I did read that they still have special effects work to finish for those scenes which is helping to delay. If true (and it's entirely possible), then what else can you do? These things aren't done over a single night. I don't mind the wait.
X-Men: Days of Future Past - Discussion Thread - SPOILERS
- Thread starter Roshi
- Start date
I'd assumed it would be like the extended cut of The Wolverine last year, which came out at the same time as the DVD & Blu-ray, but was only available on the 3D Blu-ray version.
And like how the year before for the release of Prometheus, Fox put all the decent extras only on the 3D version, so again fans had to spend as much money as possible.
But obviously because DOFP has done so well financially they figure they can squeeze even more money from us. Have the details of the DVD/Blu-ray releases been revealed yet? It still wouldn't surprise me if they do the whole "get-the-3D-version-for-all-the-decent-extras" again with this. And then you have to buy it yet again next year for the extended cut.
(and yeah I know no one's forcing us to buy em, just saying a lot of fans will do)
And like how the year before for the release of Prometheus, Fox put all the decent extras only on the 3D version, so again fans had to spend as much money as possible.
But obviously because DOFP has done so well financially they figure they can squeeze even more money from us. Have the details of the DVD/Blu-ray releases been revealed yet? It still wouldn't surprise me if they do the whole "get-the-3D-version-for-all-the-decent-extras" again with this. And then you have to buy it yet again next year for the extended cut.
(and yeah I know no one's forcing us to buy em, just saying a lot of fans will do)
I agree.
Singer and Kinberg said the sub-plot was extraneous and lessened tension from the film, which is why it was removed. While it would be exciting to see Rogue again (in more than a cameo appearance) and the scene was cool to read in the script, I won't be jumping up and down to buy the "Rogue Cut".
Plus, the scene amounts to about 10 minutes of additional screen-time, which in my opinion doesn't quite justify the purchase. Now, if the "Rogue Cut" added other deleted scenes along with that sequence - adding something like 20-30 minutes of additional footage - then I would strongly consider it. But 10 minutes doesn't seem like a lot. I am also curious to see how the inclusion of the footage affects the rest of the plot, though, since from what I read a significant character dies in that sequence - which is why, when the scene was cut, there had to be reshoots since it dramatically effected the story.
I will, however, buy the version that is being released in two weeks.
Actually...
...it's the opposite. Bobby dies during the rescue sequence, and there is a scene with Rogue and Kitty commiserating. When the sequence was cut, the had to call Shawn Ashmore in for re-shoots so they could kill Bobby off in another way.
I was surprised at how good this movie was. The first X-men was mediocre, even though it did lead to the surge in comic movies. The second was terrible, and not much else from Brian Singer was really that good to me.
Biggest pro: The way the characters actually used their powers in ways that made a lot of sense. It was cool to see them work more as a team and not as individuals.
Biggest con: They should have just gone balls out and had young Professor X shooting straight up heroin instead of some power suppressor. Everybody gasped when they saw him shoot up, but I think the impact was lost when it was just something sort of benign.
Biggest pro: The way the characters actually used their powers in ways that made a lot of sense. It was cool to see them work more as a team and not as individuals.
Biggest con: They should have just gone balls out and had young Professor X shooting straight up heroin instead of some power suppressor. Everybody gasped when they saw him shoot up, but I think the impact was lost when it was just something sort of benign.
^ Um, no, because then Wheels wouldn't have had to choose between keeping and using his mental powers for good and living a blessed life as a non-disabled, stinking rich white dude. That choice is a helluva lot more interesting than plain ol' heroin.
As for your assertion that X2 is not a good movie... I can only assume that's some sort of typo. Perhaps you have a cat, and it walked over the keyboard, miraculously writing a coherent sentence as it did so?
As for your assertion that X2 is not a good movie... I can only assume that's some sort of typo. Perhaps you have a cat, and it walked over the keyboard, miraculously writing a coherent sentence as it did so?
For the win.As for your assertion that X2 is not a good movie... I can only assume that's some sort of typo. Perhaps you have a cat, and it walked over the keyboard, miraculously writing a coherent sentence as it did so?
Yeah, X2 is one of my all time favourite superhero movies period, not just of the X variety!
The opening sequence with Nightcrawler alone was worth the price of admission as far as I was concerned.
The opening sequence with Nightcrawler alone was worth the price of admission as far as I was concerned.
Well, the word was "terrible". I'm trying to figure out what word that could be a typo of.
Maybe he meant that the film was "tribble"?
But that would still imply that he had trouble with it.
^ Um, no, because then Wheels wouldn't have had to choose between keeping and using his mental powers for good and living a blessed life as a non-disabled, stinking rich white dude. That choice is a helluva lot more interesting than plain ol' heroin.
As for your assertion that X2 is not a good movie... I can only assume that's some sort of typo. Perhaps you have a cat, and it walked over the keyboard, miraculously writing a coherent sentence as it did so?
It isn't the drug's importance to the plot, it's its importance to the character. Shutting off his telepathic powers is actually sort of understandable and not really that dark, while actively damaging his body and mind confirms what older X was saying about himself. Yeah he was kind of a jerk in his younger days, but that isn't really that big of a deal.
I can confirm for you that I hated X2. Terrible movie, retread plot device, and third-grade lecture style delivery of its all important message. That isn't why X-men became so incredibly popular in the 1980s, and even when they did go back to the whole Mutant Rights thing, they did something more interesting with it than just to have an evil bigot villain. Remember the Morloks? That was a great storyline. It took the idea of mutants living apart and really did a good job with it. There was a real conflict as to what was the right answer.
When I watch X2, it's like having some weirdo scream at me that I think incorrectly. It's so obvious that I find it insulting. It was because of the heavy handedness of his movies that I wasn't surprised when Brian Singer was accused of doing some pretty intolerable things earlier this year.
Well if you liked the movie that's all good and everything. I didn't find any of the actions scenes that good, but speaking of Nightcrawler - I have never seen a more hamfisted way of trying to introduce irony into a movie than his character. One of the most flagrant ways that moralistic directors try to impose their message is through irony, and the only other movies where it comes off like such a cannonade are the Roland Emmerich movies. At least those are widely acknowledged for being bad.
Well, the thing about X2 was that it basically had the same climax as X1: Magneto had a doomsday machine that was going to do great damage to Humanity and the X-Men had to stop it. Only difference was how they got to that part of the plot.
To be honest, when I was younger and saw X2 and Xavier started going on about Stryker's son and how he took Wolverine in to make up for it....I wondered if they were going to have it turn out Wolverine WAS Stryker's son in this Universe. That he experimented on him and this was why Stryker was so happy to see Logan later.
Then we got the whole "He made my wife kill herself" thing and showed us Mastermind and I knew they weren't going to elaborate more on the Wolverine connection.
To be honest, when I was younger and saw X2 and Xavier started going on about Stryker's son and how he took Wolverine in to make up for it....I wondered if they were going to have it turn out Wolverine WAS Stryker's son in this Universe. That he experimented on him and this was why Stryker was so happy to see Logan later.
Then we got the whole "He made my wife kill herself" thing and showed us Mastermind and I knew they weren't going to elaborate more on the Wolverine connection.
Nah it seemed to me more like somebody got paid to keep their mouth shut, Sandusky style.
Maybe if this is where they started instead of X1 it would have worked better. It felt like a retread in so many ways, or even that they could have folded a lot of the plot into the first movie.
Magneto in X1 really just came off as kind of a paranoid. An old Senator and mobs of people aren't really that threatening. The more ridiculous they act makes them even less threatening, like Bobby's mother trying to ask him not to be a mutant. I was pretty
YEAH I get it, he's basically gay except he's a mutant and we are treating mutants unfairly like they're gay. I don't need another movie telling me that average joe is an ignorant bigot.If they had had some sort of real threat to mutants and not just a vague lack of acceptance or legislation, I would have been more keen on Magneto's point of view...and that's basically how it was done in the comics. It was less 'daddy doesn't accept me' and more 'HOLY SHIT SENTINELS ARE GOING TO KILL US LET'S HIDE IN THE SEWERS!'
If you thought the accuser's story made logical sense in the first place, you think incorrectly.
I don't presume sickos think logically.
That's not to say all accusations are the same. I never believed half the stuff I heard about Michael Jackson, and the same thing for a lot of professional athletes that are often maligned. Everyone I've ever known who has met Ron Artest says that he is actually a great guy. Same thing with Barry Bonds and Terrell Owens. A lot of people think that Brock Lesnar and the Ultimate Warrior were total rocks, but they are actually some of the most well read and educated pro-wrestlers ever.
I've heard the opposite for Troy Aikman and Ken Griffey Jr. They never get slammed in the news so it makes you wonder. They are said to be huge jerks though.
So basically I'm saying that you don't believe everything you hear, but there are certain signs which indicate when something is indeed covered up. I don't usually like Brian Singer's movies because they come off as condescending, but the case with a hollywood sex-slavery ring sounded a lot more plausible than a lot of the crazy things that people would say about MJ. It's also not as if this has never happened...it's an old thing in Hollywood going back to the "casting couch" in the earliest days of film. The bottom line anyway is that I get a creepy vibe from his movies, like the stalker Superman, pure psychopath Magneto, and cheap cartoon cutout human villains. Yeah they're based on comics, but the comics had a lot more going on. It's against what the original Stan Lee comics were. They were pretty simple morality tales, but they never felt mean spirited or even anti-hero.
That's not to say all accusations are the same. I never believed half the stuff I heard about Michael Jackson, and the same thing for a lot of professional athletes that are often maligned. Everyone I've ever known who has met Ron Artest says that he is actually a great guy. Same thing with Barry Bonds and Terrell Owens. A lot of people think that Brock Lesnar and the Ultimate Warrior were total rocks, but they are actually some of the most well read and educated pro-wrestlers ever.
I've heard the opposite for Troy Aikman and Ken Griffey Jr. They never get slammed in the news so it makes you wonder. They are said to be huge jerks though.
So basically I'm saying that you don't believe everything you hear, but there are certain signs which indicate when something is indeed covered up. I don't usually like Brian Singer's movies because they come off as condescending, but the case with a hollywood sex-slavery ring sounded a lot more plausible than a lot of the crazy things that people would say about MJ. It's also not as if this has never happened...it's an old thing in Hollywood going back to the "casting couch" in the earliest days of film. The bottom line anyway is that I get a creepy vibe from his movies, like the stalker Superman, pure psychopath Magneto, and cheap cartoon cutout human villains. Yeah they're based on comics, but the comics had a lot more going on. It's against what the original Stan Lee comics were. They were pretty simple morality tales, but they never felt mean spirited or even anti-hero.
So you're admitting the accuser was a sicko? Because otherwise that really doesn't make any sense as a response.
If you know about the history of X-Men comics over the years, then you know that Magneto was portrayed in various ways, and that was one of them.
Well, that sounds like a pretty damning case if I've ever heard one.
Seems about right to me.
Similar threads
- Poll
