X-Men 3 Discussion Thread

holy ****! awesome clips!!!

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=trailer&id=1808490830&intl=us

http://www.mtv.com/movies/movie/241375/trailers.jhtml

 

posting for top of the page

http://media.filmforce.ign.com/media/040/040731/vids_1.html

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=trailer&id=1808490830&intl=us

http://www.mtv.com/movies/movie/241375/trailers.jhtml

 

The bridge clip actually made my jaw drop. And that's on my crappy monitor. Despite the 1:30 (approximately) running time, this movie is going to OWN this summer.

 

does anyone know how to save the clips directly to the computer?

 

Anyone seen this one yet?

http://thelaststand.dell.com.edgesuite.net/sneakpeek/large.html (large)


small/medium versions here: http://www.dell.com/html/us/xmen/index.html

 

I don't get anything from the page you linked to, but i'm on an old crappy computer. If it's the 4 minute preview, I saw it on you tube. Quite cool.

Beast roxorz.

 

The 7 minute sneak peak on Fox was horrible.

I have have even less faith in this movie then ever, and I had no faith to beging with.

 

IMHO - it had its good and bad moments...

 

This movie looks like a mixed bag, which is a shame because I relly enjpyed the first two.

 

I know a lot of people have been complaining about the glut of footage that Fox is putting out. The one scene I really wanted to see just showed up on TV.

Now what do I have to look forward to?



Ooooooh yeah

 

Gah, just saw it, and it was utter GARBAGE! I'm talking Terminator 3-level here. Do yourself a favour, if you are a fan of the comics or the original cartoon (or even the first 2 flicks) avoid this movie. Horrible story, bad dialog, cheesey one-liners, and bad FX. The only good part about the movie was the flashback scene with the young Charles and Eric. Amazing FX. Too bad they spent all the money on that one scene.

 

wild_karrde: Easily the worst of the three. Still, I got to see some Singer footage. The "Superman Returns" trailer had even MORE footage than the international trailer. This film has a scope that dwarfs the X-film. I'm talking James Cameron/Cecil B. DeMille grandeur here. All the reported 275 million dollar budget is up on the screen-- and that's with Brando coming real cheap. lol, seriously though, aside from the late, great actor, only Spacey is an A-lister in the cast. Means that unlike "Superman: The Movie", "Superman Returns" can put all it's massive budget into the f/x. Both Man of Steel films were/are the most expensive films in history unadjusted.

 

I liked the movie. It wasn't great on any critical level, but it was a fun one to watch. It has a number of serious flaws with aspects of it. The entire thing felt very rushed, and there were about two too many storylines that didn't need to compete with each other, the Dark Phoenix saga, and the Cure saga, which came mostly out of Joss Whedon's recent comic line. The Cure storyline worked very well, stuck pretty closely to Whedon's comics, some aspects of it, but the Phoenix saga really sunk, no where near the comics, which is a huge shame. What should have happened is they should have saved it for a future film, and focused on the cure.
The strength of the movie was the minor characters. Kitty, Colossus, Iceman, I was very happy to see those guys in there with some fun roles. I think that my favorite X-Men character is now Kitty, especially with her role in Whedon's comics.
Some scenes were absolutely fantastic. The opening danger room scene was really good, especially with the Sentinal's head, as well as most of the other action scenes, most especially the finale battle between both sides.
Other things seemed very glossed over, like Mystique's exit from the mutant world, as well as some of the newer characters, mainly Angel, who played no real part in the movie from his few scenes. At least Beast had some storyline that was somewhat explained for his absence in the last couple movies.
Overall, fun movie, although not as good as # 1 or # 2. This story should have had Bryan Singer at the helm, but hopefully Superman Returns will benefit from his direction.

 

JediTrilobite: I disliked 'the cure' storyline execution. More time should have been spent explaining this 'special' mutant's power. 'The Phoenix' storyline had alot more impact, as some riveting scenes are a result. Could the movie have been longer? Absolutely, for it would have given the scriptwriters more opportunity to better develop the numerous subplots. Since they went only 100 minutes, the filmmakers should have stuck only w/the Phoenix as the linear thrust. We easily could have been spared the superfluous Rogue/Iceman/Kitty triangle. Sadly, FOX felt the need to beat Supes to the punch. They hired a hack, who in this case did his usual pedestrian job, and delivered a substandard X-film. Unfortunate, because this franchise deserved better.

As for the Last Son of Krypton, his box office will rival Spidey's worldwide. Yep, The Man of Steel will serve notice who's numero uno in the comicbook superhero pecking order. Simply grabbing pole position will ultimately prove fruitless for the mutants. Just like Star Wars, there's only one Superman. Warners resurrected Batman to tepid box office. Superman's continuation will have box office strength akin to the power of Dark Phoenix.

 

Amazing how people's opinions can differ. I thought it was great, and I consider myself an X-Men fan from way back. Granted, this could be because of the extremely low expectations I had for the film going in, but I thought it was a fun way to finish up the trilogy.

And the effects weren't THAT bad. The wirework? Sure. But the overall effects, IMO, were pretty darned good.

EDIT:

One final thought. I've noticed, on AICN and other places across the Internet, an almost overwhelming cry of outrage from die-hard fans of the comic who felt that the Dark Phoenix Saga got cheated with this film.

My question to the people who feel that way is this: What part of that saga, taken straight from the comics, do you really think would make good cinema?

I always found that storyline, long considered one of the crown jewels of the X-Men universe, to be horridly lame and contrived. The way that the film handled it was much better, IMO.

My .02.

 

I wasn't crazy about the "de-aging" effects, cutting edge as they are. Patrick and Ian looked too synthetic. As for the rest, they were top-notch. Nobody says Ratner can't direct action sequences. Yeah, I'll admit, this flick wuz fun. It's just that it didn't impact me like "X2: X-Men United" or even the original. I'm not trying to say Singer is James Cameron here, but he had a tremendous grasp of the material. Whatever success Brett has in this endeavor is due in large part to the new Superman director. Bryan laid the groundwork, and thus made Mr. Ratner's job much easier.

 

I think Bryan Singer is an enormously talented director, but his X-movies are getting a free pass from a lot of people. There's some seriously cool stuff (mostly in X2), but there's quite a bit of lame-ass material as well. Sabretooth in the original, for example, was at least as much a travesty as Juggernaut was in this one. And the Wolverine/Sabretooth fight atop the Statue of Liberty was just...dumb.

Brett Ratner isn't a great director (He's okay, but he doesn't really do anything to stand out.), but I think he did the best he could with what he had to work with. It seemed like Fox was so intent on sticking it to Bryan Singer for jumping ship that they forced him to do everything in his power to get this film out before Superman: Returns. Considering the limitations placed upon him, I think he did a great job. We really get a couple of jaw-dropping sequences in this one, and some of the casting is truly inspired. The girl who played Kitty Pryde was great, and Kelsey Grammar was just awesome.

Yeah, there was some cheesy stuff. Any time Juggernaut opened his mouth I wanted to punch him. Not to mention Pyro's de-evolution from a two-dimensional character into a mindless, murdering savage. "You should have stayed in school, Bobby." Just dumb.

But for every Pyro and Juggernaut, there's a Beast, a Magneto, a Shadowcat...fun times. I think people are being too hard on this movie going in, just because it's not Bryan Singer's work.

 

JediMasterAaron: In baseball terms, Ratner hit a ground-rule double. .....It's a fun popcorn flick. It is not the bottom-of-the-ninth walk-off homerun that a film like "Batman Begins" is. What's more, Nolan had to pick up the pieces of Schumacher, and even Burton. Singer, on the other hand, left his house in order. He gave the Rat a big, fat, meatball pitch to knock out of the park.


On a side note: My New York Yankees broke the Kansas City Royals's 13-game skid. Oh, it's just high times in the Bronx! Man do I miss Tino, Brosius, and O'Neil.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the assessment of X3 as a ground-rule double. There isn't a lot of substance there (Though it's more than some are giving it credit for.), but it's fun to watch.

What I disagree with is the statement that Singer "left Ratner a big, fat meatball." Sticking with baseball terms, when you throw in the obscene limitations that Fox placed on Ratner and the new production crew, the X-Men franchise turned from a fastball down the pipe into a Tim Wakefield knuckleball, fluttering in the wind. That's part of the reason why Bryan Singer left the franchise to begin with, outside of his love for the character of Superman; even after his success with X1 and X2, Fox still wouldn't give him the time or the budget that the project demanded and deserved.

This wasn't a cakewalk for Ratner. Far from it. And I think he did the best with what he had available to him.

EDIT:

A quick Google search revealed some interested numbers. One article from the Hollywood Reporter cited X3's budget as 150 million. Hardly chump change, but paling in comparison to the $250 million I saw cited for Superman Returns in another article (With reports of it pushing near 300 million).

The same Hollywood Reporter article that I drew the budget info from also outlines some of the obstacles that Ratner had to face when he came aboard. You can read it here.

Bryan Singer left, Matthew Vaughn (The director of the British mobster film "Layer Cake," an awesome movie) took the project and then jumped ship, and when FOX turned to Ratner they refused to budge on their May 26th release date, despite all of these delays.

 

The main problem with this movie was the pacing-Which seems to be a problem in a lot of movies as of late (Jurassic Park 3, Harry Potter and the GOF, Revenge of the Sith, etc.). They tried to do too much in too little time. The storyline with the cure easily could have been it's own movie, and the same with the Pheonix. Neither were really given the proper amount of time, although I did really enjoy the Pheonix. I just think they should have seperated the storylines into two different movies.

Other than pacing, we had incredibly cliche dialogue to deal with. Almost all of Wolverine's lines to Beast were stereotypical 'I'm a Badass' sort of stuff; not the stuff a real tough guy would say. Don't even get me started on Storm-Yes, she got some character development, but she basically became a b*tch. I guess that's growth. Then there's the lack of Colossus-He has such a small amount of screen time, I was surprised he was featured so prominently in the trailers. Finally, the mishandling of Scott Summers. The character wasn't built up too well in the first two movies, but this one really could have been his to shine.

With that said, I thought the portrayal of Beast was great. His lines, fight scenes and the acting were all done incredibly well. It's just too bad Colossus, Pyro, Callisto, Arclight, Juggernaut, Madrox, even Rogue didn't get the same treatment.

And even though I said above that the Pheonix storyline didn't get the time it deserved, the time it was given was golden. The escalation of her powers was something else to watch. The inner struggle was alright, but the last 20 or so minutes of the movie were my favorite.

Overall, it was a letdown compared to the first two. It had so much to live up to, and with the actors building it up (saying it had the best script-Yea, and I'm Palpatine), it just fell flat. Maybe it'll get better on second viewing.

 

As a Yankees fan, I appreciate the difficulty hitting the Bosox' peskiest pitcher. True, Ratner had ridiculous time constraints. The problems w/ his crew didn't help matters. Still, he had a foundation, a template (X2) to work with. What did Nolan have for referance? Bat-skates, Bat-nipples, and neon lights were pretty much it.

Nolan even made Singer's "Superman Returns" possible. Bryan still has to make it work, however. He certainly has more creative control than the new X-helmer had. Here's hoping he belts one over the monuments in leftfield.

 

Darth Jericho, Second Quest: You are preaching to the choir. Ratner is a capable technician, not a great artist. Sure, X3 will outgross X2 unadjusted. I'm guessing 250 million domestic, 525 worldwide. FOX will be satisfied with those numbers, and Ratner will continue to get high-level work. Still the studio shot themselves in the foot. They robbed Peter to pay Paul. Rushing their product, and hiring inferior talent, just to beat the icon of comicbooks played right into Warner Brothers' hand. The quality of this movie will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many. If Singer, on the other hand, delivers a superior Superman film, it's gross will approach mammoth Spidey 2 worldwide numbers. The pecking order always has been Supes, Bats, Spidey, then X-Men. FOX was shortsighted in ignoring this, and in thinking they could undercut the Man of Steel w/ a rat.

 

Eh, X Men 2 was pretty weak to me. So many action sequences and little plot. I never really care for any of the X Men because they all have huge egos and act like winy babies.