• 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 don't blame them for making Wolverine a focal point in the movies. It was a smart thing to from a marketing point of view, I was excited to see how he would look on the big screen and wasn't disappointed. My point is that the rest of the characters suffered because of the focus on Logan. "X-Men" is a team book with an ensemble of characters with Logan a part of that team. The movies chose to not really focus on the team concept but mainly on him which was fine but ultimately detrimental to the rest of the characters on that team.
 
^ 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. It would have been stupid of them to not put him in.

But it's fair to argue they went too far to make him the centerpiece. After the first movie, an approach more like the 90s cartoon or X-Men: Evolution could've worked just as well or better - significant player but not the central focus, allowing the ensemble more emphasis.

I agree. Wolverine is a very important part of the X-Men story, and he should be treated as such, but there are also other characters that deserve just as much attention. X2 was Wolverine's big movie. The next one should have been Jean and Scott's.

Granted. However, for better or worse, that is not how movies work. Wolverine (or at least Hugh Jackman) proved to be very popular with movie-goers as well and his character became the lead within the first two films. I guess it would be kinda similar to Return of the Jedi to not feature Luke as the protagonist and focused primary on Leia and Han to finish up the storyline.

Ultimately, it became a case of "give the people what they want" as the box office success of both Last Stand and Wolverine showed. Now, would Last Stand been the box office success had there been no, or little Wolverine in it? I dunno. Maybe.

I suppose it will be interesting to see what the general, non-comic book savvy movie goers think of First Class, a movie sans Wolverine. Will they go "Hey, where is Wolverine?" Or will they not care? (I'm betting they won't care if the film is strong enough.)
 
A pretty mediocre set of films?

In my estimation, yes, absolutely. I recognize, however, that the first two seem to be fairly highly regarded, at least in some circles, though I don't think they really deserve it. I found the first movie, especially, really boring and clumsy. Wolverine doesn't do much of anything for me as a character, so that is doubtless a factor. But really, what stands out about these movies, other than perhaps Jackman as Wolverine if that is your thing? I didn't find any of the action sequences, characters or storylines to be memorable in the slightest, despite the excellent casting for Charles and Magneto.

Also, while I am more of an Avengers guy myself, the X-material has enormous potential that these movies make only a very feeble attempt at exploiting. So that adds to my overall sense of underwhelm-ment.

I guess this movie came out a couple of years before Spiderman, but I would have pegged the Spidey films as the trendsetting superhero flicks. At any rate, the first two Spiderman films are in a whole separate league from these films, even as far as simple raw entertainment value is concerned.

Note that "pretty medicore" doesn't mean "awful and unwatchable." Competant entertainment? Yes. But nothing above more or less average for a Hollywood blackbuster. As far as superhero films are concerned, off the top of my head I would say that Superman, Batman, Spidey 1 + 2, Iron Man and The Dark Knight stand out as exceptional in their own ways. But I don't think these movies really do.
 
Last edited:
Even though we know his fate, maybe the writers will show him some love and this new incarnation of Scott will be the main focus as Xaviers apprentice, love interest being Jean of course. Unless, they include Madelyne Prior since she is tied to the Hellfire Club. This setting is where the whole Pheonix/Dark Pheonix theme should be explored and not as the B plot to Logan's misadventures or a "cure" storyline that came out left field.

I was kind of wondering if this eventual split between Erik and Charles that takes place leads to him joining with The Hellfire Club which he then splinters off on his own. I guess it's hard to make any speculation on what their role is as the antagonists. I just hope they're not of the moustache twirling variety.
 
I don't think they're going to be of the mustache twirling variety. I've had a theory that since the Cuban Missile Crises was going to be a focal plot point that the Hellfire Club and Shaw are manipulating events for their own agenda.
 
if you step back and look at the first movie, on it's own, it's the one where the X-Men are the most like a team. Scott is the one who saves the flaming day after all.

but, Hugh proved so popular and charismatic they decided to make him and Wolverine the lead in X2 and 3 and so it stopped being a team and instead became Wolverine and hangers-on.

which is why i hope First Class succeeds, so that hopefully we can get some X-Men movies with an X-Men team in it.

i also hope to hell Avengers doesn't wind up becoming Iron Man and hangers-on...
 
Hmm.... Cyclops is probably my second favorite character behind Gambit, and I agree he doesn't get his proper time in the movies. Much as I was a fan of James Marsden at the time, I think part of Cyclops' reduced time and Wolverine's increase was that Jackman just did it better. The love triangle between them with Jean isn't really played like an equal side. It's been awhile since I watched it, but do Scott and Jean even kiss in the first movie?

It's kind of like an old hockey addage: Give me more ice time, I'll play better, but the coach answers, Play better and you'll get more ice time. Marsden had a fair bit to do as Cyclops, but not as much as he could have had. Was it the placement of the character in the movies' ensemble or Marsden's inability to breakout?

I've personally always felt Wolverine was more fun as the mysterious antihero, the guy who seems bad on the outside but is really a softy inside. When we get to know him and explore him more, it kind of cheapens it in away. I'd rather he be the shadowed out guy off to the side dark horse who you can nevertheless count on to come through in a clutch.

I've read some folks already saying they should have proceed with a Fassbender Magneto movie, but in counter point he seems so cool in this trailer because he is the one is going to be the badass bad boy. The look and feel work with what we've seen so far. Marsden didn't seem to work well with Janssen. Pity, I always thought the Phoenix material deserved more than it got in 3.

Okay I'm done. :)
 
Apparently James Caviezel was originally going to play Cyclops, but didn't sign on because the role wasn't meaty enough. I don't think they ever intended to spotlight Cyclops. Which is disappointing for me, as he's my favorite X-Man. But it's also a shame because he's supposed to be the leader of the team (after Professor X).

Hopefully in the next iteration of X-movies, he gets a more prominent role.
 
Scott and Jean share a kiss when Logan returns to the mansion in "X2". I didn't like the depiction of their relationship in the films either. Again too much focus on Logan's interest in Jean which is fine and straight from the comics but seemed kind of forced and unnatural. Logan's interest in Jean developed over time in the comics not right when he meets her.
 
if you step back and look at the first movie, on it's own, it's the one where the X-Men are the most like a team. Scott is the one who saves the flaming day after all.

but, Hugh proved so popular and charismatic they decided to make him and Wolverine the lead in X2 and 3 and so it stopped being a team and instead became Wolverine and hangers-on.

which is why i hope First Class succeeds, so that hopefully we can get some X-Men movies with an X-Men team in it.

i also hope to hell Avengers doesn't wind up becoming Iron Man and hangers-on...


From what we saw at the end of Iron Man 2 - that seemed to set up RDJr as an extended cameo ("Consultant") and the character of War Machine as the main Iron Man character.
 
I don't know about that. From the scene in "The Incredible Hulk" it looked more like Tony had become the spokesperson and recruiter for the Avengers Initiative while the scene between him and Tasha at the end of "Iron Man 2" was an interview trying to determine if Tony was right. This was really what "Iron Man 2" was all about, it was a giant interview to see if he was right to work in a team. Don Cheadle as far as I know has not been added to the cast yet. Tony is going to be Iron Man.
 
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.

A very popular character, yes, but the word "affable" means friendly, pleasant, polite, and benign, none of which even comes close to describing Wolverine.


I recognize, however, that the first two seem to be fairly highly regarded, at least in some circles, though I don't think they really deserve it. I found the first movie, especially, really boring and clumsy. Wolverine doesn't do much of anything for me as a character, so that is doubtless a factor. But really, what stands out about these movies, other than perhaps Jackman as Wolverine if that is your thing?

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. (For one thing, why would the nickname "Wolverine," which refers to a small, scrappy animal, have been applied to someone 6'3" tall? Wouldn't they have called him the Wolf or something instead?)

What stands out is Singer's serious, stylish approach, treating a superhero film as a classy, moody dramatic tale. What stands out are the performances of Stewart and McKellen and the rich history and interplay between their characters. What stands out is the creation of a whole engaging world as the setting for the films, even if that world differs from the comics' interpretation (which is hardly a criticism, since the whole point of an adaptation is to adapt, to reimagine, not to copy).


I guess this movie came out a couple of years before Spiderman, but I would have pegged the Spidey films as the trendsetting superhero flicks.

Nope. Getting Bryan Singer, the director of The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil, to do a comic-book film was trendsetting. The idea of a director known for such classy, arty work being attached to a comic-book movie was a novelty and did a lot to make comic-book films more respectable and more mature. It paved the way for Sam Raimi (who'd established himself by that point as a fairly classy art-film kind of director in Hollywood, regardless of his earlier reputation for kitsch) getting Spider-Man, for Christopher Nolan getting Batman, for Jon Favreau getting Iron Man, for Kenneth Branagh getting Thor. (And, on the downside, it paved the way for Singer getting Superman and Ang Lee getting the Hulk. Even good directors have their misfires. But at least those were ambitious, intelligent efforts.)


As far as superhero films are concerned, off the top of my head I would say that Superman, Batman, Spidey 1 + 2, Iron Man and The Dark Knight stand out as exceptional in their own ways. But I don't think these movies really do.

But the latter four of those films wouldn't have been what they were if Singer's X-films hadn't paved the way. If those two films seem less impressive today, it's only because their successors have built higher on the foundations they established.

(And Iron Man? Not one of the greats. The only thing that makes it stand out is the improv theater by Downey, and to a lesser degree by Paltrow and Bridges. Take away Downey's scene-stealing charisma and the screwball-comedy banter and you've got a strictly routine, by-the-numbers superhero-origin flick. It's a lot of fun to watch, but ultimately insubstantial. As for Burton's Batman, it's a pretty good Tim Burton superhero movie, but I've never really felt that that guy in the rubber suit was actually Batman or anything close to him.)
 
I don't know about that. From the scene in "The Incredible Hulk" it looked more like Tony had become the spokesperson and recruiter for the Avengers Initiative while the scene between him and Tasha at the end of "Iron Man 2" was an interview trying to determine if Tony was right. This was really what "Iron Man 2" was all about, it was a giant interview to see if he was right to work in a team. Don Cheadle as far as I know has not been added to the cast yet. Tony is going to be Iron Man.


The conversation was something like "we need an Ironman but we don't need you" which I took as setting up Don Cheadle's character to appear as a cheaper option and fulfil the Iron Man bits (having said that, Cheadle has said he's not in Avengers). Moreover, I would think after already being on a three picture deal for Ironman, having RDJr as another more than a cameo would be budget blowing?
 
Yeah again...it was a test of Tony's character and the movie was all about his character. Evolving from an egotistically son of a bitch to someone closer to respectable and who resembled a hero. From the conversation Tasha and Tony had and the scene I mentioned in "The Incredible Hulk" it would seem that Tony more than passed her and Fury's expectations.
 
Moreover, I would think after already being on a three picture deal for Ironman, having RDJr as another more than a cameo would be budget blowing?
Most of the other cast members aren't getting paid that much and Whedon will get far less than Favreau or another top director. RDJ's will be the only really significant salary.
 
Moreover, I would think after already being on a three picture deal for Ironman, having RDJr as another more than a cameo would be budget blowing?
Most of the other cast members aren't getting paid that much and Whedon will get far less than Favreau or another top director. RDJ's will be the only really significant salary.

Evans and Jackson too, I'd imagine. I'm a huge fan of Whedon and I think he's a great choice but the fact that he probably came cheap was almost certainly a factor for Marvel.

I'd guess that the likes of Hemsworth, Ruffalo or Jeremy Renner are getting moderate paydays; then again, with 2 consecutive Oscar nods and a more-or-less co-starring role with Tom Cruise in the next Mission: Impossible movie, Renner might have gotten a decent enough salary.
 
Evans and Jackson too, I'd imagine. I'm a huge fan of Whedon and I think he's a great choice but the fact that he probably came cheap was almost certainly a factor for Marvel.
Jackson likely has the second biggest payday, but nowhere near RDJ's scale. Evans actually signed on cheap (by Hollywood standards).

I'd guess that the likes of Hemsworth, Ruffalo or Jeremy Renner are getting moderate paydays; then again, with 2 consecutive Oscar nods and a more-or-less co-starring role with Tom Cruise in the next Mission: Impossible movie, Renner might have gotten a decent enough salary.
Marvel has been very hard-nosed in salary terms. They got ScarJo cheap and likely got Renner cheap too, probably with the promise of higher salaries in prospective films down the line wherein their parts would be bigger (and no that isn't a reference to ScarJo's breasts :)).
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top