I'm just excited that the sequel is going forward. My one fan boy wish is that we'll see Sinister but I doubt it. I think Singer is quoted as saying that the sequel will see one or two additional mutants introduced.
X-MEN: FIRST CLASS - Grading+Discussion **SPOILERS!**
- Thread starter StarTrek1701
- Start date
The funny thing is they gave Shaw in First Class some of Sinsister's background and personality.
^ Yeah...that probably won't happen now. Unless when they green light X4 a miracle happens and Scott is alive!!!
Or James Marsden will be playing En Saba Nur as a host for Apocalypse's body 
Maybe Jean didn't vaporize Scott, but actually teleported him elsewhere and Sinister found him and started doing his wacky experiments on him and stuff!
This would actually retroactively improve X3 in my opinion.
the Phoenix in X3 was a clone of Jean, she's really been captured by Sinister, along with Scott. They're stuck in Sinister's lab somewhere, prisoners of the Nasty Boys and the Marauders until Cyclops and Phoenix the movie happens.
All of the X-Men films have had considerable story interference from the studio. The writing process for X-Men is almost legendary because Fox kept on hiring different writers to continually re-write the script even during production. That's why Joss Whedon has like two lines of dialogue. The script, for the most part, was a Frankenstein mixmash of different material from various other scripts. Bryan Singer needs a lot of credit for managing to curtail some of this and get a very good movie out of the equation as a result.
For example, X2 was originally suppose to have the Danger Room, Angel and the Sentinels were going to make an appearance. Due to budget cuts and heavy studio interference, Singer was forced to cut those aspects from the story and heavily re-engineer the thematic outline for the film. Plus, he kept on having the budget slashed back, and had to contend with the given limitations and the consequences it had on the story. A big reason why the action is a lot more grandiose in X-Men: The Last Stand in comparison to Singer's movies is that Brett Ratner finally got the budget that Singer had been fighting for since the first movie. In all actuality, 20th Century Fox was a lot more agreeable with Ratner, at least when it came to budget and resources, than they ever were to Singer. That's a big reason why Bryan Singer jumped ship from 20th Century Fox to Warner Bros. - besides always wanting to make a Superman movie, Warner Bros. was giving Singer the freedom and flexibility that 20th Century Fox never gave Singer (at least until recently).
And it's not just the Internet that hates Brett Ratner. His films normally get horrible reviews and people have come to find an extreme disinterest in him because publicly he's a bit of an asshole. I think this whole recent incident with the Academy Awards is a very good example why people have such a vivid and pointed dislike in Brett Ratner so much. It would be one thing if he just made films that weren't always pedestrian Hollywood schlock, but he's an insufferable bastard for the most part to boot.
It has everything to do with the situation if you care to give it a closer look. Why do you think 20th Century Fox has never invited Ratner back to direct another X-Men movie? Probably because they realize X-Men: The Last Stand was a piece-of-crap. They realize they were idiots for letting Singer go and that his two X-Men movies were not only successful in a monetary sense but also critically acclaimed.
I'll have to find the quote, but it was an executive over at 20th Century Fox who basically said they were unhappy with the critical response of The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine and swaying Singer back into the fold was an attempt to reclaim some of the critical acclaim. That's why 20th Century Fox heavily pursued and eventually hired Darren Aronofsky for the Wolverine sequel. I mean, why do you think 20th Century Fox would take such a huge gamble on Aronofsky when they know what kind of filmmaker he is and what kind of movies he makes? Because they wanted a critical success (as well as hopefully a box office success, of course) after the critical misfire of the last Wolverine movie.
^^^
I guess we retconned that decision.
I guess we retconned that decision.
^ No that was just Singer ignoring the Last Stand. Everyone else is free to discuss it
I think that might be the reverse that Ratner was more agreeable with 20th Century Fox. If memory serves, the budget was set before Ratner came on board during pre-production after Vaughn bailed. It's very likely, unlike Singer, he was fine with what he was given and didn't push for more. I can see this given the surface-deep nature of his other films.
I was referring to the hate Ratner gets as a director. While he isn't a great director, the amount of hate, I feel, is largely undeserved.
I don't think he's so much of an ass, but rather he just doesn't think before he talks in that what he thinks is funny really isn't that funny. In any event, it seems moviegoers really don't seem to care all that much considering his films, good or bad, nearly always blockbuster successful.
Most of the moviegoing public don't even know who directors are or know enough to care. After all, Roman Polanski continues to make financially successful films and, well, the less said about that, the better.
It has everything to do with the situation if you care to give it a closer look. Why do you think 20th Century Fox has never invited Ratner back to direct another X-Men movie? Probably because they realize X-Men: The Last Stand was a piece-of-crap. They realize they were idiots for letting Singer go and that his two X-Men movies were not only successful in a monetary sense but also critically acclaimed.[/quote]
Again, this has less to do with Ratner and more to do with getting back into bed with Singer. Ratner was a director for hire to complete a movie that some else already started before dropping out during pre-production. It could have been anyone in that spot and they would have been not been considered for future installments because they wanted to work with Singer.
Because he's pals with Hugh Jackman and Jackman pushed for it, perhaps?
^ To play devil's advocate, they've apparently ended up with James Mangold, who is less of a hack than Ratner, but is hardly a maverick auteur like Aaronofsky.
The budget actually ballooned when Ratner came on-board. I believe the budget was around $175-$200 million when Matthew Vaughn was slated to direct but after Ratner came on-board the budget apparently skyrocketed to over $225 million. At least that's what Empire reported.
According to Box Office Mojo, the purported production budget was $210 million. Comparatively speaking, the budget for X-Men was $75 million and the budget for X2 was $110 million. Ratner essentially had another $100 million more to work with than Singer had on X2.
Singer wanted the Danger Room, he wanted Sentinels, and he wanted bigger action sequences (as well as more breathing room for other characters like Angel). 20th Century Fox repeatedly denied him those things. Brett Ratner wanted the Danger Room, he wanted Sentinels (they weren't in the script before he came on-board; he reveals this in the commentary) and he wanted big action sequences and he got them. In my view, there's some faulty logic there. It seems 20th Century Fox should have been more flexible with Singer and had that happened he wouldn't have been enticed to jump ship. They were perfectly willing to accommodate Ratner and his needs but not Singer's.
He makes bad films. At least, that's the general consensus. I can see why he gets that reputation, and unlike you, I think it's very well-deserved.
I guess referring to homosexuals as "fags" doesn't make him an asshole in your book. Okay, I'll accept that. I guess being racist and making fun of someone's ethnicity, and then repeatedly lying about someone's sex life in public is morally acceptable, or at least not "asshole" like behavior. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Regarding the success of Brett Ratner's films, people will mostly accept and enjoy anything. Michael Bay's movies are somehow successful, the Twilight movies are hugely popular, and the list goes on. Ratner's films are definitely successful in a mainstream capacity, but then again I don't put much stock into the mainstream mentality because often the mainstream has very poor taste.
Are you sure about that? Look him up on Box Office Mojo. Polanski's last film, The Ghost Writer, made $15 million on a budget of $45 million. His film before that, Oliver Twist, earned a paltry $2 million on an estimated $60 million budget. Polanski's most successful film to date has been The Pianist, earning a little over $30 million, on a budget of $35 million, barely breaking even. I think Polanski is a great filmmaker and I'm a big fan of his movies, but to call them "financially successful" is overstating it.
Gavin Hood wasn't invited back for The Wolverine, either. Why? Because he made a crappy film. 20th Century Fox has acknowledged the poor quality of X-Men: The Last Stand and I think a big reason why Ratner hasn't been invited back is because they recognize that. We are belaboring the issue, though.
20th Century Fox equally wanted Aronofsky. They tried to get him for the first movie (and apparently for The Last Stand as well). Jackman doesn't have that much clout.
^ I don't think that Polanski's movies don't do well because of his sex crimes, all the same. I'd like to think that that's the reason people boycotted them but I think it's more likely that they're either not very good or not very commercial.
Polanski is a great filmmaker. The Ghost Writer, for example, was one of the best films of last year and horribly overlooked. I don't know why his films aren't more successful and I didn't mean to imply that they weren't successful because of his sex crimes. I think the man is extremely talented and I don't care about his personal life.
I think if Brett Ratner was more talented, and he made better movies, I'd have a slightly less problem with his personal antics (even though his comments really bug me). I think it's the double whammy of Ratner being a hack on a creative and artistic level and then being an ass in public. It sort of feels like he's one of those jerks that is successful and rich and flaunts it, doesn't care, and takes advantage of the lifestyle that he leads (which causes him to be so flippant, arrogant, and completely idiotic in public). At least Polanski is a well-spoken, intelligent and thoughtful man. Ratner is just beyond disrespectful and annoying, not to mention highly offensive (and talent-less, to boot).
^ Polanski is a much better movie-maker, without question. But Ratner didn't have sex with a child. So that puts Polanski even lower than the Rat in the piece-of-shit stakes, IMHO.
Bizarrely enough, Polanski appears in Ratner's Rush Hour 3...
Bizarrely enough, Polanski appears in Ratner's Rush Hour 3...
I don't really hate Ratner's films because I think he's a dick. I dislike his films because I believe they are bad films. Hopefully I can make that distinction. On top of that, I think he's an asshole in person, and I dislike him personally. If he made good films, then I would separate my public opinion of him from his films, but it's difficult to make that separation when I feel he has very poor manners and his films are very lackluster. Does that make sense?
I don't want to condone Polanski or his actions, but at least I can separate Polanski and his personal life and history from his professional career because he's a talented artist. I can't really do that with Ratner, because either way I don't like him. That might not make much sense, and I might not have communicated that effectively, but that's how I feel.
^ I get ya.
