• 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)

Christopher said:
But were they really key elements? That's what I'm saying. It had exceptional style, but no exceptional substance.
Click to expand...

We're talking about the movie's main character, whose extraordinary charisma doesn't seem to be in dispute, so I do think that's a pretty key element of the movie. But I also think you're overstating Iron Man's alleged lack of substance. Tony Stark has a very strong character arc in the film, stronger certainly than anything any character undergoes in the X-Men or most other genre movies.

The reckless arms dealer we meet at the beginning of the film is a changed man by the end, not flawless, but trying to take some responsibility for the impact he's had on the world, trying to stand for something besides relentless profiteering. The film doesn't beat us over the head with a message, but there's substance there underneath the banter.

Not that a superhero movie necessarily has to try to have a lot of substance, but anyway, since we're discussing substance, I thought IM went further in this direction than the X-films.
 
I had to go back 3 pages in this thread to catch up! It's movie fast. I can't believe the imdb meter says First Class is up 1,040% in popularity. Fassbender is up 575%, form 95 to 29 in the ranking. How can they even calculate such crazy numbers? And do they even really mean anything anyway? :cardie:

Yes, you weren't going to get a major actor with the slim representation of Cyclops, and that was one of my quibbles with the first 2 films- you have essentially whipped and all but written out a major player in the comics. I mean, I know there were the jokes about Scott being an ass, and yes, sometimes he is. However, we could have had a lot of development and explanation about it, and never got anything.

Maybe if and when we get movies 2 and 3 here, we can have a new Cyclops with issues and realistic romance. I found Storm to be the opposite force in the films. While she is leader, she is much more subdued and graceful about it then Cyclops.

Instead we ended up with Halle Berry kind of forcing her way into being the star. As much as I've been pleased with what I've seen from Zoe Kravitz, I'd rather they had held off on her and her later as a young Storm. I'm surprised no one has commented on the quote brothel scene in the trailer in relation to her being Fassbender's real life girlfriend. That's what made the scene extra amusing to me. :lol:

Honestly, I've always felt Wolverine was better as the well, lone wolf dark horse who stays off to the side in the shadows. He's more interesting and fun when he's mysterious. Unfortunately, you kind of end up with a star actor in a supporting role and the studio rushed to capitilze. I don't want to know Logan's origins, I just like knowing he can be a bastard all he wants but when push comes to shove, he has your back. I agree the cartoon struck the proper balance between knowing when to have Wolverine's support and give him some highlight time.

I intially became interested when they announced First Class because I don't perceive it as a sequel, prequel, reboot whatever like a lot of the other films out there. I was pleased that they basically said, these characters started out in the sixties so we are going to go there. If you are going to adapt something and expect it to do well and succeed, you should keep the material as close to its merits as possible. I was incredibly disappoint that they turned Fantastic Four into some kind of contemporary fun wild romp. As a kid I loved those comics and perceived them as being old and dark, and frankly depressing. You don't get that in the movie at all.

I have a big problem with all the sequels and superhero trends that are comprosming the material for the desperate grasp at dollars. I mean, when SyFy tried that contemporary Phantom as a boy on a purple motorcycle. Come on, you had what 200 years of material to play in and you do that? Not buying!

Wow, look what happens when I'm no longer impatient and can think again! :guffaw:
 
Those are all valid points about Iron Man, flemm, and if it works for you, that's great for you. But all I can do is restate my subjective reaction: that after the film was over, I found it a hollow experience in retrospect, and I therefore cannot consider it a great film. Yes, it had the broad framework of a story about a jerk finding redemption, but the story was just a sketch, a rough outline to hang improv on. And as much as I enjoyed watching it while it was going on, I felt afterward that it wasn't enough. But that's just me. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you.
 
Broccoli said:
^ Honestly, who can blame them? Wolverine is popular. I would argue that when people/comic fans think of the X-Men (pre-movies), they would automatically think of Wolverine as well. He is a very affable character.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly the problem. Wolverine is not an affable character. He's mean, nasty, brutish, short, ugly, hairy, a bit dumb, borderline homicidal, and the ultimate loner. He was never meant to be a leading man type.

Then he went to Hollywood.
 
Christopher said:
Not at all. I think Jackman was completely miscast as Wolverine. He's Wolverine reinterpreted as a glamorous action hero, which has never made sense to me.
Click to expand...

Quite right. He's too tall, too skinny, too handsome, not hairy enough, and just not mean enough.
That said, Jackman really tried his best, especially in that first movie. He just wasn't right for the part.
 
A beaker full of death said:
Broccoli said:
^ Honestly, who can blame them? Wolverine is popular. I would argue that when people/comic fans think of the X-Men (pre-movies), they would automatically think of Wolverine as well. He is a very affable character.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly the problem. Wolverine is not an affable character. He's mean, nasty, brutish, short, ugly, hairy, a bit dumb, borderline homicidal, and the ultimate loner. He was never meant to be a leading man type.

Then he went to Hollywood.
Click to expand...

Then explain his everlasting popularity with comic fans?

Perhaps affable isn't the right word. However, the way you describe him right there is exactly the type of action hero that is typically seen in many, many movies (well, maybe not the ugly part - but it's a movie), which is partly why, I think, the films ultimately focus on him.
 
People love the loner/guy who gives the middle finger to society.

-Batman for his brooding nature and gadgets.

-Spider-man for his life problems.

No one likes Superman because he's a goody two shoes/dick/ and they can't relate to a near god.
 
Whose "nobody"? I'm a huge Superman fan. I find that is just an excuse that people use because as you say Sammy they can't relate to Superman. He's a very human character but for some reason no one in film (except for maybe the first movie) was able to capture that aspect of his character.
 
its all about your perception of the character. i like the Silver Surfer. can i identify with his cosmic powers and battles with Galactus? no. can i identify with his longing for Shalla-Bal? With his sense of self-sacrifice? The torment that he seems to constantly go through? Yes.
 
A beaker full of death said:
Broccoli said:
^ Honestly, who can blame them? Wolverine is popular. I would argue that when people/comic fans think of the X-Men (pre-movies), they would automatically think of Wolverine as well. He is a very affable character.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly the problem. Wolverine is not an affable character. He's mean, nasty, brutish, short, ugly, hairy, a bit dumb, borderline homicidal, and the ultimate loner. He was never meant to be a leading man type.

Then he went to Hollywood.
Click to expand...

The ultimate loner - with an extended family consisting of many adopted kids, members of multiple teams. I know they like to still talk about him being a loner but except for a couple of poorly received runs around the 2000, there has never been much on-page evidence of that.
 
Logan's not dumb. He's street smart and been through a lot of stuff in his life. He's not a scientist either. The rest of the descriptions of him are pretty accurate. He's also incredibly honorable, loyal, and caring person when circumstances allow him to show that side of him. Look at the heroes in the comics he's mentored and look up to him? Everyone respects Wolverine. Some fear him too, but most everyone respects him. This is one of the reasons why I'm most looking forward to seeing "The Wolverine" because I think we're gonna get to see all of these aspects of his character.
 
A beaker full of death said:
Broccoli said:
^ Honestly, who can blame them? Wolverine is popular. I would argue that when people/comic fans think of the X-Men (pre-movies), they would automatically think of Wolverine as well. He is a very affable character.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly the problem. Wolverine is not an affable character. He's mean, nasty, brutish, short, ugly, hairy, a bit dumb, borderline homicidal, and the ultimate loner. He was never meant to be a leading man type.
Click to expand...

The Punisher, Batman, Gambit, Deadpool......
 
^ Why is Batman included with those other two? The one thing that separates Bruce from those other two is that he doesn't kill. The other two are homicidal maniacs, especially Wade.
 
Admiral_Young said:
^ Why is Batman included with those other two? The one thing that separates Bruce from those other two is that he doesn't kill. The other two are homicidal maniacs, especially Wade.
Click to expand...
2?
There are 4 names there.

Batman is still a loner and can be nasty & brutish.
Qualities that were stated as not being leading man material. Killing wasn't the only discription of them not being leading man material, it was either all or some of those traits.

Short, hairy & possably ugly are laughable reasons IMO not to be a leading man.
It's never hampered Robert DeNiro, Gary Sinise or Al Pacino's careers.
 
Broccoli said:
A beaker full of death said:
And this is exactly the problem. Wolverine is not an affable character. He's mean, nasty, brutish, short, ugly, hairy, a bit dumb, borderline homicidal, and the ultimate loner. He was never meant to be a leading man type.

Then he went to Hollywood.
Click to expand...

Then explain his everlasting popularity with comic fans?

Perhaps affable isn't the right word. However, the way you describe him right there is exactly the type of action hero that is typically seen in many, many movies (well, maybe not the ugly part - but it's a movie), which is partly why, I think, the films ultimately focus on him.
Click to expand...

American popular culture, starting in the early 70s, started to glorify the antihero. He's a fascinating archetype, and his independent nature and disregard for societal norms speaks to the American spirit. But he can only retain the characteristics that make him the outsider, the loner, if he remains on the fringes. By definition, he cannot be the leading man. That's why a character study of him can work as a one-off, but he cannot carry a series, especially as a key motivating role in a group dynamic. Making Wolverine the focus of a group-based movie series has by necessity robbed him of his Wolverine-ness.
 
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