I'm kinda glad Singer didn't come back to X-Men

[Caretaker]

I always thought that The Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix and The Further Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix would adapt well - in both cases, you don't need any of the original actors. The only problem, in terms of movie continuity, is explaining En Sabah Nur, Nathan Essex and somehow re-working the background of Nathan Summers. Oh, yeah, and resurrecting two dead characters.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I could not disagree more. I seem to be the only person on the Internet that still thinks "X2: X-Men United" is still the best superhero/comic book movie. And yes, I've seen "The Dark Knight", "Iron Man", and "Spider-Man II" - all the comic book/superhero movies since that everyone always ranks higher. While I liked all of them, in my mind nothing tops X2. It's one of the few movies I've been really excited about that I thought really delivered in spades.

I was furious at Singer for leaving the X-Men franchise for Superman and even more furious after I saw "X-Men: The Last Stand" and "Superman Returns". The second X-Men movie built on and improved upon "X-Men" in every way possible, and I'm sure his sequel would have done the same. I believe he had the chops to make the epic Phoenix story he alluded to at the end of "X2".

Instead, we got a mediocre third X-Men movie and a mediocre new Superman movie when we should have got a great X-Men movie to round out the trilogy with a bang and either no Superman movie, or a Superman movie crafted by someone else. As someone else once said on another forum I used to read, as perfect as Singer and his screenwriters were for "X2", that's how wrong they were for Superman.

Sweet mystery of life at last I've found you!!!!!!

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Is that...a compliment?

 

[Praetor]

^I think so.

 

[Trent Roman]

I wonder if that's why they never made F4 3...because the F4 films "embraced the cape" too much...

I think the first film did a good job embracing a more 'realistic' universe; obviously, the FF have to get their powers while out in space, but beyond that it was a pretty grounded film. Giant planet-eating space cloud Galactus might have been too over-the-top, although I thought the Silver Surfer was well realized. Also, I hated the modular plane or whatever it was. Way too kitschy.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I think the first film did a good job embracing a more 'realistic' universe; obviously, the FF have to get their powers while out in space, but beyond that it was a pretty grounded film. Giant planet-eating space cloud Galactus might have been too over-the-top, although I thought the Silver Surfer was well realized. Also, I hated the modular plane or whatever it was. Way too kitschy.

That was the Fantasticar...and why is it more "kitschy" than the Batmobile?

The F4 films were the TRUEST to their comic origins, which makes them my favorites.

I say ABSOLUTELY "embrace the cape". The original Superman films did and did VERY well.

 

[Broccoli]

And again, people these days don't like superhero movies to be really fantastic and "out there", they all want stuff low-key and "down to Earth" like Dark Knight. They're stifling the wonder of these characters and their universe.

Then, judging by your reasoning, Green Lantern is going to tank.

 

[Anwar]

Eh, they'll probably find a way to confine GL to Earth as well...

 

[exodus]

I could not disagree more. I seem to be the only person on the Internet that still thinks "X2: X-Men United" is still the best superhero/comic book movie. And yes, I've seen "The Dark Knight", "Iron Man", and "Spider-Man II" - all the comic book/superhero movies since that everyone always ranks higher. While I liked all of them, in my mind nothing tops X2. It's one of the few movies I've been really excited about that I thought really delivered in spades.

I was furious at Singer for leaving the X-Men franchise for Superman and even more furious after I saw "X-Men: The Last Stand" and "Superman Returns". The second X-Men movie built on and improved upon "X-Men" in every way possible, and I'm sure his sequel would have done the same. I believe he had the chops to make the epic Phoenix story he alluded to at the end of "X2".

Instead, we got a mediocre third X-Men movie and a mediocre new Superman movie when we should have got a great X-Men movie to round out the trilogy with a bang and either no Superman movie, or a Superman movie crafted by someone else. As someone else once said on another forum I used to read, as perfect as Singer and his screenwriters were for "X2", that's how wrong they were for Superman.

Sweet mystery of life at last I've found you!!!!!!

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Is that...a compliment?

Yes, it's the highest praise I can give.

 

[exodus]

And again, people these days don't like superhero movies to be really fantastic and "out there", they all want stuff low-key and "down to Earth" like Dark Knight. They're stifling the wonder of these characters and their universe.

X-Men isn't about being fantastic, it's about the fight for equality.
The X-Men have been talking about down to Earth stuff before any Batman film. The entire Phoenix Saga at it's very core is a love story, not some cosmic mumbo-jumbo.

 

[sidious618]

I've not seen much of Singer's work. I've seen The Usual Suspects (very good), Superman Returns (atrocious) and his House directed episodes (good). To me he seems to be a bit hit and miss so I'd imagine it is possible that his X3 may not have been as good.

 

[exodus]

I've not seen much of Singer's work. I've seen The Usual Suspects (very good), Superman Returns (atrocious) and his House directed episodes (good). To me he seems to be a bit hit and miss so I'd imagine it is possible that his X3 may not have been as good.

Two hits and one miss and the odds are still against him? Reminded me not to play baseball with you.

 

[sidious618]

I've not seen much of Singer's work. I've seen The Usual Suspects (very good), Superman Returns (atrocious) and his House directed episodes (good). To me he seems to be a bit hit and miss so I'd imagine it is possible that his X3 may not have been as good.

Two hits and one miss and the odds are still against him? Reminded me not to play baseball with you.

Well consider it this way. X1 and X2 are regarded as hits and since I mentioned a 2:1 ratio odds are X3 would've been a miss.

I'll get my coat.

 

[Anwar]

And again, people these days don't like superhero movies to be really fantastic and "out there", they all want stuff low-key and "down to Earth" like Dark Knight. They're stifling the wonder of these characters and their universe.

X-Men isn't about being fantastic, it's about the fight for equality.
The X-Men have been talking about down to Earth stuff before any Batman film. The entire Phoenix Saga at it's very core is a love story, not some cosmic mumbo-jumbo.

So you think that comic characters, when translated to movies, should also abandon all wonder and sense of fantastic in exchange for being more Earth-confined and thus "better"? I mean seriously that sort of abandoning the wonder is what made Superman Returns not enjoyable for me. It's the same reason Venom wouldn't work for a Spider-Man film no matter what they did: Audiences would be turned off by the "It's from Outer Space" element.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I still would have wanted to see Singer's X3...I think we got hints of what direction he and his writers were going in The Last Stand like with Jean Grey "Evolving" into the Phoenix. At the end of X2 there is a whole narration about evolution making leaps and bounds and the Phoenix is shown against the lake water. I would have liked to seen something along the lines of ULtimate X-Men's Phoenix take where the Hellfire Club believe that the Phoenix is a Goddess and attempt to take possession of her in order to use her to take over the world. Jean starts to go crazy under Mastermind's manipulation and freaks out becoming Dark Phoenix but there would be no killing of Scott which I hated in X3. The handling of Scott Summers in all three movies was one of the few major things that I hated about the trilogy. The other was making Wolverine the centre piece of the films. Granted he's an important character, he also happens to be Marvel's most popular and overused character (IMO) so it's natural that the filmmakers would want to structure the movies around him. I would have also been interested in seeing what Matthew Vaughan would have done with X3.

 

[Broccoli]

Eh, they'll probably find a way to confine GL to Earth as well...

I have my doubts about that.

 

[Anwar]

Face it, the common moviegoer will always feel uneasy/silly watching a fantastic superhero who does world-spanning incredible stuff, they prefer their superheroes to all be restrained crime-drama types with no wonder to them at all.

 

[Admiral_Young]

My friend has trouble understanding superpowers in a so called reality based universe...no matter how many times I make the attempt to explain how various heroes powers work. It's massively difficult to explain how Superman's powers work...lol.

 

[Anwar]

That's exactly what I mean, people actually are calling for a Superman movie in the same style as "Dark Knight". As in, they want a man who can fly in a realism-grounded crime drama with little to no superheroics whatsoever.

 

[EnsignRicky]

I'm not glad. It probably would have kept him away from Superman.

 

[Fish1941]

I really liked SR...... but I have to agree I probably would have preferred a Singer X3 instead.

You don't even know how good X-MEN 3 could have been if Singer had directed it. His X-MEN was barely above mediocrity, in my opinion. And his SUPERMAN RETURNS was mediocre. X-MEN 2 is the only comic book movie he has ever directed that stood out for me.