| Author |
Topic:
X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
soneil
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
5/27/06 4:39am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
|
JA - I'll probably be taking my son on Wednesday night (he's an Aaron as well). Susie's taken our daughter miriam tonight for her birthday.
-----signature-----
Steve
Yousa point is well seen!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi-Aztek
Registered:
Apr '01
|
Date Posted:
5/27/06 9:35am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
|
Sounds good to me Steve. Let me know what time, either here or via PM, and i'll see you there.
-----signature-----
'Ne Obliviscaris'
Ep II With FFNSW... May 16 12:01 2002, Fox Studios, Sydney, Australia
Ep III With FFNSW... May 19 12:01 2005, Fox Studios, Sydney, Australia
SECC - Holder of the Shiny Sword of Shift
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Grizzly
Registered:
Jul '00
|
Date Posted:
5/29/06 11:42pm
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
Well LD and I were there saturday night- didn't see anyone else though 
The bit in the credits is right at the very end, after the "similarities to people living or dead etc" speil... ala Ferris Beuller "Go home- the movie's over".
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JOHNNAGE_THE_BRAVE
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
5/30/06 12:03am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
The movie was very second rate.
Weak dialogue, poor characterisation and crap music.
There are 2 prime examples of how to do a perfect X-men movie- did brett Ratner learn nothing?
Why does Wolverine cry on the floor rather than go berserker?
Never mind- Superman Returns will be here soon.
-----signature-----
Which province is named after a German Ruler? HITLER! Member: Long haired icon beatnick. C'mon Boy! there's a-doings a-transpiring! http://blogs.starwars.com/Monster_Penninsula
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi-Aztek
Registered:
Apr '01
|
Date Posted:
5/30/06 2:55am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
|
You there somewhere Steve ??
-----signature-----
'Ne Obliviscaris'
Ep II With FFNSW... May 16 12:01 2002, Fox Studios, Sydney, Australia
Ep III With FFNSW... May 19 12:01 2005, Fox Studios, Sydney, Australia
SECC - Holder of the Shiny Sword of Shift
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Saintheart
Title: Manager and Wandering Swordsman of the RPF
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
5/30/06 3:23am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
SPOILER ALERT
Okay, I liked it...a bit. Here's the non-exhaustive list of problems with it:
(1) Cyclops gets killed, no explanation, no mourning, like some kinda red shirt off a Star Trek episode.
(2) The Professor goes out similarly, although he's in the movie enough to say "Get to Alkali Lake" as his major plot contribution. Still, that 'flashback' sequence at the start was pretty nice. I would've liked to have seen Magneto grab the cars Jean had lifted just to show he's, well, 'leeter' than her 
(3) Wolverine's character doesn't grow; it jumps to the other side of the mirror. From the hardass we liked all through 1 and 2 to SNAG with no real reason for it. He doesn't fight like an animal or even with a lot of anger anymore. And no, that's not Jackman's fault; always blame the director first. I was so disappointed in him ... hell, I would've gone for Jean Grey with that kind of come-on ... but all in all, Logan seems to have started batting for the other team. Which gets us to the next point:
(4) Angel. What was the point of the character at all? Aside from appealing to the gay audience by spreading his wings over San Francisco? (Except, unlike the Village People, Angel went east rather than Go West.) By the way, who really believes he either (a) flew across the entire country from Westchester New York to San Francisco California or (b) managed to stow away aboard the T-Jet without a single X-Man figuring it out?
(5) Rogue. She was in it, but what was the point other than to throw a hissy fit over Iceman and go and get her rabies shots? This actually is a more generalised complaint arising from the movie: there was an ensemble cast, great actors, great characters, but unlike Singer, Ratner doesn't seem to have known quite what to do with them. We've got established characters who are underused and new characters who are underestablished. My overwhelming impression of X2 was "Wow, that was really actionpacked, but everyone got a substantial moment or two." My impression of X3 was, "Where the hell was everybody?"
(6) Iceman v. Pyro. Oh man, what a disappointment. No epic scene as you'd expect from the clash of elemental forces ... no getting smashed back into walls, stuff blowing up and getting frozen in place ... instead, just quite literally a pissing contest followed by the old miraculous comeback routine. The only saving grace was seeing the 'ice up', but even then he looked a hell of a lot like Colossus.
(7) Wolverine v. Phoenix. Nah, sorry, don't buy it. If you can shatter entire people into dust the old Mutant X healing factor shouldn't be able to stand against it. Although I suppose it's another gay moment ... big, goodlooking guy kills the personification of feminine lust ...
(8) Mystique. What a pity to see a complicated character reduced to a plot device.
Now, the good stuff.
(1) Jean and Logan. Whoa. Hey. Playing doctors and nurses. I dug it.
(2) Kelsey Grammer as Beast. Best casting decision since Paddy Stewart as Charles Xavier. The look on his face when his hand mutates back to normal ... and the "diplomacy" line was a nice smack in the face to AOTC, too! One of the few characters I wish they'd introduced earlier only on the strength of his performance in this film.
(3) Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut. Second best casting decision ever. Some of the best moments in the movie come from his accent.
(4) Ian McKellen. Still rocked hard after 3 movies playing the same fiendish character, and has that wonderful mix of ruthless tyrant and compassion for allies down to a T.
(5) The chess imagery was rather nice throughout...particularly the images of Phoenix as the 'Queen' sitting at the rear ranks while the pawns go in first.
-----signature-----
Michelle: my Italian queen, my angel, my reason, my wife.
Jessica: my little princess, my daughter, born 10 August 2007
Director -- Star Wars: Knighthood
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JOHNNAGE_THE_BRAVE
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
5/30/06 7:05pm
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
Saintheart posted:
(1) Jean and Logan. Whoa. Hey. Playing doctors and nurses. I dug it.
(2) Kelsey Grammer as Beast. Best casting decision since Paddy Stewart as Charles Xavier. The look on his face when his hand mutates back to normal ... and the "diplomacy" line was a nice smack in the face to AOTC, too! One of the few characters I wish they'd introduced earlier only on the strength of his performance in this film.
(3) Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut. Second best casting decision ever. Some of the best moments in the movie come from his accent.
(4) Ian McKellen. Still rocked hard after 3 movies playing the same fiendish character, and has that wonderful mix of ruthless tyrant and compassion for allies down to a T.
(5) The chess imagery was rather nice throughout...particularly the images of Phoenix as the 'Queen' sitting at the rear ranks while the pawns go in first.
But alas- problems with the stuff you found redeeming.
1- Jean and Logan- What's with Prof X being all "I told you soooo" meh
2- Kelsey Grammer was good- but his dialogue was poor- as was the President's lines which seemed ripped from the latest disaster blockbuster: "All we can do now is.... pray." Please!
3. Jugernaught was supposed to be Xavier's stepbrother, and cheesy lines aside, how could he break out of a solid floor, but not his restraints- especially when his power is based on momentum!
4. Ian Mckellen's characterisation along with Wolverine was all wrong. He's not evil- he's supposed to be the Malcolm X to Charles' Martin Luther King Jr. He wouldn't dump his lover for being human, nor would he refer to his mutant brothers as pawns.
5. Phoenix would have fried the whole Island without the need for all the other Morlocks. She was reduced to a third act plot mechanism and a overly flashy effects heavy clmactic ending.
Whinge over! :P
-----signature-----
Which province is named after a German Ruler? HITLER! Member: Long haired icon beatnick. C'mon Boy! there's a-doings a-transpiring! http://blogs.starwars.com/Monster_Penninsula
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
soneil
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
5/31/06 3:13am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
|
Sorry JA. We were still deciding when we'd be available - we'll be going tomorrow night (thursday) for the 8:30pm session. PM or reply on here if you can make it. I'll be checkin in here when I get home from work.
-----signature-----
Steve
Yousa point is well seen!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi-Aztek
Registered:
Apr '01
|
Date Posted:
5/31/06 4:01am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
Thats ok Steve, I had a problem at work and did not end up leaving until just before 6. I was relieved when I saw that you had not gone tonight.
I'll definately be there tomorrow, look forward to catching up.
-----signature-----
'Ne Obliviscaris'
Ep II With FFNSW... May 16 12:01 2002, Fox Studios, Sydney, Australia
Ep III With FFNSW... May 19 12:01 2005, Fox Studios, Sydney, Australia
SECC - Holder of the Shiny Sword of Shift
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi-Aztek
Registered:
Apr '01
|
Date Posted:
6/1/06 8:30am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
Steve, Aaron and myself all made it tonight.
Was kinda weird only having about 8 people in the cinema. I quite liked the film, I went in expecting a completely unbelievable popcorn flick with some good laughs, and thats what I got.
May have been a completely different film if Singer was running the show, but it was still good anyway.
-----signature-----
'Ne Obliviscaris'
Ep II With FFNSW... May 16 12:01 2002, Fox Studios, Sydney, Australia
Ep III With FFNSW... May 19 12:01 2005, Fox Studios, Sydney, Australia
SECC - Holder of the Shiny Sword of Shift
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Symmbian
Registered:
Jan '04
|
Date Posted:
6/3/06 3:16am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
The problem with these adaptations is they are being watered down for the morons that know nothing of the original concepts.
I dont know much about X Men or most of the other superhero stuff. For me it has been always over the top, and very idealistic looking people in skin tight outfit which have a place in bondage/fetish arenas.
Recently I watched V for Vendetta and I LOVE IT. Not long after I got the graphic novel of the V and the film became a very pale contrast.
In the case of both these films, the morons of the world dont take into consideration the nuances and for lack of a better word, "meaty" content. They dont get anything apart from "OOOh some dude can shoot ice or fire outta his hands"
I would see the movie just to see Anna Pacquin and Famke Janssen alone, but I'll leave it to the fans, or the morons to make this francise sink or swim.
Symm
-----signature-----
Needs more internets!!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kartanym
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
6/4/06 5:08am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
|
It's franchise, and if you followed the comics to the letter when making that movie, it just wouldn't have worked. Especially the skin tight bright blue costumes. eeck!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Saintheart
Title: Manager and Wandering Swordsman of the RPF
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
6/4/06 11:10pm
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
Kartanym posted:
It's franchise, and if you followed the comics to the letter when making that movie, it just wouldn't have worked. Especially the skin tight bright blue costumes. eeck!
And to that end, remember X1?
Wolverine:(fidgeting with the collar of his black catsuit) You guys actually go out in these things?
Cyclops: Well, what would you prefer? Yellow spandex?
4. Ian Mckellen's characterisation along with Wolverine was all wrong. He's not evil- he's supposed to be the Malcolm X to Charles' Martin Luther King Jr. He wouldn't dump his lover for being human, nor would he refer to his mutant brothers as pawns.
There I'd have to disagree. Magneto routinely disposes of mutants who are of no further use to him; his kidnapping of Rogue in X1 necessarily has that endpoint. When he tells the X-Men his plans to unite the world's leaders as mutants, Wolverine counters along the lines that "If you were really so righteous, it'd be you in that machine, not her." Magneto makes no reply to that but simply departs. In X2 he doesn't free Jason Stryker or Xavier, but simply reverses Cerebro 2 to make it target humans rather than mutants, then leaves them to die.
Magneto does retain some humanity in the sense that he regrets Xavier's death as an old friend, but at the same time he makes no attempt to stop it happening, once again capitalising on the event for his own purpose: the dominance of the brotherhood. We feel empathy for Magneto because of his background, his motivation, his drive and focus on his goal, but it doesn't make him any less evil, or amoral. He simply disposes of people who are of no further use to him, which is what happened in Mystique's case. Magneto by the time of X3 has no room in his heart for love; it's implied he sees it as a weakness, and secondary to his goal. Mystique might drape herself over him and make it look like she loves him, but his own attitude to her doesn't reflect that; he might have room for lust, but love's another matter. As for the 'pawns' remark: that might be just Magneto being metaphorical, but I think again he is, in character, using people to achieve his own goal. To that end I think Ian McKellen has the character right bang on.
-----signature-----
Michelle: my Italian queen, my angel, my reason, my wife.
Jessica: my little princess, my daughter, born 10 August 2007
Director -- Star Wars: Knighthood
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
soneil
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
6/6/06 2:32am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
I liked it.
Realistically, just about any movie I've seen which is based on a novel or comic series I like has always been dumbed down. Typically there is far too much emphasis placed on adding more action which often introduces all sort of plot holes that didn't exist in the original. I'm not talking about shortening the story to make it work in a short movie but more about completely changing parts of the story and making entirely new parts that don't fit with the rest of it. For example, I'm a big fan of Tom Clancy and the only one of his books that I think was made in to a good movie was Hunt for Red October. Wasn't impressed with the others since they took far too many liberties with the story for my liking when I thought the original stories would have made far better movies. I know I've been flamed before for criticising LOTR but I think that's another perfect example of that. I think generally the only way you can possibly make a movie work well for a wider audience while still being faithful to the original is to have the author directly involved like in the Harry Potter movies. That's not feasible in cases like LOTR and Narnia where the author's no longer alive so you'll always get fans of the original who aren't happy with it. With x-men that's even less of a possibility since AFAIK there's no one author in charge of that franchise.
With comics I think it's different from novels though. With comics it's a lot more common to have storyline, characters etc. that are more far fetched than what a novel can get away with. You can see that by contrasting some of the starwars eu novels with the comics. I'm no x'men expert but the x-men comics I've read don't really seem to have the consistency that a series of novels would demand. You get the spinoff series, the crossover series, etc. Some of the ones I've read contradict other ones that I've read. Add the cartoon to that and I think it becomes far less important for the movie to remain consistent since the original source material itself isn't that consistent.
I think some of the complaints about the movie posted above are valid, but I feel that it's not a terribly bad thing that the movie doesn't follow some kind of x-men 'canon'. For the record, my one big complaint was that none of the movies included Gambit who I was really looking forward to seeing on the big screen. Beast rocked though. Psylock would have been good too if they could have found an actress with an impossibly sleek body like that. 
-----signature-----
Steve
Yousa point is well seen!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Saintheart
Title: Manager and Wandering Swordsman of the RPF
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
6/6/06 2:49am
Subject:
RE: X-Men 3 Meet - Who's In?
|
|
Actually, I was watching the credits for X3 (waiting for the big postcredit scene) when I noticed someone was playing Psylocke. I think it was the 'new Mystique' chick with the tattoo who could sense other mutants' powers and phase-shift, but I could be wrong...
-----signature-----
Michelle: my Italian queen, my angel, my reason, my wife.
Jessica: my little princess, my daughter, born 10 August 2007
Director -- Star Wars: Knighthood
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
