X-Men 4

[T'Baio]

This thread is total awesomeness!

 

[crookeddy]

I'll tell you what I disliked about that fight; it's something that plagues a lot of superhero movies (almost all of them, actually, even X3, to an extent). It's the tendecy to set up an opponent for our hero that's so powerful that he (or she) can't possibly beat them through traditional means, so they have to use some gimmick or mechanical plot device to do it. (...) I would much rather see a fight where the good guy actually just bests the bad guy squarely through higher strength, prowess, etc, then pulling out a Plot Device from his utility belt and zapping the villain with it.(...) There really aren't many occurrences of a decent knockdown drag-out slugfest in the climaxes of superhero movies, and yet that should be what superhero action should be founded on.

I disagree entirely. The superhero has been using those conventional abilities to defeat conventional antagonists throughout the entirety of the film; if a mere exercise of those self-same powers (or tech, in Iron Man's case) is all that's required to defeat the principal villain, then that villain doesn't merit the title in the first place; he or she is merely a glorified version of the same kind of drudges the hero has been beating up so far. There's no drama in the superhero simply finding and beating the snot out of the villain: a good villain should challenge the hero, and that means being resistant to the hero's usual methodology. Also, it does not convey a very interesting message if the hero simply beats his antagonist to death (or into submission); merely that might makes right, and the hero is victorious simply for being stronger than anybody else. Phooey, I say. What the development of unconventional tactics, awareness of surroundings and, yes, even tool use communicates is that there's ultimately nothing more powerful than an agile mind; the hero is victorious because he or she embodies a synergies of strength, intelligence, creativity and willpower. And that, unlike superpowers or armoured suits, is something universal, something we can all relate to some degree or another.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Yup, you got it. By using unconventional methods, the superheroes show ingenuity. It means that they can beat a villain that is in all other ways better then them.

 

[theenglish]

Unlike the other thread, I now find myself in complete agreement with Trent on this one. Even as a little kid reading the books, I always admired the heroes who out thought rather than out fought their opponents. This included the X-Men back in the seventies, as well as characters like Superman and often the Fantastic Four as well.

 

[theenglish]

Bond, they made connections with all five, whereas Craig's bond throws away the previous 20 films

I agree with most of this thread but would like to add a nitpick. Casino Royale does not throw away the previous Bond movies--rather it seems to strongly imply that Bronsan's Bond is dead and that the 007 position Code Named James Bond is open for Craig.

 

[Siwilliams]

Bond, they made connections with all five, whereas Craig's bond throws away the previous 20 films

I agree with most of this thread but would like to add a nitpick. Casino Royale does not throw away the previous Bond movies--rather it seems to strongly imply that Bronsan's Bond is dead and that the 007 position Code Named James Bond is open for Craig.

That is even worse, how about retired?

 

[Siwilliams]

Don't have to repeat it, because I know X3 is superior. I did not say special effects make a good movie

Nearly every example you've given to support why X3 was good were the special EFX fighting scenes backed up by X1 & X2 had too much talk. So yeah, you kinda are.

A battle is not the same as special effects, you can have a battle with out special effects, so yeah, I am not saying X3 was superior because of effects, though it does have better effects

 

[Siwilliams]

This thread is total awesomeness!

totally

 

[theenglish]

Bond, they made connections with all five, whereas Craig's bond throws away the previous 20 films

I agree with most of this thread but would like to add a nitpick. Casino Royale does not throw away the previous Bond movies--rather it seems to strongly imply that Bronsan's Bond is dead and that the 007 position Code Named James Bond is open for Craig.

That is even worse, how about retired?

I guess I'd have to go back and watch the film. Maybe I am just misremembering. Didn't anybody else pick up on this at the beginning of the film?

 

[crookeddy]

I agree with most of this thread but would like to add a nitpick. Casino Royale does not throw away the previous Bond movies--rather it seems to strongly imply that Bronsan's Bond is dead and that the 007 position Code Named James Bond is open for Craig.

That is even worse, how about retired?

I guess I'd have to go back and watch the film. Maybe I am just misremembering. Didn't anybody else pick up on this at the beginning of the film?

This is incorrect. It was stated that this was a reboot to the franchise. Not a hard reboot, but a reboot nonetheless.

 

[Skywalker]

Casino Royale is a reboot, and James Bond is intended to be the same character all the time. But I prefer to imagine it just as you mentioned, theenglish, that "James Bond" is a name and persona adopted by MI6 agents after the previous one was either killed or retired from service. I know there are some things presented in the films that keep that idea from working perfectly, but it's still how I like to think it works.

 

[Mike Farley]

Since Deadpool is first appearing in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, will the title be X-Men Continuations: Deadpool?

It would be X-Men:Origins: Continuations: Deadpool. And it will co-star Wolverine, who will dominate the movie.

 

[roguephoenix]

Repeating it over and over won't make it true.

Sorry my man but you won't find much support here for X3 being a good X-Men film. Special EFX don't mean shit without a story of substance to support it.

I'll throw in my support for X3 (though I already mentioned it upthread). I thought the talk in X3 was good, and the action was a lot better than 1 and 2. I never understood, even before 3 came out, why people loved 2 so much. Aside from the opening Nightcrawler white house scene, there's really just not that much going on...for the whole rest of the movie.

x-men, in comics especially, is more about the drama of the characters rather than action which is what made 2 good. now they took that out completely in x3. x-men is just basically soap opera in a scifi/fantasy setting. the phoenix saga was very dramatic. if they were going to use the story, they should have kept that element in else it would just be flat, like how x3 turned out. when you take out the drama director and put in an action director, that's what you'll get. it wasn't really x-men. it was a flat diet x-men. >_<

 

[nx1701g]

Casino Royale is a reboot, and James Bond is intended to be the same character all the time. But I prefer to imagine it just as you mentioned, theenglish, that "James Bond" is a name and persona adopted by MI6 agents after the previous one was either killed or retired from service. I know there are some things presented in the films that keep that idea from working perfectly, but it's still how I like to think it works.

They wanted to show that in Die Another Day, but the producers wouldn't allow it.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I agree with most of this thread but would like to add a nitpick. Casino Royale does not throw away the previous Bond movies--rather it seems to strongly imply that Bronsan's Bond is dead and that the 007 position Code Named James Bond is open for Craig.

That is even worse, how about retired?

I guess I'd have to go back and watch the film. Maybe I am just misremembering. Didn't anybody else pick up on this at the beginning of the film?

The nearest they've ever gotten to this is the 'This never happened to the other guy' quip in OHMSS or even the 'Don't think you're indispensable' conversation between M & 007 in DAF. But both are just throwaway in-jokes for the audience, nothing too great should be read into them.

Of course, there's nothing in CR to say that it's not a sequel to the other movies, that 'James Bond's isn't merely a code-name and that this Bond isn't a new agent replacing a deceased one. The presence of Judi Dench arguably supports that theory. But I think QOS disproves it. The character played by Michael Kitchen in the Brosnan movies (Tanner, IIRC) turns up, only he's now played by Rory Kinnear. Whatever about 00 agents having a name which is passed on, why would the same apply to M's assistants?

 

[exodus]

I'll throw in my support for X3 (though I already mentioned it upthread). I thought the talk in X3 was good, and the action was a lot better than 1 and 2. I never understood, even before 3 came out, why people loved 2 so much. Aside from the opening Nightcrawler white house scene, there's really just not that much going on...for the whole rest of the movie.

x-men, in comics especially, is more about the drama of the characters rather than action which is what made 2 good. now they took that out completely in x3. x-men is just basically soap opera in a scifi/fantasy setting. the phoenix saga was very dramatic. if they were going to use the story, they should have kept that element in else it would just be flat, like how x3 turned out. when you take out the drama director and put in an action director, that's what you'll get. it wasn't really x-men. it was a flat diet x-men. >_<

Exactly.

X-Men is more about people struggles for civil rights than it is about having powers. Being a "mutant" is just a metaphor for racial & social discrimination.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I agree with others that if this was a sort of psuedo-prequel to the first X-Men, with younger versions of Cyclops, Jean, Storm, and how Professor X first formed the team, I would buy into that. In fact I was developing a Young X-Men concept where we saw Professor Xavier first forming the X-Men, with Magneto, and our first introductions to Cyclops, Jean, Storm, Beast and the rest of the team, and how they come into conflict with Magneto when he realizes he has different goals.

I think that would be interesting. I'm not so keen on "The Continuing Adventures of Mutant High". I think Bobby/Iceman, Rogue, Colossus, Kitty, et al were fine in a sort of sub-plot, secondary role, but can you imagine Shawn Ashmore carrying a movie? I think if they made it an ensemble, it could be feasible. Bring back Ellen Page as Kitty. Let her make the role interesting. Definitely bring back Anna Paquin, and don't marginalize her role like they did progressively with the first three films. Give her something interesting to do. And definitely bring back ignored "extras" Alan Cumming as Nightcrawler and Kelsey Grammer as Beast. Hell, make him head of the school.

I'm not so keen on the idea of Josh Schwartz behind this thing. If anything, get someone decent to direct at the very least.

 

[exodus]

I agree with others that if this was a sort of psuedo-prequel to the first X-Men, with younger versions of Cyclops, Jean, Storm, and how Professor X first formed the team, I would buy into that. In fact I was developing a Young X-Men concept where we saw Professor Xavier first forming the X-Men, with Magneto, and our first introductions to Cyclops, Jean, Storm, Beast and the rest of the team, and how they come into conflict with Magneto when he realizes he has different goals.

I think that would be interesting. I'm not so keen on "The Continuing Adventures of Mutant High". I think Bobby/Iceman, Rogue, Colossus, Kitty, et al were fine in a sort of sub-plot, secondary role, but can you imagine Shawn Ashmore carrying a movie? I think if they made it an ensemble, it could be feasible. Bring back Ellen Page as Kitty. Let her make the role interesting. Definitely bring back Anna Paquin, and don't marginalize her role like they did progressively with the first three films. Give her something interesting to do. And definitely bring back ignored "extras" Alan Cummings as Nightcrawler and Kelsey Grammer as Beast. Hell, make him head of the school.

I'm not so keen on the idea of Josh Schwartz behind this thing. If anything, get someone decent to direct at the very least.

Wow, good point.

While I liked the concept of the film, I never considered the actors. You're right, none of them could carry the film.

I thought Alan Cummings didn't wanna to deal with the make up anymore?

What they should do is, cancel the Magneto film and have him be the new teacher. Kinda like when the helped teach the New Mutants.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Yeah, Alan Cumming did not have a good time filming X2, but I think that was also partially do to his rocky relationship with director Bryan Singer, who likes to change his mind at the last minute, so often Cumming would be hanging there from wires after spending four hours in make-up, ready to shoot, and Singer would halt the production for countless hours reconceptualizing things. I think if Cumming was thrown enough money he would do it.

I think it is unlikely that they would cancel the Magneto solo movie but they wouldn't need to; that film won't even have Ian McKellen, since it will center around his origins as a youth and first meeting Charles Xavier. I think having Ian McKellen coming in as a teacher or heck, even head of the school, could be interesting...too interesting of an idea for them to even think of it, though.

But they would have interesting actors. Ellen Page, if you've seen Hard Candy, is an excellent actor. So is Anna Paquin. I'm not sold on Shawn Ashmore or Daniel Cudmore, who play Iceman and Colossus, respectively. But if they had Ian McKellen, Kelsey Grammer and potentially Alan Cumming that might balance things out a bit.

 

[exodus]

Yeah, Alan Cumming did not have a good time filming X2, but I think that was also partially do to his rocky relationship with director Bryan Singer, who likes to change his mind at the last minute, so often Cumming would be hanging there from wires after spending four hours in make-up, ready to shoot, and Singer would halt the production for countless hours reconceptualizing things. I think if Cumming was thrown enough money he would do it.

I think it is unlikely that they would cancel the Magneto solo movie but they wouldn't need to; that film won't even have Ian McKellen, since it will center around his origins as a youth and first meeting Charles Xavier. I think having Ian McKellen coming in as a teacher or heck, even head of the school, could be interesting...too interesting of an idea for them to even think of it, though.

But they would have interesting actors. Ellen Page, if you've seen Hard Candy, is an excellent actor. So is Anna Paquin. I'm not sold on Shawn Ashmore or Daniel Cudmore, who play Iceman and Colossus, respectively. But if they had Ian McKellen, Kelsey Grammer and potentially Alan Cumming that might balance things out a bit.

That Magneto picture really doesn't sound interesting enough to draw a crowd. It really sounds like a bad idea too me.

But yeah, there going to need some known names to carry the film and pull a crowd. Page & Panquin are known but not big enough stars to be bankable without a bigger name to fill theaters.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Well then again when the first X-Men came out Hugh Jackman was practically an unknown, James Marsden, Famke Jensen and Halle Berry were sort of mildly known (Berry being the most well-known at the time, but this was before her Monster's Ball Oscar win that propelled her to super-stardom). Patrick Stewart was known only to Trek geeks like us and Ian McKellen was pre-Lord of the Rings. They really didn't become "stars" until X-Men was a success and each and every one of the individual cast members had other successes under their belts.

That's not to say the same couldn't happen for the cast of X-Men: First Class, which is maybe what Fox is banking on. Who knows.