NiteShdw Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 * Official Discussion thread for the new X-Men film * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzyg Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 i watched it last night, i loved it so much i almost pee'd in my pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I'm waiting on more reviews before trying to see it. An interview with Halle Berry mentioned a lot of great action scenes. Of course, seeing her in a scene is good news any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I've mixed feelings about it... First off - too short. It was what, 90 minutes? I would have raised an eyebrow if Brian Singer had tried it but a hack like Ratner could never hope to pull epic out of the hat in that amount of time. As I said before... it felt kind of directionless... It was if, it wasn't really sure where it was going. Certainly for the first half... then it was just, buildup to the fight. They took the focus away from Logan... but then, didn't really replace it with anyone else and while that SOUNDS good, I think that's why it felt directionless. I feel like I need to see it again to properly hone my criticism but... I'm not sure I want to fork out the cash. I might just wait until it's (no doubt imminent) DVD release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x5315 Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I liked it, although i would have preferred it if somethings hadn't happened like that. Like i didn't want Jean Grey to die, but oh well. To say in England it was called The Last Stand, they kinda left the ending with something to go. Anyway overall, it was a good movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 It was OK if you don't over analyze it. Felt like a remake of X2 with the fluid extract of a mutant being a main plot point and a war between humans and mutants. If you know the history of the project you can better appreciate it. If you think it felt rushed, it was. The release date was chosen before a script was even commisioned and the whole thing had to be written, re-written, shot, edited and finished in time to make that release date in order to beat Singer's Superman to theaters. With all the mistakes FOX made along the way (starting with not signing Singer) it's a miracle the movie is as good as it is. Kudos go to the team that rewrote the script because it's a vast improvement over the original (thank God they jettisoned the Wolverine/Storm sex bunny subplot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 From what I've read, there aren't supposed to be any more sequels so it was The Last Stand. However, you know if there is money to be made, someone will make them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 Oh, come on. I bet the Wachoski Brothers said that before The Matrix became a massive hit and then it was magically "always going to be a trilogy". There's an easy way to tell when someone from Hollywood is lying - their mouth's open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted June 14, 2006 Share Posted June 14, 2006 I liked it, although i would have preferred it if somethings hadn't happened like that. Like i didn't want Jean Grey to die, but oh well. To say in England it was called The Last Stand, they kinda left the ending with something to go. Anyway overall, it was a good movie. If it helps at all, Jean Grey also dies in the comics because of Phoenix as well, but she gets resurrected. A lot of Marvel characters have a real problem with staying dead. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I just hate it when movie makers ignore source material... (Arch)Angel was Cyclops' brother and Juggernaut (F**king ANUS Vinnie Jones) is Xavier's half brother. STICK TO THE STORYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! End of rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 NO, Cyclops(Scott Summers) brother Havok(Alex Summers) didn't have wings. He possessed the power to absorb ambient cosmic energy, process it and emanate it from his body as waves of plasma in the form of a blast or discharge, with a tell-tale concentric circle pattern. See wiki on Havok You are correct that Juggernaut is Prof. X's half brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mrthumps Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I personally think the movies tended to follow the ultimate Xmen canon more than the uncanny xmen comics we all grew up with. that being said, at times Xmen3 felt like a big budget fanfiction as you could clearly see the writing removing main characters just to suit the purpose of their story. memo to Carnifex - Archangel does not appear until quite later in the series and that's only after he loses his original wings. It's when he is made into a horseman and given the metal wings that he takes the name Archangel. But you are right about juggernaut and don't get me started on how badly they messed up that character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 NO, Cyclops(Scott Summers) brother Havok(Alex Summers) didn't have wings. He possessed the power to absorb ambient cosmic energy, process it and emanate it from his body as waves of plasma in the form of a blast or discharge, with a tell-tale concentric circle pattern. See wiki on Havok You are correct that Juggernaut is Prof. X's half brother. Big, big OOPS.... Now that you say it, I KNOW I'm wrong. (Scratches head... how the hell did I get that mixed up, hrumph!) @Mrthumps yep, that's why I put parenthisis around the "Arch" part :) I don't read X-men, but I understand that Archangel has his feathery wings back?!?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Juggernaut isn't even supposed to be a mutant. He gets his power from some artifact. There's a lot of crap like that in this movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Juggernaut is a mutant in the Ultimate universe. Archangel does get his regular wings back, I think... A friend of mine has basically explained why this film was lame. The guy in charge hates comic book movies (some Fox exec). Anyway, Singer fussed and then basically gave up on it and went to do Superman Returns. Ratner was just the yes-man they put in to direct because he'd do what he was told. Cyclops was killed because the actor was involved in the Superman movie... Yeah, sucktalur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mrthumps Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Juggernaut isn't even supposed to be a mutant. He gets his power from some artifact. There's a lot of crap like that in this movie. Yep, he finds the ruby/crystal of Cyttorak during his time in the army in Asia. The crystal read: "Whosoever touches this gem shall possess the power of the Crimson Bands of Cyttorak. Henceforth, you who read these words shall become forevermore a human juggernaut." Archangel does get his regular wings back' date=' I think... [/quote'] yes, in a pure comic book scenerio the metal wings he had molted and when finished revieled his original wings underneth and no worries Carnifex, I just happened to have read alot of xmen comics in my day and recently found myself getting addicted to the ultimate xmen(along with ultimate spiderman and the ultimates themselves). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amnot Borg Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Yes, The Ultimate Universe is basically the Marvel version of that DC universe CRISIS thing where they could update the characters. Screwed things up for longtime fans but made it easier for newbie readers to get into the stories. The movies are still another version of the characters. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eonfreon Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I didn't mind too much that they had to change so much. I did mind that it SUCKED SO BAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druj Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Juggernaut is a mutant in the Ultimate universe. Archangel does get his regular wings back, I think... A friend of mine has basically explained why this film was lame. The guy in charge hates comic book movies (some Fox exec). Anyway, Singer fussed and then basically gave up on it and went to do Superman Returns. Ratner was just the yes-man they put in to direct because he'd do what he was told. Cyclops was killed because the actor was involved in the Superman movie... Yeah, sucktalur. The Ultimate Universe sucks. They re-did the story and had a chance to ditch Cyclops but didn't? What's up with that? The fact that Cyclops got killed in X3 was the only worthwhile thing in that movie, besides Beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Data Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I really dont like Xmen but i havent even seen a film finish :P so that maybe the problem.-.. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now