and I don't put up with it myself but these are both teenagers and the problem is incredible. Not being able to touch? Come on. Plus he never actually did anything with Kitty he just started to feel himself drifting towards her. Look if it were ANY other power, including Mystique's then I would e 100% behind you but if it wasn't Bobby it would be someone else. People enjoying touching their loved ones without killing them. My god she can hug her mom now! And yeah the cure not working is lazy but it's clear that was only done so Magneto could return. 

Look it sounds like you just hate Ratner which I can't really blame you for. The movie wasn't put together properly and im sure Ratner shares some blame. Although I will say im betting it wasn't as much as we all think. I mean he came on late after things were set in motion however im not a fan of his as a director so yeah I get the hate. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

The problem about the Rogue thing is that, even if you do allow her the choice, the movie paints her as a sap and throws her under the bus. Wanting to change makes sense from a character position. But then she changes and goes BACK to Bobby, who was already straying with another woman? If he loved her, he wouldn't have been on the down low with Kitty. She should have said, Now you can touch me, but I won't let you, so fuck off.

 

Also, the cure doesn't WORK, further undermining her choice. It's an awful, terrible, stupid decision in a movie made by fucking morons. But I'm a broken record.

Gabe, you couldn't be more right if you tried.

There is nothing wrong with Rogue choosing the cure, but the execution of the decision was so poor that it barely, no strike that, flat out doesn't register. She rings her hands, takes the cure and is essentially written out of the film. When you consider that Rogue/Paquin was our stand in and introduction to this world in X-Men it's just pathetic.

That this is perhaps the least of the film's problems shows what a car crash it is.

I have no problem with distorting backstories to a certain degree if it works for the film. And at the time, I don't think more comics-accurate costumes would've gone over well; now that we've had a variety of superhero movies, brighter costumes are more acceptable for certain characters.

And this was the first BIG Marvel movie in a while aside from Blade, so I can see why they were cautious in that arena.

Please please please. ROGUE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeI 

Please please please. ROGUE.

The post has at least one "should of" and one "could of", we've got more fundamental problems to deal with here!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAIRUS 


Another thought, could of Singer actually delivered a Phoenix movie that could live up to expectations?

I've wondered this as well.  It's much easier to be skeptical now that Singer's fallen from geekdom's graces.  He would've had to deal with the tricky balance of portraying the Dark Phoenix in his grounded X-Men world as well.  I don't know if he would've taken an approach all that different with what we ended up with in Ratner's film.  The only thing I could say would've been handled better is the character work and staying truer to what came before in the previous two films (as opposed to just nailing the LOOK of the previous films).  

Even with such improvements, I don't think it would've lived up to expectations.  Perhaps it was to Singer's advantage that X3 was directed by someone else.  But then... Superman Returns.

I think Paquin did a good job with her in the first two films, even if her powers got downgraded. Then the third film gives her that absolutely abysmal character arc, which sounds OK in theory, but is miserably executed.

I think the Suits have a basic problem with superhero costumes that conceal the face. It's like they want the audience to know they are looking at the actors the whole time. I was really annoyed that Peter Parker either takes off his mask or gets it ripped it off his face in EVERY Spiderman film. And in front of Civilians! Who all agree not to take his picture or turn him in to the cops. Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

I think the Suits have a basic problem with superhero costumes that conceal the face. It's like they want the audience to know they are looking at the actors the whole time. I was really annoyed that Peter Parker either takes off his mask or gets it ripped it off his face in EVERY Spiderman film. And in front of Civilians! Who all agree not to take his picture or turn him in to the cops. Right.

 

 

Exactly, like there wouldn't have been some Jaimeson-reading, Fox News watching asshole who wouldn't have tried to turn Spidey in for a fortune.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAIRUS 

Am I horrible for Rouge not having the ability to fly? Guess I'm a little old school, but I feel the trilogy of X-Men films is flawed.
It got the message of mutant persecution right, and tying it to sexuality works as well. The thing that irks me is the attempts to Nolanize the characters. Yes, I prefer yellow spandex! Okay maybe not yellow spandex, but something closer to the costumes of the comics at the time (not the ultimate line). Okay maybe some of the costumes I can live without, but I feel that the masks help them hide their identities.
Then Singer had a ball with starting to distort the storylines and backstories of the characters. Introducing Rouge at the same time as Wolverine? Iceman a kid?
Where it really irks me is First Class. Instead of properly rebooting, they introduce new teens. A lot of First Class is good, mainly the relationship between Charles and Erik, but everything else along with a rushed ending really hurts. Why wrap up everything to feed into X-Men?
They really should of had a real First Class of: Beast, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Angel & Iceman.
Another thought, could of Singer actually delivered a Phoenix movie that could live up to expectations?

Jeez, just watch the 90's cartoon if you want things to stick that close to the comics.  Or read the comics.  I guess I can understand being upset if Iceman was a particular favorite of yours in his adult form, but Rogue was introduced in non-flying form in comics too.

Also, it seems a bit disrespectful to refer to Singer "Nolanizing" X-Men 5 years before Nolan got into the superhero game. 

Ah, the 90s cartoon. One of my favorites as a kid, it now serves as an embarrassing smorgasbord of unintentional comedy. The voice acting is cheesy as all hell (though I do like George Buza's Beast), the animation is stiff and uninvolving, and the storytelling is insanely melodramatic.

The other, more recent X-Men cartoons hold up a lot better for me. Yes, even Evolution, which started out rough with the high school premise and got a lot better as it went on.

Yeah, but that Wolverine voicework was INCREDIBLE. And CANADIAN!

"He was here... I can SSSSSSSSSMELL 'EM."

"HEY TIN MAN! I'm sendin' you back to Oz... IN PIECES."

"I go... where I wwwwwwwwwwwannago."

Hugh Jackman has not been able to make me forget that actor's voicework. I won't even look him up on IMDb, because it was the actual Logan that voiced him, and Wolverine is real.

Eh, I can't agree. The more recent Wolverine voicework by guys like Steve Blum feels much more natural.

Cal Dodd just feels too hammy in a BAD way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

 

Also, it seems a bit disrespectful to refer to Singer "Nolanizing" X-Men 5 years before Nolan got into the superhero game. 

 

Not to mention, I don't think saying "No time travel and no aliens" constitutes "Nolanizing" the world. Just setting realistic parameters so they didn't overreach on the limited budget they had and (smartly) focusing on the characters rather than a bunch of stuff that had a big ol' "for geeks only" on it. There's still some pretty fantastical shit happening in Singer's films.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Eh, I can't agree. The more recent Wolverine voicework by guys like Steve Blum feels much more natural.

 

Cal Dodd just feels too hammy in a BAD way.

This is one slice of ham I'll GLADLY enjoy!

I lovelovelove the 90s cartoon. It's cheesy, sure, its budget shows all over the place, but that kind of serialized storytelling wasn't really the norm back in the early 90s. Especially one that dealt with racism, sexuality, breaking social norms, moral ambiguity, and, um, Mojo.

Cut me a slice of that!  In... PIECES!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

I think the Suits have a basic problem with superhero costumes that conceal the face. It's like they want the audience to know they are looking at the actors the whole time. I was really annoyed that Peter Parker either takes off his mask or gets it ripped it off his face in EVERY Spiderman film. And in front of Civilians! Who all agree not to take his picture or turn him in to the cops. Right.

 

 

Hey man, that was in New York.  You mess with one of them, you're messing with all of them.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I've wondered this as well.  It's much easier to be skeptical now that Singer's fallen from geekdom's graces.  He would've had to deal with the tricky balance of portraying the Dark Phoenix in his grounded X-Men world as well.  I don't know if he would've taken an approach all that different with what we ended up with in Ratner's film.  The only thing I could say would've been handled better is the character work and staying truer to what came before in the previous two films (as opposed to just nailing the LOOK of the previous films).  

 

Even with such improvements, I don't think it would've lived up to expectations.  Perhaps it was to Singer's advantage that X3 was directed by someone else.  But then... Superman Returns.

 

I don't think Singer was planning to do the Mutant Cure storyline at the same time. An entire film dedicated to Jean Grey going Dark Phoenix would have done more justice to that story than splitting time between the Phoenix and the cure, which is ultimately what ended up short changing so many characters, not trying to do Phoenix in the grounded world of the first two films.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAIRUS 
Why did Storm change her voice in the 2nd film? Actually, don't get me started on Halle Berry. I'm sure she was forced on, but at least Hugh Jackman acted the part (he is rather tall for Wolverine).

Probably because she realized that her attempt to do an accent in the first film was a dismal failure. She really is the weak link in "X2". Nightcrawler had a strong arc in that movie...it's just a shame that its build-up and pay-off involved Halle Berry's Storm, who came across so forced and unnatural in trying to sell her sincerity in scenes with the much more natural Alan Cumming. I cringe a little at her line readings and *super serious* facial expressions when she tells him stuff like, "Sometimes ANGER...can help you SURVIVE", "I gave up on FAITH a long time ago", and "I have FAITH in you".

I have to admit part of why I love "X2" so much is because it was so true to the '90s cartoon, which was the basis of my X-Men fandom (never read the comics). It recreated a lot of things from there with more understated subtlety (like the Wolverine and Cyclops rivalry and Nightcrawler's piousness) and that alone gave me a bias from seeing a childhood love given some legitimacy. It also neglected to include several good things from the series (i.e. Cyclops having presence and conflict related to his responsibilities as leader of the team, the aforementioned Rogue flying ability), but I didn't think these exclusions harmed it significantly.

I agree that Wolverine's performance in the cartoon was WAY over-the-top, but I loved it for that and still do. Those three quotes Gabe posted just fill me with happy warm feelings of nostalgia. I adore the way the voice actor hammed up that dialog. And Fafhrd is right, the "X2" writers have said in interviews that they definitely would have focused squarely on Jean in the sequel, rather than cutting between two main plotlines. I've said repeatedly that I give Bryan Singer a free pass for life no matter how the rest of his career goes just because of how completely he nailed "X2", but I'm still mad at him for fucking up two franchises by ditching X-Men for Superman.
 

Berry is the only casting choice in the Singer films that I would have changed, because it's true that she is the weak link.  He cast those two films like a motherfucker and made some unusual choices that paid off very well -- so, in that regard, the only tradition Ratner carried was the consistent casting with Grammer and Page.

My dream Storm was always Angela Bassett, who was at one point considered for the role.  She would have brought the more effortless gravitas and charm to the role.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

Berry is the only casting choice in the Singer films that I would have changed, because it's true that she is the weak link.  He cast those two films like a motherfucker and made some unusual choices that paid off very well -- so, in that regard, the only tradition Ratner carried was the consistent casting with Grammer and Page.

 

My dream Storm was always Angela Bassett, who was at one point considered for the role.  She would have brought the more effortless gravitas and charm to the role.

Wasn't casting Grammer one of the few Matthew Vaughn decisions that stuck (along with Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut)?

Sairus, I agree with you.  Rogue, should have been able to fly.  She could have had that ability from the start, and then reveal what happened later in flashbacks.  Rogue is one of my favorite X-Men.  However, Rogue did get featured unlike another fave of mine...Psylocke!  I like both the British Betsy Braddock, as well as the Ninja with the Psychic knife.

Gabe T, I agree with you.  Cal Dodd's portrayal of Wolverine is...X-Cellent!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAIRUS 


Yes I know Rouge did get introduced without the flight, as I did read the comics. How was "Nolanizing" disrespectful?

It makes it sound like Singer's take was derivative of another filmmaker who would take a different property much further in that direction several years later, when in fact it started off the trend itself.

Also, the implication behind the term "Nolanizing" doesn't fit with what Singer did with the films. His approach was to make a really good sci-fi film, not a comic book movie. It's not the "real world" approach to X-Men, it's "how do we make this work as its own film, not just as a comic book movie?" And it was the smart thing to do. One of my many problems with the post-Iron Man Marvel films is they seem to rely on the crowd already knowing the importance of little details, so the legwork isn't in the actual films to make you care. Even the best of the bunch so far, Captain America, suffers from this problem (another symptom of this mindset is the fact that every film--no matter the cost to the story--has to fit into the overall 'Avengers' film).

Like any good adaptation, Singer's X-Films took the best concepts from the source and re-told them in a different medium. Raimi's Spider-Man films are much more "comic book"-y, but the approach is the same: he doesn't come at those films thinking "this is a silly comic book movie," it's a character-driven story about choosing who you will be with the abilities you're given. That tone has gotten lost in the continuity-obsessed franchising of really interesting ideas. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAIRUS 

Well I just meant it in terms of pairing down the more fantastical elements in order to try to make the characters more believable. In the context he was trying to pull off, it worked.

Regardless, Singer did it first. And for God's sake, it's ROGUE. R-O-G-U-E. Rogue = thief. Rouge = red or makeup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

The problem about the Rogue thing is that, even if you do allow her the choice, the movie paints her as a sap and throws her under the bus. Wanting to change makes sense from a character position. But then she changes and goes BACK to Bobby, who was already straying with another woman? If he loved her, he wouldn't have been on the down low with Kitty. She should have said, Now you can touch me, but I won't let you, so fuck off.

But he wasn't? He did the ice-skating thing with Kitty to cheer her up. As a friend. That was it, outside tons of shots of them together taken out of context (i.e. trailers) to push a "love triangle" that was never there? Rogue's fear of Bobby fucking around led her to take the cure, which as you accurately stated, didn't fully work (i.e. reneging your deus ex machine for, all together now, more sequels with those characters!)

Been awhile since I had seen it, but I was pretty certain there was heat between Kitty and Iceman. HEAT.

Someone needs to back me up on this, because I am NOT watching that shit again.

I've never understood how you even have a romantic relationship with someone who you don't even anticipate having any sexual contact with.  Aren't you just really good friends at that point?  It just seems selfish of Rogue to be like "we can totally talk all the time, but you are never to kiss another human being again."

Maybe one of our many, many chewer nuns/monks enlighten me on this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

I've never understood how you even have a romantic relationship with someone who you don't even anticipate having any sexual contact with.  Aren't you just really good friends at that point?

 

Maybe one of our many, many chewer nuns/monks enlighten me on this?

*Shrugs*

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAIRUS 

Another thought, could of Singer actually delivered a Phoenix movie that could live up to expectations?

Maybe..............maybe not........................but I guarantee it would have been better than what we were given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fafhrd 

I don't think Singer was planning to do the Mutant Cure storyline at the same time.

Nope.  "Supposedly" Singer's plan was do to X-Men 3 AND X-Men 4 (possibly back-to-back).  The third would have dealt with the affect of Jean's death on the team (Cyclops drifting away, Wolverine shouldering more responsibility), the Mutant Cure, Magneto gathering a force to start a revolution, and apparently the use of Sentinels (be it by the government or a private agency)...............with Jean resurrecting at the end.  X4 would have been the Dark Phoenix storyline and how the X-men and the Brotherhood needed to put aside their differences to save mankind.  Or something to that effect.

Long story shot?  Singer was ready and willing to get started on the next two entries, but Fox futzed around and took forever to make any decisions.  Singer got fed up and ran off to make Superman Returns instead.  Fox then greenlit X3 and put it into production as fast as they could, taking the ideas that they had for TWO films and consolidated them into one short shitty movie.  Vaughn bolted the production early on when he realized how quickly the ship was sinking.  Smart man!  I just hope things aren't repeated if (and hopefully when) First Class 2 is a success and the time comes to cap off the new trilogy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Allen 

 

Wasn't casting Grammer one of the few Matthew Vaughn decisions that stuck (along with Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut)?

I believe so.....................and I suspect we would have gotten a FAR better performance out of Jones if Vaughn had stayed on board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

 

Maybe..............maybe not........................but I guarantee it would have been better than what we were given.

 

 

Nope.  "Supposedly" Singer's plan was do to X-Men 3 AND X-Men 4 (possibly back-to-back).  The third would have dealt with the affect of Jean's death on the team (Cyclops drifting away, Wolverine shouldering more responsibility), the Mutant Cure, Magneto gathering a force to start a revolution, and apparently the use of Sentinels (be it by the government or a private agency)...............with Jean resurrecting at the end.  X4 would have been the Dark Phoenix storyline and how the X-men and the Brotherhood needed to put aside their differences to save mankind.  Or something to that effect.

 

Long story shot?  Singer was ready and willing to get started on the next two entries, but Fox futzed around and took forever to make any decisions.  Singer got fed up and ran off to make Superman Returns instead.  Fox then greenlit X3 and put it into production as fast as they could, taking the ideas that they had for TWO films and consolidated them into one short shitty movie.  Vaughn bolted the production early on when he realized how quickly the ship was sinking.  Smart man!  I just hope things aren't repeated if (and hopefully when) First Class 2 is a success and the time comes to cap off the new trilogy.

 

I believe so.....................and I suspect we would have gotten a FAR better performance out of Jones if Vaughn had stayed on board.

 

Ah man this beaut belongs in the 'alternate movie timeline' thread. I know I read somewhere that the original script had Jean tearing San Francisco apart. Singer's would have been better because he is a filmmaker, whereas Brett Ratner de derp de derp.

If I may fanwank, X-3 desperately needed to revolve around Cyclops. Losing Singer was one thing but losing Marsden and writing out Cyclops and was another.

Here is a good man who can level buildings with his eyes. He loses his fiancee and can barely keep his shit together. Along comes a crisis (the cure) and he has to pull himself together to stand by and lead his 'family'. There's your fucking story. And Logan get's to be the badass in the corner rather than the babysitter. Oh and double Alan Cumming's salary to get him back!

FOX! Srzly u guyz 's not roket sienz!

Yeah, as much as I love "X2", I have to admit it's a shame that Cyclops spends most of the movie literally knocked out off screen. And then he's relied on for the big emotional pay-off of the movie. Him. The guy who has been absent for most of the movie and can't use his eyes to act. His scene with Jean-Professor is the worst, cheesiest moment of the whole piece, when it's supposed to be the most moving.

Whatever you think about the first three X-Men movies (opinions differ on which one was best), I think we can all agree that a consistent major flaw across all of them was the poor utilization of Cyclops. The third one really should have been when the character finally got his due. M.P.'s suggestion of how sounds perfect.

The fact that he was dispatched in "X-Men: The Last Stand" even earlier and more insultingly than in "X2" is one of the worst of the film's many sins. The poor character just can't get a break. It's amazing that so far, after three X-Men movies and two spinoffs, he has STILL never been given a decent role in a story. And yet, he's supposedly the leader of the group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naisu Baddi 

Yeah, as much as I love "X2", I have to admit it's a shame that Cyclops spends most of the movie literally knocked out off screen. And then he's relied on for the big emotional pay-off of the movie. Him. The guy who has been absent for most of the movie and can't use his eyes to act. His scene with Jean-Professor is the worst, cheesiest moment of the whole piece, when it's supposed to be the most moving.

 

Whatever you think about the first three X-Men movies (opinions differ on which one was best), I think we can all agree that a consistent major flaw across all of them was the poor utilization of Cyclops. The third one really should have been when the character finally got his due. M.P.'s suggestion of how sounds perfect.

 

The fact that he was dispatched in "X-Men: The Last Stand" even earlier and more insultingly than in "X2" is one of the worst of the film's many sins. The poor character just can't get a break. It's amazing that so far, after three X-Men movies and two spinoffs, he has STILL never been given a decent role in a story. And yet, he's supposedly the leader of the group.

We never saw a body.

Ergo, he's alive. Mr. Sinister has him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

We never saw a body.

Ergo, he's alive. Mr. Sinister has him.

 

Yup.  A lot of the reason I hate that movie is because it not only makes shitty decisions, but is a total waffling pussy about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike's Pants 

 

If I may fanwank, X-3 desperately needed to revolve around Cyclops. Losing Singer was one thing but losing Marsden and writing out Cyclops and was another.

Here is a good man who can level buildings with his eyes. He loses his fiancee and can barely keep his shit together. Along comes a crisis (the cure) and he has to pull himself together to stand by and lead his 'family'. There's your fucking story. And Logan get's to be the badass in the corner rather than the babysitter. Oh and double Alan Cumming's salary to get him back!

This. Half the reason from a dramatic standpoint to doing Phoenix in the first place is to have the moment where Cyclops has a shot at Jean, she breaks through and tells him to kill her, and he can't. Then Wolverine steps up, because he thinks can shoulder the guilt. That would've made for some exciting cinema, but instead, we get five times as many mutants as before, with them throwing out those stupid as fuck "Omega ratings" in place of actual character interactions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

those stupid as fuck "Omega ratings"

Ugh, that really is the dumbest, laziest shit ever.