RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,267
Posts: 5,349,681
Members: 24,609
Currently online: 617
Newest member: robyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 3 2011, 01:33 AM   #16
Sindatur
Rear Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

I don't have any memory of a particular hate for Last Stand, I just don't really remember it all that much. But, yea, there is no reason to try and reconcile FC with Origins, since Origins doesn't exist. I bought it, watched and gave it away. I remember very little of it, so no reason to think it about it existing
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 01:36 AM   #17
shivkala
Rear Admiral
 
shivkala's Avatar
 
Location: Patrolling Sector 2814
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

Lord Vader wrote: View Post
X-Men was released in 2000, but was stated on-screen to be set "in the not-too-distant future." X2 is set shortly after X-Men (not sure exactly how much time has passed, maybe a couple of months?) and Stryker says that it had been fifteen years since he and Logan last met. But XMO:W is set six years after Logan leaves Team X, which he and Victor Creed were recruited into during the Vietnam War. Of course, we don't know exactly how long Logan was part of Team X, but I never got the impression that he was with them for very long. That leads me to believe that XMO:W is set in the late 1970s (though the early 1980s are also possible), which would put X-Men/X2 in the mid-to-late 1990s, rather than sometime after 2000. I'm so confused!
Unless I'm missing something, I thought the climatic battle, which took place at Three Mile Island, was supposed to be what "really happened" March 28, 1979, with the real world story of a partial meltdown used as a cover story.
__________________
"When I reach for the edge of the universe, I do it knowing that along some paths of cosmic discovery, there are times when, at least for now, one must be content to love the questions themselves." --Neil deGrasse Tyson
shivkala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 01:41 AM   #18
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

Voice of God wrote: View Post
I think it's pretty good, but it's outclassed by X2. One of the rare instances where a sequel is better than the original. Doesn't mean X-Men is a bad film at all, though. It set up X2 very nicely.

That's how it's supposed to be.
Sequels should up the ante.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 01:47 AM   #19
Skywalker
Admiral
 
Skywalker's Avatar
 
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

shivkala wrote: View Post
Lord Vader wrote: View Post
X-Men was released in 2000, but was stated on-screen to be set "in the not-too-distant future." X2 is set shortly after X-Men (not sure exactly how much time has passed, maybe a couple of months?) and Stryker says that it had been fifteen years since he and Logan last met. But XMO:W is set six years after Logan leaves Team X, which he and Victor Creed were recruited into during the Vietnam War. Of course, we don't know exactly how long Logan was part of Team X, but I never got the impression that he was with them for very long. That leads me to believe that XMO:W is set in the late 1970s (though the early 1980s are also possible), which would put X-Men/X2 in the mid-to-late 1990s, rather than sometime after 2000. I'm so confused!
Unless I'm missing something, I thought the climatic battle, which took place at Three Mile Island, was supposed to be what "really happened" March 28, 1979, with the real world story of a partial meltdown used as a cover story.
Ahh, good catch. If that's the case, then that would put X2 in 1994ish. Which just muddles things up even more.
Skywalker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 01:49 AM   #20
shivkala
Rear Admiral
 
shivkala's Avatar
 
Location: Patrolling Sector 2814
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

^
Agreed, I had a difficult time reconciling that. I was born in 1979 and I always felt that Cyclops in X-Men and X2 was meant to be no more than 10 years older than I am. That would should put him in his mid-20's for those movies (maybe late 20's, depending on how far into the not so distant future X-Men was supposed to take place). Origins would have him in his late 30's, at the very least.

In Origins he's a high schooler, so he's between 14 and 18. Plus 21 years to get to 2000 would put him between 35 and 39. James Marsden is 6 years older than I am, which put him at 27 when X-Men came out. I don't think Cyclops was meant to be 10 years older than the actor who played him, which would make Origins a little off time-wise, unless the climax isn't supposed to be the Three Mile Island meltdown, but a later, less publicized problem.
__________________
"When I reach for the edge of the universe, I do it knowing that along some paths of cosmic discovery, there are times when, at least for now, one must be content to love the questions themselves." --Neil deGrasse Tyson

Last edited by shivkala; November 3 2011 at 02:00 AM.
shivkala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 02:06 AM   #21
Dream
Admiral
 
Dream's Avatar
 
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

I liked it when I first watched it.

But these days it feels too much like a pilot to a live action X-men television series. Superhero movies have come a long way.

X2 feels like an actual movie though.
__________________
=)
Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 04:28 AM   #22
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

Gaith wrote: View Post
Will Christopher not ignore The Last Stand?!
For the purposes of the exercise, I'm trying not to ignore any of the movies. But aside from that, I'm one of the few people who actually kinda liked The Last Stand. It did have its shortfalls, to be sure, but it had other aspects that worked pretty well, and on balance I find it entertaining, though definitely not as good as its predecessors.

Heck, I didn't even mind XMO: Wolverine that much. It wasn't a particularly good movie, and it felt like a summary of a much fuller story, but I found it watchable, and it seemed like it worked reasonably well as a prequel to the X-Men movies, in terms of the continuity being compatible. Although you guys make an excellent point about the timing discrepancy. It did seem to me that Cyke shouldn't have been a teenager that early, but I didn't give the issue the weight I perhaps should have.

Then again, if I can resort to comics precedent to wave away inconsistencies like Xavier's paralysis and the duration of his partnership with Magneto, maybe I can do the same for age discrepancies. After all, the comics' X-Men are only a few years older now than they were in the 1960s.

Or not. I have no problem with treating XMO:W as apocryphal. I was just curious to see if the films could be fit together, because it's an entertaining exercise to try.

(By the way, the more I hear about the new The Wolverine movie they're making, the more it intrigues me. It sounds like it couldn't be more different from XMO:W, and could turn out to be a pretty exceptional superhero film, more a thoughtful character piece than a world-in-peril blockbuster. I just hope the studio doesn't screw it up.)
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 04:55 AM   #23
A beaker full of death
Vice Admiral
 
A beaker full of death's Avatar
 
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

Gaith wrote: View Post
Man, this movie came out a long time ago.
Now I feel old.

Not because the movie came out a long time ago.

But because it didn't.
__________________
"shall not be infringed" is naturally open to infringements of all kinds, because shut up and think of the children.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2ImW0V3GV
A beaker full of death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 06:13 AM   #24
Broccoli
Vice Admiral
 
Broccoli's Avatar
 
Location: Broccoli
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

None of the X-Men movies had a real strong sense of continuity in regards to history or back story of the characters. For example, in the first film, Prof. X implies that Scott and Jean were part of the first recruits, while in the second film, it is implied there was at least one generation of students before the current team (Scott, Storm, Jean) arrived.

There is plenty of wiggle room to retcon something if the story needs it too. In some ways, it would be a lot like the comics.
__________________
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens
Broccoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 06:22 AM   #25
Cicero
Admiral
 
Cicero's Avatar
 
Location: The City of Destiny
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

Christopher wrote: View Post
Gaith wrote: View Post
and doesn't really have any memorable tunes,
I couldn't disagree more. I adore the soulful Rogue-Wolverine theme that's heard during her "death" scene in the torch and again in the end titles. In fact, I love Michael Kamen's score overall, because it's not a typical action-movie score, but sounds like something from a more dramatic, thoughtful kind of film. It gives it class and a distinctive flavor.
That's one of my favorite pieces of music. Every so often, I find myself humming it, wonder what it's from, and finally remember that it is the wonderful piece from X-Men.
__________________
Ad majorem futuri gloriam.
Cicero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 08:15 AM   #26
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

As an X-fan (I mean, seriously, look at the avatar), I recall Roger Ebert's review on Ebert & Roeper. He gave it a lukewarm thumbs down, but I thought it was neat that in the same review, he wanted to see a sequel because he felt X1 spent a lot of time on character but not enough on action. It's not often you see a film critic disapprove of a film but then outright want a sequel.
__________________
“You do not use science in order to prove yourself right, you use science in order to become right.”
Cyke101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 08:26 AM   #27
captcalhoun
Admiral
 
Location: everywhere
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

i think the safest thing to do is simply to put X1-3 in one continuity, Wolverine in another and FC in a third and they just share one actor playing Logan and the origin of Magneto. and 2 share one actor playing Xavier. seemples.
captcalhoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 12:56 PM   #28
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Gallifrey Falls
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

Christopher wrote: View Post
But aside from that, I'm one of the few people who actually kinda liked The Last Stand.
I think more people liked that film than you might think. It's just that the screaming X-Men Tea Party got out in front of it and polluted any discourse related to the film.

Christopher wrote:
I found it watchable, and it seemed like it worked reasonably well as a prequel to the X-Men movies, in terms of the continuity being compatible.
Now that I've seen it, I realize that it fits into the continuity of the first three films better than I had originally thought based on what I had heard. The problem I had was with some of Stryker's dialogue in X2, but then I realized: he's the bad guy. He can lie, if he thinks it'll help him get what he wants.

By comparison, First Class feels like a new continuity.

[ Though I do wonder why Sabretooth's appearance remained more or less constant for over 100 years, only to dramatically change during the comparatively short span of time between X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X1. ]
__________________
"In the future... do I make it?"
"No."

Last edited by Set Harth; November 3 2011 at 01:09 PM.
Set Harth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 01:24 PM   #29
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

I was disappointed in X1 and X3, for different reasons. I'm pretty much not disappointed by X2 at all. Every film in the trilogy has its strong points.

I think that X1 suffered from the same Marvel-adaptation-itus that all the earlier Marvel adaptations suffered from, which involves watering down the comic book universe because of some assumption that that will make the universe more marketable. Despite this, X1 was mostly workable and could be built upon and improved, and indeed X2 totally broke free and allowed most of the even more numerous mutants to exercise the full range of their powers matter-of-factly. X3 seemed to take this even further by increasing the number of mutants again, which was good, but then they went and pissed away Rogue's character in a very unlikable way. Not to mention, apparently outright killing off some favorites wasn't something that I was really excited about.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3 2011, 02:21 PM   #30
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Vice Admiral
 
Flying Spaghetti Monster's Avatar
 
Location: Flying Spaghetti Western
Re: X-Men (2000): still a darned good flick

I also liked 3, me and Ebert's agree on why: it had an actual story that was socially relevant. As for dark Phoenix, the whole suppressed personality fits better in the films' real world continuity than any space alien whatever would. The problem with the film is not the story but that the film feels like an assembly of vignettes rather than a narrative. McKellan was fantastic in the film, with highlights including his "mark" when asked and his comment to Pyro about Xavier. Yes, the film does feel odd, but I liked it
__________________
Can't we have pills and cook the corn?
Flying Spaghetti Monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.