X-MEN: FIRST CLASS - Grading+Discussion **SPOILERS!**

[Gaith]

beamMe wrote:

---

We have seen what happens when Singer isn't involved with the X-Men films: The Last Stand and Wolverine.

QFMutha-frippin'T.

[Ian Keldon]

beamMe wrote:

---

First Class feels so much more in synch with the Singer-films and his style that, I at least, had the feeling he directed it.

I don't see how you can make that statement. The Singer X-films are ponderous, allegory-ridden angst fests where the characters spend as much if not more time navel-gazing about the Mutant Question as they do engaging in feats of super daring-do.

The fight staging is slow and blocky and oh-so stagey. "Ok, first two mutants up! Mutant 1 do your power. Mutant 2 do your power. Cut. Ok, next two mutants up..."

And they hideously underpowers 99% of his characters. Magneto didn't even get to BE Magneto in any meaningful way until III.

This was part of his "keep it 'real'" philosophy, whether it was self-developed by Singer or imposed by the suits in the front office. The first three films acted as if they were either ashamed or frightened about their genre.

It wasn't until FC came out that the franchise finally "embraced the spandex" and became a proper super-hero franchise entry.

First 3 vs First Class is the creative difference between night and day.

[Admiral_Young]

^ Your statement is amusing since as has been pointed out several times now, Singer had a very deep involvement with "X-Men: First Class" whether you want to accept this or not, it is a fact. Again without his pitch we would not have had the film we got. Prior to Bryan's pitch which got the project rolling again, Fox was planning on doing an adaptation of Jeff Parker's excellent First Class comic (which a lot of fans thought we were actually getting at first for the longest time. I'm not sure why it is so hard to accept that Singer had a great deal to do with First Class. Matthew Vaughn essentially executed Singer's vision while bringing Vaughn's own unique story telling abilities as director and co-writer. They were working very much in conjunction with each other.

[beamMe]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

The first three films acted as if they were either ashamed or frightened about their genre.

Despite all your bitching and complaining about the allegory in the Singer films, you really didn't get it, did you?

Besides, we had that same theme in First Class again.

[Gaith]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

This was part of his "keep it 'real'" philosophy

And that's a bad thing? Raiders, for instance, feels far more 'real' than KOTCS; same thing goes for The Terminator and Terminator Salvation. X1 also feels far more 'real' than X3, and, surprise, surprise, is a vastly better movie.

But even if you don't consider that a virtue in its own right, remember that X1 was at the very start of the ongoing superhero movie boom, and as such, paved the way for more out-there movies... FC included.

[Ian Keldon]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

^ Your statement is amusing since as has been pointed out several times now, Singer had a very deep involvement with "X-Men: First Class" whether you want to accept this or not, it is a fact. Again without his pitch we would not have had the film we got.

I don't care who "pitched" what. What came out on the screen did NOT look or feel like the first 3 films. THAT is the only important fact.

The people who actually MADE the film (not who "pitched" it, or who was the bean-counter who "produced" it, but who actually put sets, costumes and actors on film and assembled the final story) had a very different vision than Singer's bloated, self-important allegorical pieces.

I'm not sure why it is so hard to accept that Singer had a great deal to do with First Class.

Because he DIDN'T have anything meaningful to do with the actual production of the film, as evidenced by it's radical departure in tone and style from I-III.

Matthew Vaughn essentially executed Singer's vision while bringing Vaughn's own unique story telling abilities as director and co-writer. They were working very much in conjunction with each other.

See above.

beamMe wrote:

---

Despite all your bitching and complaining about the allegory in the Singer films, you really didn't get it, did you?

Oh I got it...there was no way NOT to "get it", given how Singer kept hammering the viewer upside the head with it in endlessly dull "mutant angst" scenes where the characters all sit around bemoaning how horrible their lot is.

Not a one of them ever stopped and said "Look at this...I can [insert what they could do]...COOL!"

Besides, we had that same theme in First Class again.

But it was handled in an entirely different, not annoying way.

Gaith wrote:

---

And that's a bad thing?

Yes.

X1 also feels far more 'real' than X3, and, surprise, surprise, is a vastly better movie.

To the extent that it is a better film, X1's "realism" nonsense is NOT the reason it is better. X3 needed another round of story polish, and a better conclusion to the whole "Dark Phoenix" arc.

Where X3 stood out was that it was the first time the X-films even attempted to show the characters at something approaching their proper power levels.

But even if you don't consider that a virtue in its own right, remember that X1 was at the very start of the ongoing superhero movie boom, and as such, paved the way for more out-there movies... FC included.

That is a fair point.

[beamMe]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Because he DIDN'T have anything meaningful to do with the actual production of the film, as evidenced by it's radical departure in tone and style from I-III.

I don't know which movies you've seen, but the First Class that I've seen returns to the tone and style of the first two films. The Last Stand is the one that stands outs as different.

[Gaith]

beamMe wrote:

---

I don't know which movies you've seen, but the First Class that I've seen returns to the tone and style of the first two films. The Last Stand is the one that stands outs as different.

This.


We should also remember that X1's budget was fairly modest, and CGI resources less advanced than those of today, both factors pushing for a more restrained style than X3's.

[Ian Keldon]

beamMe wrote:

---

I don't know which movies you've seen, but the First Class that I've seen returns to the tone and style of the first two films. The Last Stand is the one that stands outs as different.

FC's fight scenes are dynamic, integrated and fast paced. I-III's fight scenes are stagey, ponderously edited and underpowered.

FCs plot moves right along with only a few nods to the "mutant question" subplot that don't bring the story to a screeching halt while the characters sit around navel gazing about how crappy life is because they are mutants, unlike I-III.

FC's characterizations sparkle with wit and humor where appropriate (Charles, et al), and harsh intensity where required (Magneto). This is in contrast to the very subdued cast of I-III.

FCs cinematography is expansive and visually interesting. I and II look cramped and claustrophobic. III tried to open itself up visually, but still relied heavily on relatively tight, static shots most of the time.

[Daneel]

Ian Keldon, it sounds as if you think that the X-Men films shouldn't be about anything more than a bunch of mutants showing off their cool powers. Personally, I'll take the "bloated, self-important allegory" over a glorified special effects reel any day.

[archeryguy1701]

You know, there wasn't really a "mutant question" in this movie because it represents the introduction of the mutant population to the rest of the world. For most of the movie, very few people even knew mutants existed. The end is when they became more well known and were considered a threat. You can rest assured that the things you seem to dislike the most will be a major theme in the next movie, regardless of who's running it.

[Admiral_Young]

Ian Keldon your continued refusal and denial to accept that Bryan Singer did in fact have a huge role in the development of "X-Men: First Class" is just really rather pathetic. I understand not liking Singer, but to completely ignore the man's work and effort is just plain silly. You say that there is nothing meaningful that Singer did? How about the Xavier/Lensherr relationship? This was a critical element in the movie, the film's heart and soul and came directly out of the treatment and story that Singer came up with his self. Anyway this debate is silly. If you're not willing to accept simple facts for whatever reason then it's not worth continuing. Look at the film's credits and you'll see Singer's name there. I'm glad you enjoyed the film, and oh Singer had nothing to do with The Last Stand after he left btw. That was all The Rat and his writers.

[archeryguy1701]

^I'm going to chalk it up as a similar idea as what's expressed in your sig.... you don't like The Last Stand, so you're trying to ignore it existed. Ian doesn't like the first 3 movies and is trying to ignore the fact that anything related to them came into contact with the movie he does like.

[beamMe]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

FC's fight scenes are dynamic, integrated and fast paced. I-III's fight scenes are stagey, ponderously edited and underpowered.

FCs plot moves right along with only a few nods to the "mutant question" subplot that don't bring the story to a screeching halt while the characters sit around navel gazing about how crappy life is because they are mutants, unlike I-III.

FC's characterizations sparkle with wit and humor where appropriate (Charles, et al), and harsh intensity where required (Magneto). This is in contrast to the very subdued cast of I-III.

FCs cinematography is expansive and visually interesting. I and II look cramped and claustrophobic. III tried to open itself up visually, but still relied heavily on relatively tight, static shots most of the time.

Much of the flaws of the first film go to the limited budget.
That you get a feeling of "crampedness" and claustrophobia from the first two films is actually great - you at least understand that aspect of the films: how it is for the mutants to live in a world that hates them.
That you didn't get a larger-scale battle in The Last Stand is the fault of a less than good director who took the fight at Alcatraz (which was supposed to happen in the middle of the movie) and made it the main event but staged it in a three-wall-set.

[beamMe]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Singer had nothing to do with The Last Stand after he left btw. That was all The Rat and his writers.

I'm not going to defend The Last Stand, but it has one fantastic scene (a cramped and claustrophobic one, Ian Keldon) in which everything works from the acting to the music to the visual effects: the scene where Jean "kills" Xavier.