CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › X-Men 3 Full Trailer Hits
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

X-Men 3 Full Trailer Hits - Page 5

post #201 of 616
3/12/06 at 6:20pm
Quick question:

who is that pufferfish looking motherfucker in the trailer? you know, that asian guy with the little spikes that come out
Reply
post #202 of 616
3/13/06 at 2:19pm
I agree about the Ben Foster comment. I think that the initial rumor that David Anders (Sark from ALIAS) was playing Angel was a much better choice.
Reply
post #203 of 616
3/14/06 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by grammatonclericK
Quick question:

who is that pufferfish looking motherfucker in the trailer? you know, that asian guy with the little spikes that come out

Yes, who is this character?
Reply
post #204 of 616
3/14/06 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8
I agree about the Ben Foster comment. I think that the initial rumor that David Anders (Sark from ALIAS) was playing Angel was a much better choice.
I'm not sure there is a good choice for Angel. He's one of the five most boring characters in the Marvel lineup. I was relieved when the first two movies didn't include him. I hope they can make something of him. I'm breathing a sigh of relief for the third time now that Gambit doesn't appear to be included. He's just annoying.
Reply
post #205 of 616
3/14/06 at 1:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabfunk
Yes, who is this character?
I'd take a guess and say it's Spike from the X-Men: Evolution cartoon... Oh Fox, you have been naughty. But not in a good naughty way. Bad Naughty... Bad BAD Naughty. Fox is BAD Naughty.

I ask this though... Has anyone here seen the appendices for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD set? How is Fox sabotaging something a surprise? This is what Fox does.
Reply
post #206 of 616
3/14/06 at 1:32pm
His name is Quills, apparently.
Reply
post #207 of 616
3/14/06 at 1:43pm
lol.
Reply
post #208 of 616
3/14/06 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I'm not sure there is a good choice for Angel. He's one of the five most boring characters in the Marvel lineup. I was relieved when the first two movies didn't include him. I hope they can make something of him. I'm breathing a sigh of relief for the third time now that Gambit doesn't appear to be included. He's just annoying.
Personally, I think Josh Holloway (Sawyer from LOST) would make an excellent Gambit if they felt inclined to introduce him down the line. He pulls off that Southern scruffy prick vibe very well. Now, if they could only make his costume a little less corny... i know, black trench-coat!
Reply
post #209 of 616
3/14/06 at 2:28pm
Gambit still sucks.
Reply
post #210 of 616
3/14/06 at 6:51pm
Yeah, he's just a lousy character. The casting doesn't enter into it. It would take a hell of a makeover for him to work. Of course, I've never liked Rogue in the comics either, and I thought they made her work alright. I guess if you throw the character away and start over, anything's possible.
Reply
post #211 of 616
3/15/06 at 7:30am
Holloway would've been better as Angel.
Reply
post #212 of 616
3/15/06 at 2:17pm
http://www.vh1.com/movies/news/artic...questid=217207

Not really news, just hints...

Hint one: Juggernaut would be back in a 'Wolverine' spinoff film.
Hint two: So WOULD Brett Ratner.

Also, Vinnie Jones needed a PROSTHETIC FACE?
Reply
post #213 of 616
3/16/06 at 4:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuniorMint
Holloway would've been better as Angel.
I love that people say things like this without having seen the movie.
Reply
post #214 of 616
3/16/06 at 5:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I love that people say things like this without having seen the movie.
I meant Holloway would've made a better Angel than Gambit, not Holloway would've made a better Angel than Ben Foster.
Reply
post #215 of 616
3/16/06 at 5:57am
Huh? There is no Gambit in X3.
Reply
post #216 of 616
3/16/06 at 6:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
His name is Quills, apparently.
Spyke, actually. I believe. Could be wrong.

http://mako-chan7.tripod.com/xmen/spyke.html
Reply
post #217 of 616
3/16/06 at 6:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuniorMint
I meant Holloway would've made a better Angel than Gambit, not Holloway would've made a better Angel than Ben Foster.
Okay. My head hurts.
Reply
post #218 of 616
3/16/06 at 7:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
Huh? There is no Gambit in X3.
Yes, we're all well aware if that. In response to Holloway being suggested as a potential Gambit, I countered that I thought him more suited to Angle than Gambit. Obviously I wasn't clear in my meaning.
Reply
post #219 of 616
3/16/06 at 8:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
Spyke, actually. I believe. Could be wrong.

http://mako-chan7.tripod.com/xmen/spyke.html
Maybe. IMDB and Empire say Quills.
Reply
post #220 of 616
3/16/06 at 2:41pm
A trailer marked 'Quills' is mentioned in the SHH! set visit.
Reply
post #221 of 616
3/31/06 at 1:57am
New shots near the bottom of Beast's discount fur and Juggernaut's tumor filled midsection.

http://www.latinoreview.com/filmpreview.php?id=23
Reply
post #222 of 616
3/31/06 at 5:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadew1
New shots near the bottom of Beast's discount fur and Juggernaut's tumor filled midsection.

http://www.latinoreview.com/filmpreview.php?id=23

Well, a lot of these shots look definitely unfinished, so I don't want to blast them...

but seriously, we've gotten too much promo stuff of a decidedly unmetallic Colossus. And THAT pisses me off.
Reply
post #223 of 616
4/24/06 at 4:07am
Those expressions of Disgust are perfect.

Also, there's an armored up flash pic of Colossus at the official website, and he looks like he did in the second movie.

And Premiere said Sentinels will be in the movie. I know everyone was expecting this, but it's the first time I saw it confirmed in writing.

Reply
post #224 of 616
4/24/06 at 4:07pm
Gotta say, Beast and Juggernaut just look craptacular in every damn picture. A 200 million dollar movie, and that lame f-ing blue suit is the best they could come up with?
Reply
post #225 of 616
4/24/06 at 4:27pm
I have yet to see ONE still, or ONE promo picture that has gotten me nearly as excited as I was for X2.

Still looks like Superman Returns is going to be the movie to beat this summer.
Reply
post #226 of 616
4/24/06 at 9:38pm
I wouldn't mind if Devin elaborated on this statement:

Quote:
I know too much about what has been going on behind the scenes of this film to hold a reasonable hope for it (I do hold an unreasonable one, however) ...
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=6362

The dirt on the movie is going to be far more entertaining then the finished product, in my estimation.
Reply
post #227 of 616
4/26/06 at 9:37am
Beast is so channeling Seasam Street in this picture! That`s just wrong.

I was wondering were there any other (obviously low-cost)directors available at the time of shooting?
Reply
post #228 of 616
4/26/06 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber
I wouldn't mind if Devin elaborated on this statement:



http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=6362

The dirt on the movie is going to be far more entertaining then the finished product, in my estimation.
What elaboration is necessary at this point? We've seen all the behind the scenes nonsense, the false starts, director changes, woes and all. It's been fairly common knowledge for a long time that X3 became nothing but a studio job since Singer left the project. The best we can hope for now is something mindless and reasonably entertaining.
Reply
post #229 of 616
4/26/06 at 3:46pm
Okay, it appears I'm alone on this, but I don't think Beast looks too bad. Not great, but pretty much what I'd expect a guy in a full-body blue fur suit to look like. I think it's better than going all cgi, and will probably look better in motion, when it mostly won't be the center of attention.

Juggernaut, on the other hand, looks completely shite.
Reply
post #230 of 616
4/26/06 at 11:24pm
My question for the people bitching about Beast is "What did you think he'd look like?" You're all saying things like "It's just a guy in a blue hair suit". Well, that's pretty much what Beast is.
Reply
post #231 of 616
4/26/06 at 11:29pm
I didn't think he'd look like a cheap wolfman costume.

Seriously, bad is bad. That is low quality design with low quality execution.
Reply
post #232 of 616
4/27/06 at 1:37am
Well from the neck up he looks ok.

What they did with the body/arms is the problem. It looks like they just strapped a blue shag carpet to his chest. An actual physique with some blue fur might have looked better.

http://www.action-figure.com/index.p...icle&sid=18755
Reply
post #233 of 616
4/27/06 at 2:08am
I think the main problem with Beast lies in using him at all. Any points the character might have made are rendered a little redundant by having Nightcrawler premiere first. I don't think the fur suit is going to be the biggest obstacle.
Reply
post #234 of 616
4/27/06 at 4:00am
I still don't understand why Nightcrawler isn't in this, even if only to kick one or two mutant asses in the middle.
Reply
post #235 of 616
4/27/06 at 4:09am
Beast would be A-OK if they confined him to leaping around the X-Mansion in a suit and tie. In the photos of him fully-dressed he looks-dare I say it-good. But that shagpile torso get-up is horrendous. It's like a CONGO cast-off dyed blue.

Having said that, seeing Grammar do McCoy is one of the few things I'm looking forward to in the movie, poor make-up or no.
Reply
post #236 of 616
4/27/06 at 4:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
I still don't understand why Nightcrawler isn't in this, even if only to kick one or two mutant asses in the middle.
Alan Cumming apparently hated making X2 and opted not to return. With plenty of other characters to choose from, it's obviously easier to drop the character than recast - especially as his mutant power is completely CG-reliant, complex to shoot, and therefore expensive to render just for a quick cameo.
Reply
post #237 of 616
4/27/06 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadew1
Well from the neck up he looks ok.

What they did with the body/arms is the problem. It looks like they just strapped a blue shag carpet to his chest. An actual physique with some blue fur might have looked better.

http://www.action-figure.com/index.p...icle&sid=18755
I've been praising this all along (the maquette's head design is better than the finished mop-top as well)... the body hair is also much better than that Robin Williams Man-Sweater they've got Kelsey in...

Course I am glad I don't have to look at Frasier's package...
Reply
post #238 of 616
4/27/06 at 12:35pm
Nice mangina.
Reply
post #239 of 616
4/27/06 at 2:16pm
The best thing about that statue is that it is in no way homoerotic.

But then, superheroes are pretty homoerotic to begin with.
Reply
post #240 of 616
4/27/06 at 2:23pm
Seriously, why the Hell isn't he wearing any pants?
Reply
post #241 of 616
4/27/06 at 2:29pm
Why wear pants when you have blue fur?
Reply
post #242 of 616
4/27/06 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuniorMint
Seriously, why the Hell isn't he wearing any pants?
That's exactly what the Fox execs asked Lucas about Chewbacca when he was shooting Star Wars.
Reply
post #243 of 616
4/27/06 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
My question for the people bitching about Beast is "What did you think he'd look like?" You're all saying things like "It's just a guy in a blue hair suit". Well, that's pretty much what Beast is.
It's not that it looks like he's in a blue suit, it's that it looks like he's just wearing a blue shirt, that just suddenly cuts off at the neckline, like, y'know, a blue shirt.
Reply
post #244 of 616
4/27/06 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Vogel
It's not that it looks like he's in a blue suit, it's that it looks like he's just wearing a blue shirt, that just suddenly cuts off at the neckline, like, y'know, a blue shirt.
Yeah, that's my major gripe. The fur itself isn't a massive problem, but it needs muscle definition beneath it and a little bit of fade-out around the wrists and neckline. It looks like a blue pullover.
Reply
post #245 of 616
4/27/06 at 8:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuniorMint
Seriously, why the Hell isn't he wearing any pants?
Because he's an absolute Beast. I think the fashionistas gave him the nickname in the latest retcon.
Reply
post #246 of 616
4/28/06 at 4:54am
The whole film seems to be suffering from a complete lack of creativity when it comes to makeup and costume design. Beast doesn't look awe inspiring (for lack of a better word), he looks like a guy in a cheap costume.

I'm completely convinced that it's due to the time pressure of making the film happen. They just took a bright blue fur shirt stuck it on Kelsey, and even let him wear a suit or uniform so they don't have to apply any more prostethics to his body.

Juggernaut, on the other hand, looks like they put some thought into, but the result is equally un-impressive. The body suit looks less than convincing, and he just feels too small (with a ridiculous helmet) for a supposedly unstoppable guy.

Overall, the whole production seems to be leaning more towards a comic book feel compared to the "darker realism" of the two previous films. I'm sure many fans of the comics are happy, but I preferred the look and feel Singer's films. Of course, not having seen the film yet, it's impossible to tell how the end result will turn out, but based on what I've seen and heard so far, this just feels a bit too much like Batman & Robin to me.
Reply
post #247 of 616
4/28/06 at 5:45am
Beast looks like a muppet that got a near fatal dose of hormone injections. I've cooled my white hot hatred for this film somewhat, since I don't place the original Singer fllms on as high a pedestal as I used to. That, and the trailer's got a few exciting moments.

But at least the Singer films paid attention to the details. A surprisng amount of Ratner's X3, based on the trailer, looks rushed to the point of looking downright amateurish.
Reply
post #248 of 616
4/28/06 at 6:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexxon
I'm completely convinced that it's due to the time pressure of making the film happen. They just took a bright blue fur shirt stuck it on Kelsey, and even let him wear a suit or uniform so they don't have to apply any more prostethics to his body.
The original incarnation wore a full costume. The current incarnation wears a costume which is very similar to the one in the film. In fact, the only time he wore the blue trunks was when he was solo and with the Avengers and Champions, and well, if you really want to see Kelsey Grammar in a blue speedo, more power to you.

I'm not saying the look is 100% good, but they're going of what's in the comics, not slapping a jacket on him out of laziness.
Reply
post #249 of 616
4/28/06 at 10:51am
I think maybe, just maybe having Beast on screen-this blue fur ball-wasn`t the best idea. Not everything can be translated well(esp. from a cartoon). Even though fans would have whined about it, I think a good idea may have been to perhaps just drop the blue and replace it with something of a more natural appearance like brown fur. There`s a reason why they dropped the yellow spandex...
Reply
post #250 of 616
4/29/06 at 1:21am
Hoo-boy.
Anyone just see that clip on the tonight show? It was a heavily edited danger room clip.
Colossus looks....UNFINISHED.

Also, the sentinel head looked like it was yanked off of a cheap toy robot.

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8895/sentinel1ai.png
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › X-Men 3 Full Trailer Hits