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

[JacksonArcher]

Bryan Singer was very involved with X-Men: First Class.

He initially went to the studio and pitched the very idea for the project. At the time, Josh Stewart was developing the movie as a direct adaptation of the comic-book, but Singer's approach was a direct prequel to his movies. As a matter of fact, his treatment basically provided to be the backbone and foundation for the rest of the story.

It was Singer who suggested Matthew Vaughn to replace him when he had to drop out as director due to a prior commitment. He was still a very active producer throughout the entire production, all the way from pre-production until post. If you watch the behind-the-scenes footage on the DVD, you can see Singer was present on set for much of principal photography. He did interviews for the press on behalf of the film. First Class was very much Singer's baby, and probably a big reason why it was the best X-Men film since X2.

[Captain Craig]

This thread sure caught a strong 3rd wind!!

[Skywalker]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

This thread sure caught a strong 3rd wind!!

Yeah, but most of it's just hot air.

[Captain Craig]

^^^
LOL!! good point

[beamMe]

Skywalker wrote:

---

Yeah, but most of it's just hot air.

And a little smelly, tbh.

[Pauln6]

Ian Keldon;6147412[/QUOTE 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.

The X-men as a viable movie franchise was unknown and Singer's approach was genius. People, and especially women, loved the understated super heroics, and the minimalist special effects and quite frankly, so did I! I loathe the Hollywood obsession with bigger and louder explosions and excessive CGI effects. It almost inevitably leads to a loss of characterisation and plot.

The Dark Knight is a hugely enjoyable movie but that is in spite of the massive explosions. Two-Face's character would have been just as compelling if they had stuck to the minimalist guns of the first movie and just slapped on some scar make-up.

I do agree that the fight scenes in the first two X-men movie were too ponderous with far too much focus on Wolverine and credit where it is due, the group dynamic at the end of X3 worked for me. FC did quite well in this regad too.

However, dark, moody, character-driven, and minimal special effects is how I would prefer my hero movies. I'm nervous that the clips from the Avengers look too fast-cut and CGI laden. If too much of the movie is like that, it won't be good.

[Ethros]

I'd just like to see an actual X-Men movie. You know, about the X-Men


Not that I dislike the others as I don't, but you hardly see them working as a team. In X2 half of them are captured and don't do anything (Prof X, Cyclops etc) Iceman and Rogue just stay back to guard the jet, heavy emphasis on Wolverine, etc

X3 half the cast die, I guess they work as a team at the end, but Colossus has literally three words to say in the entire movie ("she took off") and Kitty Pryde, Iceman etc are given so little to do its hard to care.

In FC they're just starting out, not even the "X-Men" yet, so X1 is probably the cloest I feel to an X-Men movie.


So that's what I wanna see, don't seperate them all throughout the majority of it

[Captain Craig]

^^^
I do feel that sentiment.
I mean the trailer for The Avengers already showed us the "circling up" scene where they will fight together as a single unit. The X-Men need that as well.
Can't recall, did Fantastic Four(either film) have a group combat scene?

[Pauln6]

I do agree that it was fun to see them working as a team and I do agree that the most frustrating thing about X2 was that we didn't get to see the team together at the end.

However, I think the problem is that the X-men movies were very much Wolverine and the X-men. The X-characters had to be established and the general obsession with Wolvie is unavoidably going to bump the others off the screen.

I'm really keen to see them finish the story off properly with 2 more movies detailing the Fall of the Mutants and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, leading into a Cable spin-off and possibly an Age of Apolalypse spin-off.

I enjoyed First Class but it feels like a soft re-boot. There is a lot more gold to mine in the original franchise's chronology.

[captcalhoun]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

^^^
I do feel that sentiment.
I mean the trailer for The Avengers already showed us the "circling up" scene where they will fight together as a single unit. The X-Men need that as well.
Can't recall, did Fantastic Four(either film) have a group combat scene?

yes, when they use Science to defeat Doom, when Sue encase him in a forcefield, Ben knocks over a fire hydrant, Reed channels the water and Johnny goes 'nova' on him. it's not much, but hey...

[nvek86]

And in the second film they learn that working together means giving the most immature guy all of their powers and letting him do everything.

[Ian Keldon]

Pauln6 wrote:

---

However, dark, moody, character-driven, and minimal special effects is how I would prefer my hero movies. I'm nervous that the clips from the Avengers look too fast-cut and CGI laden. If too much of the movie is like that, it won't be good.

Might want to consider another franchise then...we are talking about the Avengers here...you know? Earth's Mightiest Heroes?

A genius billionaire philanthropist playboy, a demigod, a Living Legend, and 2-3 members of the world's premiere super-spy agency simply do not add up to "dark, moody, and minimal"...

[Ian Keldon]

nm...got beat to it.

[Pauln6]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Might want to consider another franchise then...we are talking about the Avengers here...you know? Earth's Mightiest Heroes?

A genius billionaire philanthropist playboy, a demigod, a Living Legend, and 2-3 members of the world's premiere super-spy agency simply do not add up to "dark, moody, and minimal"...

Lol - the X-men is at its best when it's at its darkest. As for the other franchises, I wouldn't want every hero franchise to be dark and moody. I think each one has to be judged on its merits. Wolverine was dreadful when they sanitised it and dumbed it down. The Hulk movies were enjoyable for what I view as a fairly limited premise. I liked Daredevil mostly but Elektra was dumbed down in the same way as Wolverine.

Spiderman 1 & 2 were note perfect while in Spiderman 3 they forced a Venom showdown into a movie where he should have been the teaser at the end. With Peter & Mary Jane split up Spiderman 4 would have written itself with room for Gwen Stacey and the Black Cat to come on the scene too.

Iron Man 1 was probably the most perfect of the adptations so far. I've no idea how well it reflected the comics but it was a hoot. IM2 was pretty good too.

I've never been a fan of the Avengers although I am a fan of Captain America. I thought they did a great job with Thor and Cap - they may not be everybody's cup of tea but they did a good job with the material the characters produce.

Avengers is more of an unknown quantity. They should not be trying to make a movie for comic fans, they should be making a movie for the wider audience that is also enjoyable for comic fans. I think they might have bitten off more than they can chew... but their track record has been reasonable so far.

However, after the success of shows like Alias and 24, I could see a TV show featuring the low-powered Avengers (i.e. minimal special effects) working really well. Cap, Falcon, Widow, Hawkeye, Mockingbird, Nomad/Winter Soldier, Diamondback, even good old Demolition Man could form a decent SHIELD Mission Impossible team for TV...

I do think Cap's army helmet looked way better than his dodgy cowl though.

[The Borgified Corpse]

Pauln6 wrote:

---

I liked Daredevil mostly but Elektra was dumbed down in the same way as Wolverine.

I don't know that "dumbed down" is the right word. There was certainly something that Daredevil had but Elektra didn't but I can't quite describe it.

It also didn't help that Daredevil was a relatively realistic movie (for being a movie about a blind vigilante ninja who fights a deranged Irish marksman & fucks a ninja). Then Elektra suddenly added in all of these overtly fantastical elements, from the Kimaguri that resurrected her to the guy with the magic animal tatoos. It's a jarring change in tone, kinda like going from Pitch Black to The Chronicles of Riddick.

Pauln6 wrote:

---

I do think Cap's army helmet looked way better than his dodgy cowl though.

Agreed. But then, I find myself in a constantly evolving relationship as far as my opinions on Captain America's movie costumes. Right now, I think the one for The Avengers looks a bit too silly and lacks the grit & texture of his previous costume. But I suspect once I actually get to see it in the movie, I'll like it.