• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (Casting, Rumors, Pics till release)

I'm thinking that Charles will lose his hair in the same incident that cripples him but that is entirely a guess on my part. I wonder if they chose to give him hair because James McAvoy didn't want to or couldn't (maybe due to contractual reasons for another film) shave his head?? Pure speculation of course.
 
DarthPipes said:
What I can't overlook is the lack of Cyclops. Cyclops IS the X-Men...more than Professor X or Wolverine. The lack of respect towards his character in the films has been greatly disappointing.
Click to expand...

Hasn't it been made clear enough by this point that we're talking about the first film in a trilogy telling the origins of the X-Men, one that takes place before that "first class" would actually come together? I'm sure Cyclops will be around in the latter two films, but this specific film, set in the '60s, is simply too early for it. I mean, if this is meant to be in anything like the continuity of the earlier films, Cyke wouldn't have been born yet. (Although that does make it strange that Alex Summers appears played by a 20-year-old actor.)
 
Maybe they'll change it so that Havoc is his dad, or Scott's brother Alex Summers is really "Alex Summer Jr".
 
Christopher said:
I thought it was self-evident why it was heavy-handed. "Hey, here are two mutant characters that I've implicitly treated in my previous films as allegories for MLK Jr. and Malcolm X. So I'll actually include MLK Jr. and Malcolm X in this film about their formative years, just in case the audience hasn't gotten it by now." It's a heavy-handed approach to allegory if you come right out and show the thing being symbolized right alongside the thing symbolizing it.
Click to expand...

The film is set in the 60's. To simply leave out things like MLK Jr. and Malcolm X would be inconsistent with the time period. That's why we're going to see such influential individuals like President John F. Kennedy. Just because we see them doesn't mean they're going to play any pivotal or even instrumental role in the story, but as the article explicitly pointed out, will be background figures.
 
JacksonArcher said:
The film is set in the 60's. To simply leave out things like MLK Jr. and Malcolm X would be inconsistent with the time period.
Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of films that were set (and made) in the '60s that didn't have those two particular people referenced in them.

True, given that civil rights would be a concern for the mutant characters, you'd have a point there. However, Singer didn't have to set the film in the '60s, did he? I mean, The Last Stand showed Xavier taking on Jean as a student 20 years before the time frame of the movie, which given its "not-too-distant future" setting, would suggest 1990 or so. And he and Magneto hadn't had their falling out at that point. If anything, the '60s seems too early a time frame for the film if it's meant to be in the same continuity as the others. It feels like Singer's being revisionist and deliberately choosing that time frame both because it's when the comic debuted and because of its civil-rights resonances.
 
Christopher said:
I've seen plenty of films that were set (and made) in the '60s that didn't have those two particular people referenced in them.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with at least referencing those pivotal and influential figures in the film.

True, given that civil rights would be a concern for the mutant characters, you'd have a point there. However, Singer didn't have to set the film in the '60s, did he? I mean, The Last Stand showed Xavier taking on Jean as a student 20 years before the time frame of the movie, which given its "not-too-distant future" setting, would suggest 1990 or so.
Click to expand...

We can't be specific. "Suggesting" 1990 is exactly that, and judging by the cars and clothing both Xavier and Erik wear in that scene, it would suggest 1970's or 1980's to me. However, I've been told Vaughn and Singer are flat-out ignoring elements of X-Men: The Last Stand. For example, Xavier gets crippled in this film so of course it contradicts with the events in X3, where he's shown to be standing. I'm sure some will have problems with that, but I couldn't care less.

If anything, the '60s seems too early a time frame for the film if it's meant to be in the same continuity as the others. It feels like Singer's being revisionist and deliberately choosing that time frame both because it's when the comic debuted and because of its civil-rights resonances.
Click to expand...

I think if anything it'll have similar continuity with the first two films directed by Singer. I think Singer and Vaughn are telling the story they want to tell -- and I think they are right to pick and choose what elements they wish in order to successfully tell that story, whatever it may be. I think some fans are beholden to certain things like exact continuity but I think those are trivial instances and in the bigger, grander scheme of things so long as the film is good I couldn't care less about the exact nature of continuity and whether it is identical to what we've seen before.

Yes, I'm sure the retort will be, "Why not reboot if you're not going to pay attention to detail?", and I think Singer is a very deliberate filmmaker and will pay attention to detail to an extent, but also give room to be able to tell the story he wants. Also, I have no problem with disregarding the events of the last two X-Men films anyway. They sucked.
 
Look, I have no problem with the idea of them rebooting it. In fact, that's what I'd prefer to see, since it would be freer from continuity constraints. I'm just trying to elaborate on the point I made before, the point that I was specifically asked to clarify, which is that Singer's choice to go for a '60s setting and include Dr. King and Malcolm X feels to me like he's taking his allegorical approach to the characters of Xavier and Magneto and spelling it out just a bit too baldly. Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong, but that's how it feels to me, and I've explained why I get that feeling. That's all I'm trying to say.
 
What I've seen come out about the movie in the last several days, I have something to say: Mark my words. Today. August 22nd, 2010.

X-Men: First Class will be quite the success financially because of its name recognition but as an enjoyable movie its going to be a DOA piece of trash. Like Iron-Man 2. It was succesful financially but all the movie fans would rather have that movie memory out of their minds right after getting out of the theater.

If recent memory for the last two years are an indication, most audiences hate period pieces. Unless its as stylized sword'n'sandals epic like 300, audiences literally ignore or stay afar from period pieces. Take Public Enemies for instance. It had Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in it yet it failed. And who can forget the abyssmal failure that is Watchmen? Don't get me wrong, Watchmen was quite a beautiful movie, but then I was born in 1980. Another 'period piece' failure was of course, Wolverine. It was a bad movie though so that could be blamed as well.

Most audiences with interest for sci-fi extravaganzas however, are 20 year olds or less. Which means they were born in 1990 or afterwards. They would never understand any form of classical referrences whatsoever. Plus with time-bending casting like having Havok and Emma Frost in it but not Cyclops or Jean Grey, it is already going to put off a lot of X-comics loyalists (such as me). Taking into account also that Alice Eve who is literally an up-and-coming actress has bailed from such a guaranteed moneymaker of a movie should give anyone pause. Whether its money or script, either way its a bad sign. Just because it has Kevin Bacon or whoever they got for Magneto doesn't qualify that it is actually a good script.

'Early buzz' also means squat. This movie has an early buzz going on but so did Watchmen and the recently released Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim. Both fell flat on their faces. The writer of the Watchmen script literally begged audiences to go see it for the second week, and Universal came out with "we rather wish more people went to see it" for Scott Pilgrim. Kick-Ass failed to kick ass at the box office as well.

By the looks of it, X-Men: First Class seems like a movie that will have more expository boring 'talks' and less 'action'. Similar to another superhero movie Brian Singer tackled: Superman Returns. It also has a significantly huge buzz just like Matthew Vaughn's kick-Ass. If this movie comes out to be anything like those two movies, we have a bonafide flop for next year.

Mark my words.
 
^ I'm not quite sure how you can proceed to make that judgment when we've seen zero footage from the film yet and have just learned the plot details.
 
Admiral_Young said:
^ I'm not quite sure how you can proceed to make that judgment when we've seen zero footage from the film yet and have just learned the plot details.
Click to expand...
Call it a 'feeling'. The same feeling I had about Watchmen and the same for Predators even before a single footage was shot.
 
One of my favorite films from last year as well. Again I don't think it's going to be the period piece that puts off a general audience but the lack of actual recognizable X-Men characters. I think that most fans once they come to accept what this film or films actually is will and see footage they'll come around.
 
Admiral_Young said:
One of my favorite films from last year as well. Again I don't think it's going to be the period piece that puts off a general audience but the lack of actual recognizable X-Men characters. I think that most fans once they come to accept what this film or films actually is will and see footage they'll come around.
Click to expand...
I hope they do, don't get me wrong. I'd love a good X-men film, Cyclops in it or not. But whatever we've gotten out so far, doesn't seem promising.
 
As I've stated many times throughout this thread that I've had my own hesitations and misgivings about the film. I'm intrigued about Singer's treatment and that the core of the film is about Xavier and Erik's friendship and deterioration of that relationship and how it splinters into the creation of the X-Men and Brotherhood. I'm interested in the machinations of the Hellfire Club and how they will figure into this. Aside from the...interesting casting and the choice of characters I'm looking forward to this.
 
StarTrek1701 said:
Admiral_Young said:
^ I'm not quite sure how you can proceed to make that judgment when we've seen zero footage from the film yet and have just learned the plot details.
Click to expand...
Call it a 'feeling'. The same feeling I had about Watchmen and the same for Predators even before a single footage was shot.
Click to expand...

Okay, so how many times have you had that same "feeling" about films that turned out to be good? Internet geeks are always jumping to the conclusion that a film they haven't seen yet is destined to be awful. Perhaps it's kneejerk cynicism, perhaps it's the desire to lower expectations for fear of having their hopes dashed, but every single time they hear the most trivial detail about a movie, their first reflex is to go online and say "This proves the movie's gonna suck!" And then if the movie turns out to be wonderful, they forget they ever said that, whereas if it turns out to be lousy, they cite it as proof of their prophetic powers, conveniently forgetting all the times they were wrong.

If you always call heads, you're going to win the coin toss about half the time anyway. That doesn't mean you can reliably predict the toss.
 
By the looks of it, X-Men: First Class seems like a movie that will have more expository boring 'talks' and less 'action'. Similar to another superhero movie Brian Singer tackled: Superman Returns. It also has a significantly huge buzz just like Matthew Vaughn's kick-Ass. If this movie comes out to be anything like those two movies, we have a bonafide flop for next year.
Click to expand...

Kick-Ass was awesome. Superman Returns was a boring bust.
 
Which points out the problem with Singer: He tends to get associated with films like these for the wrong reasons. He's not a Superman fan, but a Donner fan. That's why his film was more preoccupied with being a love letter to the Donner films instead of being a good Superman story.

Same with X-Men, he doesn't really care about any of the characters except for Magneto and Xavier, maybe Wolverine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top