# Just saw X-Men III (Now with spoilers!)



## Firebeetle (May 25, 2006)

We previewed the latest installment last night. I was very, very pleased with it and felt it a worthy addition to the franchise. Moreover, it dares to go where few sequels have gone. This is definately an "all bets are off" picture. There are multiple deaths by IMPORTANT characters. Other characters are profoundly changed. Further, all deaths and changes serve to further the plot. As an English major, I'm very satisfied by the story.

As in the other two, the movie handles characterization brillantly. You quickly understand each character's emotional base and the interaction is terrific. Further, the characters are always morally grey, not black and white. You know why Professor X and Magneto respect each other, why Logan love Jean. This one really "completes the set" and makes for a true trilogy.

Of course, the fight scenes are spectacular. Entire structures are bent to the mutant's will. Whole ecosystems are brought low by them. The final battle scene is truly a battle. It's all incredible.

I'm sure someone will find something to complain about in this film. Right now, I'm too awestruck to think of it. Definately a "must see."


----------



## Klaus (May 25, 2006)

I have a suspicion that one of my favorite X-Men will die, so spoil this one for me:



Spoiler



Does Cyclops die?



Thanks!


----------



## Firebeetle (May 25, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I have a suspicion that one of my favorite X-Men will die, so spoil this one for me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nothing to see here, move along.


Spoiler



In the first ten minutes and the killer is quite a surprise.


----------



## Klaus (May 25, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Nothing to see here, move along.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



 I have a nagging suspicion that I will not like this movie...


----------



## NiTessine (May 25, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I have a nagging suspicion that I will not like this movie...



I know I didn't. As an action flick, it's passable. As an X-Men movie, the badness is of such intensity that the earth quakes, oceans boil, and mountains come tumbling down.


----------



## horacethegrey (May 25, 2006)

Just came from seeing it myself. Here be my thoughts:

*WARNING!!! SPOILERS DETECTED!!! PROCEED WITH EXTREME CAUTION!!!*  

Where to start? Well perhaps I should begin with what I liked about the movie. Here goes:

*The gutsy storytelling*- as Firebeetle pointed out, this film took no prisoners. Several important characters bite the big one, and others have their fates irrevocably changed. Plenty of surprises for those who were expecting more of the same. 

*Beast*- Without a doubt the movie's best character. Kelsey Grammer does an excellent turn as everyone's favorite freakish intellectual, despite having to act under layers of blue makeup.

*Phoenix*- Notice that I don't refer to her as Jean Grey, and rightly so. I liked how the movie explained the Phoenix's existence without having to go through the whoile alien entity bit from the comic. Kudos to Famke Jansen (whom I always felt was never given the chance to shine in the previous films), for making her a true force to be reckoned with.

*Iceman*- Always liked the film version of his character, finally we get to see what he's capable of. Shawn Ashmore is always decent as Bobby Drake.

*The action*- The wonders of what a bigger budget can do. I always felt Bryan Singer downplayed the action in the previous films, but now Brett Ratner takes the action to a whole another level. Highlights include the Phoenix and Xavier showdown, and the Brotherhood versus X-men showdown at Alcatraz.

Now with the stuff I didn't like. 

*Character sacrifices*- While I do like the risks the movie took, I felt the offing of some characters was handled badly. Cyclops' demise felt like a footnote, and not the emotional punch to the gut that it should have been. Mystique's sudden abadonment by Magneto felt like a disservice to the character. She deserved better. Only Xavier's death seemed to achieve tragedy in spades.

*Too many bloody mutants*- One of the biggest problems I've had with X-men is the focus on too many characters. The movie seems content with concerning itself with a select few, that others are just left in the background. In particular, Kitty and Colussus, whose character development was just left on the wayside. Rogue, she was such a big character in the previous films, why doesn't she get a chance to shine? Angel? What was his big contribution to the plot? All the other mutants? Just like the aforementioned Cyclops before, bloody footnotes.

*The Wolverine show*- Regrettably, my point above may be the result of everyone's favorite Canuck hogging the spotlight once more. Take note that I like Hugh Jackman and have always enjoyed his portrayal of Logan. But he hogs too much screentime that the other characters impact on the story suffer for it. 

*Brett Ratner*- Okay, I'll admit that he didn't do a bad job. Unfotunately, it's quite clear from the film how much he pales as a director compared to Singer. For one, he can't seem to deliver on the emotion like his predecessor could. Two, he moves the film at too fast a pace, and seems intent on resolving all the plot point in the least amount of time possible. Three, he fails to bring any sort of genuine atmosphere to the settings.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about it. It was a good film, despite it's flaws, and is worthy enough to be an X-men film


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 25, 2006)

I wonder why they (the movie makers) chose to kill all those characters? And do the killers repent?


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 25, 2006)

Wonder what the chances are of an X-Men 4  given the heavily casualties.


----------



## nikolai (May 25, 2006)

I've seen it.

I thought it was franchise killing, really. The X-Men's Batman Forever. The film was fun to watch, mostly because it was a bunch of special effects set pieces strung together. But it felt like they were just going through the motions.


----------



## Elemental (May 25, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I wonder why they (the movie makers) chose to kill all those characters? And do the killers repent?






Spoiler



Drama? Xavier especially caught me by surprise, because it's an accepted rule that in comics, nobody dies. And it did up the stakes--Phoenix is dangerous, and she was royally pissed at Xavier, and showing how far she would go to resist being made captive again was a real jolt. And Jean is horrified when she finds out what happened to Scott.



And I'm told that if you wait till the end of the credits--



Spoiler



It turns out Xavier had a contingency plan, which was hinted at earlier.




Overall, I liked it, though it could have done with another 20 minutes or so to tell the story--the film felt a little rushed in places.


----------



## Sammael (May 25, 2006)

I must have watched a different movie. In my copy, there was no characterization, killing was pointless and gratuituous, and the direction was horrible.

Definitely a franchise-killing movie.


----------



## Firebeetle (May 26, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Wonder what the chances are of an X-Men 4  given the heavily casualties.



Rumor has it that the next movie will be a solo Wolverine picture.


----------



## Firebeetle (May 26, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I wonder why they (the movie makers) chose to kill all those characters? And do the killers repent?




This movie breaks the comic book code. You see, comics have to be sold in perpetuity, what is the end of the Batman story? Or Superman? or any comic book hero? It's the major weakness of comics, grand operas without endings.

This movie is the end. It's war, people die. That's the way stories are meant to be told. I wish all franchises had the guts to do this.


----------



## Ghostwind (May 26, 2006)

So what is the so-called shocking final scene that is supposed to be so awesome?


----------



## Dog Moon (May 26, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Rumor has it that the next movie will be a solo Wolverine picture.




I'm hoping you're kidding, which I assume you are.

Personally, I think the X-men series would have been better as a TV series.  They could have done so much more with it, but unfortunately, they wouldn't have the few well-known actors that they had for the movies and their budget would be worse [not necessarily bad things though].  They could have delved into the past of the various X-men, detailed them better, etc.

I thought the movie was good, though I was surprised that yeah, they killed off/changed so many people.  I was hoping that Iceman would go chill with Kitty and that at the end of the movie, Rogue would find someone new: GAMBIT!  Sad Gambit didn't have an appearance.  Weird though that Rogue lost her power.  I was actually thinking that maybe she would gain her super strength and flight in this movie, but apparently not.

And for those of us who left as the credits started to avoid the rush, what happened after the credits?


----------



## NiTessine (May 26, 2006)

Remember that old guy with no brain activity that Moira McTaggart was treating, as seen in Xavier's lecture? Remember how he discussed the ethics of moving the mind of a father of four with terminal cancer into the "empty" body?

Yeah. Charles is back.

(Although a guy who's never had any brain activity probably wouldn't have a very healthy body, either. Atrophied muscles, for one thing.)


----------



## Dog Moon (May 26, 2006)

NiTessine said:
			
		

> Remember that old guy with no brain activity that Moira McTaggart was treating, as seen in Xavier's lecture? Remember how he discussed the ethics of moving the mind of a father of four with terminal cancer into the "empty" body?
> 
> Yeah. Charles is back.
> 
> (Although a guy who's never had any brain activity probably wouldn't have a very healthy body, either. Atrophied muscles, for one thing.)




Oooooh yeaaaah!  I'd totally forgotten about that.  But would he still have his mental powers?  Yeah you're moving the mind, but wasn't it the mutant gene that cause his mind to gain powers?  Without that gene, seems like maybe he should lose his psychic powers.


----------



## Bront (May 26, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Rumor has it that the next movie will be a solo Wolverine picture.



This is indeed supposed to be the last X-Men movie, and there is a Wolverine picture in the works.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 26, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> This movie breaks the comic book code. You see, comics have to be sold in perpetuity, what is the end of the Batman story? Or Superman? or any comic book hero? It's the major weakness of comics, grand operas without endings.



Not quite. Many characters in the comics have died. (Supes, Jean Gray, etc.) They just keep on coming back to life.


----------



## NiTessine (May 26, 2006)

Dog Moon said:
			
		

> Oooooh yeaaaah!  I'd totally forgotten about that.  But would he still have his mental powers?  Yeah you're moving the mind, but wasn't it the mutant gene that cause his mind to gain powers?  Without that gene, seems like maybe he should lose his psychic powers.



Mmh... Now you're trying to apply logic to an X-Men plot. It doesn't work in the comics, either.

The one good thing about the movie is that the events are self-contained and the next, hopefully better, director in the series can decide what to keep and who to bring back. Xavier is already back and if Magneto's regaining his powers, what's to stop the rest of 'em?

They're apparently already working on Wolverine and Magneto, and if X3 does well at the box office, we're pretty much guaranteed to have X4 sooner or later.


----------



## Wayside (May 26, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> This movie breaks the comic book code. You see, comics have to be sold in perpetuity, what is the end of the Batman story? Or Superman? or any comic book hero? It's the major weakness of comics, grand operas without endings.
> 
> This movie is the end. It's war, people die. That's the way stories are meant to be told. I wish all franchises had the guts to do this.



My thoughts exactly. I wasn't planning on seeing this, but you've sold me on it.


----------



## buzzard (May 26, 2006)

For what it's worth, the Wall Street Journal reviewer gave it rave reviews. I will be seeing it this evening. 

buzzard


----------



## Firebeetle (May 26, 2006)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> Not quite. Many characters in the comics have died. (Supes, Jean Gray, etc.) They just keep on coming back to life.




Exactly, they live and so the story does not end. For their near death experiences, they are completely unchanged (unless you count Superman's longer hair.) A dead character returning to life should profoundly change that character (a la Dark Phoenix, kudos to Claremont!)

One of the coolest comic stories I ever read was in the future, where a white haired Superman was no longer needed by a techonogically and socially advanced human society. He felt so inadequate he lost the ability to walk, but he (after his own crisis) realizes his work is done here and leaves to go save another world. That's an ending.

Why did Dark Knight Returns sell so well? It was the end of the Batman saga, and a righteously cool one at that. When I am rich, I will buy a major comic book company, and put them on a 30-year Cerebus-like plan where they have to tell a character's whole story. Imagine the sales when that line finishes! After that, we can just do it all over again.


----------



## Someone (May 26, 2006)

I though it was ok, but didn´t quite liked the portrayal of 



Spoiler



Magneto


´s character. He´s now a 



Spoiler



racist


, nothing else, and a son of a bitch to boot.


----------



## Dog Moon (May 26, 2006)

Someone said:
			
		

> I though it was ok, but didn´t quite liked the portrayal of
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, I agree.  I never really though of him as being a bad guy, just viewing things a little differently.  When he 



Spoiler



left Mystique when she lost her powers


 I just kinda thought that was wrong.  And then when he let the 'pawns' die, that didn't seem right either.
  I can understand that armies need cannonfodder, but you don't really actually want to refer to them as such.


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 26, 2006)

This movie demonstrated the power of the internet.

"Do you know who I am?"


----------



## WayneLigon (May 26, 2006)

Just came from seeing it. I have nothing but love for the entire film; easily the best of the X-men films and as it stands right now possibly my favorite comics film to date (still in contention with the amazing Spider-Man 2 movie). Everything about it was perfect and it still leaves open the chance for more core group films, though I understand this is the last one planned for an ensemble cast.

I liked seeing Jamie Madrox. That was a completely brilliant use for his character. Moira.. ahhh. That was a nice surprise. Seeing Callisto and Arclight was very cool. Colossus could have used a bigger part, but then I'm always up for more Colossus. What he did get to do was pretty fantastic. Seeing Trask in the film was quite good as well. 

Next up, the Wolverine film and hopefully a Magneto one.

Spoilers:


Spoiler



The only possible tarnish to it is Scott's death because he is one of my favorite characters, though we see no body (then again, we wouldn't, would we?). Still a possiblilty of him being alive. I was hoping he'd have a bigger part, but I still liked how everything was handled. 

Loved seeing Magneto move the chessman.

Loved the little bit at the end. Totally logical. I thought the bit at the end would be Trask telling the President about his Sentinel ideas.


----------



## Archetype (May 26, 2006)

Way...WAY.. too much of The Beast.

It was very annoying to have "Frasier" eat up so  much of the screen time.  His character was never one of my favorites from the comic, and he seemed shoehorned into this movie in order to give another "name" actor a lead role.  Which of course took away from all the development of the other, already introduced, characters we might have wanted to actually see on screen.  He doesn't even have any "kewl" mutant powers to show off.  They tried to make him into this "raging killing machine" for the final battle,  which is something the original character never was.  He was just a furry, agile, intelligent blue scientist geek.  Nothing worth a screen appearance.

And every time he spoke, I kept looking for Abe Sapien from _Hellboy_ to appear from the ranks of the mutants to argue with him, or say "Daphne, I love you!"    If they bother to keep this franchise alive, maybe Frasier and Niles can have their own solo mutant movie together...

Please let this franchise die now...before it gets much worse.


----------



## Klaus (May 27, 2006)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> This movie demonstrated the power of the internet.
> 
> "Do you know who I am?"



 Eh?

Sorry, but I failed to catch the meaning...


----------



## Captain Tagon (May 27, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Eh?
> 
> Sorry, but I failed to catch the meaning...




I'm sblocking it because it contains spoilers and minor profanity.

[sblock]The big internet phenomenom the last couple of months has been the "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" cartoon.

In X-3, there is a scene where Juggernaut tells Shadowcat, "Do you know who I am?...I'mt he Juggernaut, bitch!"[/sblock]


----------



## Black Omega (May 27, 2006)

Saw it tonight and quite enjoyed it.  The plot has issues.  For example, why is Magneto still free at the end of the movie?

But the action is non-stop, for good or ill. Main characters get killed.  But never in a way that precludes them coming back.  Juggernaut was a ton of fun.  So was Mystique for the short time she was on.  Pyro is still a creep.

No matter how hard they push Storm, Halle just never really makes the character interesting or appealing.  I liked the beast.  He's never a killing machine, he just hits and kicks people in very acrobatic beast style.  On the other hand, Wolverine kills quite a few people.

Good movie, but more in a turn your brain off and enjoy the action sort of way.


----------



## ohGr (May 27, 2006)

Meh.

As i said on another forum, the best parts of this film (for me) were 1.) the Snakes on a Plane teaser during the previews and 2.) R. Lee Ermey's voice-over during the "soldiers grabbing their weapons" scene.  (What can i say, i'm a Gunny fan.)


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 27, 2006)

I just saw the movie...  Don't have time to put my 2cents in, but I wanted to say, the best line in the movie:

Juggernaut: Don't you know who I am?  I'm Juggernaut b i t c h!

For those who don't get it...
Warning: Bad Language Ahead
http://www.wimp.com/juggernaut/


----------



## Lord Pendragon (May 27, 2006)

Hrm.  Well, reading here and elsewhere, I'm probably going to hold off on seeing this movie until either it comes up on my brother's Video-on-Demand, or as a rental.

There are three tiers of comic book movie for me.

Tier I are movies that are good, with no regard to the fact that they're based on comic books.  Batman Begins and Spiderman 1 and 2 are the only movies on this tier.

Tier II are good comic book movies, even if they don't quite hold up compared against the body of movies in general.  X-men 1 and 2 are on this list, as is Fantastic Four.

Tier III are bad, even for comic book movies.  Daredevil and Elektra are examples.

From what I've read here and elsewhere, it looks like X3 is going to fall somewhere between Tier II and Tier III for me.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (May 27, 2006)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> I'm sblocking it because it contains spoilers and minor profanity.
> 
> [sblock]The big internet phenomenom the last couple of months has been the "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" cartoon.
> 
> In X-3, there is a scene where Juggernaut tells Shadowcat, "Do you know who I am?...I'mt he Juggernaut, bitch!"[/sblock]





Link!


----------



## Jakar (May 27, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I wonder why they (the movie makers) chose to kill all those characters? And do the killers repent?



Do they always have to repent?


----------



## delericho (May 27, 2006)

I felt that a lot of the CGI wasn't up to the normal standard, and some of the subplots weren't properly fleshed out (notably Rogue's decision), and that the main plot was perhaps a little fast.

Apart from that, though, I thought it was an excellent film. I thoroughly enjoyed it.


----------



## Remus Lupin (May 27, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Tier II are good comic book movies, even if they don't quite hold up compared against the body of movies in general.  X-men 1 and 2 are on this list, as is Fantastic Four.
> 
> Tier III are bad, even for comic book movies.  Daredevil and Elektra are examples.




I'd make a minor switch in your ordering. Daredevil is Tier II, Fantastic Four is Tier III.


----------



## buzzard (May 27, 2006)

I thought it was a good movie. It was nothing spectacular, but it did a nice job of rounding out the trilogy. I can't imagine seeing it without seeing X1 and X2, since I doubt it would stand on its own worth a damn. However it had good action, no really bad dialog, and most of the acting was pretty solid. It was nowhere near the level of Batman Begins, but it was still worth seeing. I am not upset at paying full price. I will buy it on DVD. 

buzzard


----------



## Pants (May 27, 2006)

If ye fear spoilers, ye best be turnin' back now... yargh...




			
				delericho said:
			
		

> I felt that a lot of the CGI wasn't up to the normal standard, and some of the subplots weren't properly fleshed out (notably Rogue's decision), and that the main plot was perhaps a little fast.



I really thought that rogue's decision was the culmination of what had happened over the last two movies. Then again, I haven't seen those movies in a little over two years, but I still had no problem with her decision.

I'm just cutting n' pasting what I've posted elsewhere, forgive me if this is just a little 'stream of thought'-ish, I wrote it late last night after getting back from the movie.

Overall... I enjoyed the movie.

Felt kinda rushed in parts and some of the dialogue was clunky, but I like that the movie went all out and killed off some characters. I guessed that Cyclops would be one to bite it, didn't see Xavier or Jean getting killed (in Jean's case, again). Some characters needed more screen time and some of the plot could've been expanded upon. As it is, the plot made logical sense to me, but it felt unnecessarily vague at points.

Why did Pheonix join up with Magneto?
Probably for 2 reasons: 1) She saw the 'cure' as being a way to 'cage' her again or 2) Magneto was there, offering her freedom from Xavier and she took it.

This plot could've been cleaned up a bit. It's a bit too haphazardly constructed and it could've been left out of the movie without really hurting anything.

I was surprised that Rogue actually took the cure, though it really made sense for her character as established in the movies so far.

I thought Mystique getting cured and Magneto's subsequent reaction was brilliant. Though it may not mesh with how the character is portrayed in the comics (I'm not sure, I don't read them), I thought it was a nice way to show how Magneto has truly become what he's hated most of all... a racist. And he doesn't even realize it.

Angel needed more to do. Though with the way his character has been established so far, I wonder if any subsequent movies will kick out the whole 'Archangel' idea. Probably. I don't see a movie about Apocalypse being as interesting or relevent as the previous films.

Halle Berry just... isn't that good. She has very little screen presence, though thankfully, her wig is better this time and she actually gets to do stuff.

Colossus was underutilized.

As usual, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellan, and Patrick Stewart carried the movie... acting-wise. Famke Janesson, Kelsey Grammer, and James Marsden were really good too.


----------



## Vigilance (May 27, 2006)

Saw it last night, thought it was awesome.

Like the previous X-movies, it nailed the characters, making great transitions from comics to movies. 

Plenty of great fanboy moments (I've been reading X-men since #100 so going on 20 years) like the fastball special, danger room, Juggernaut, and the cure from Joss' recent X-men run. 

Oh and a cameo by Chris Claremont.

Chuck


----------



## John Cooper (May 27, 2006)

I caught the Stan Lee cameo (guy watering the lawn in Jean Grey's neighborhood), but which was Chris Claremont?


----------



## Remathilis (May 27, 2006)

SPOILER






As a former reader (new series start to Onslaught) What I liked/Disliked

Liked
* Wolverine is the man again. Spot on.
* Iceman becoming my second favorite in the movies.
* LEECH!
* I'm the Juggernaut, Beyoch!
* Beast. Great realizing of one of my favorite mutants
* Phoenix Saga without the Whole Space-Saga thing
* Naked Rebecca Stamos!

Disliked
* Rogue. She was my favorite in X1-2, but she was reduced to a cameo/footnote. And did Anna Parquin gain some weight? 
* Cyclop's death. A lame way to write-out an important character in X1-2. He as in it for 2-3 minutes tops?
* Angel. So little to do, he was a plot-device, not a character. 
* Where was Nightcrawler?
* The "classic five" never appeared together (Beast, Cyclops, Angel, Jean, Iceman) despite all being in the movie.
* Character Assassination. Magneto the racist. Prof X "controlling" Jean. Cyclops the reckless. Multiple Man the Villian (and lamely used), Rogue being reduced to a weak-willed non-combatant willing to take the cure. All seemed completely out of character. Least Storm and Wolvernine were spot on.
* Too much to do. Finish the Magneto War. The Cure. Phoenix. All too crammed, with too little development to each. X-3 Could-have been three movies easily.
* (Personal) Sweet Jebus! No Gambit AGAIN. Couldn't they have made him a cameo, or even a bad-guy in Magneto's army?

All in all, a let-down over the vastly superior X2.


----------



## Firebeetle (May 27, 2006)

*Challenge*

We've got a lot of naysayers on the thread. To them I issue a challenge:

Name a better third installment sequel for a comic book franchise. You must be able to articulate why and you cannot brush it off with "anything is better than this movie" because that's a cop-out.


----------



## Vigilance (May 27, 2006)

John Cooper said:
			
		

> I caught the Stan Lee cameo (guy watering the lawn in Jean Grey's neighborhood), but which was Chris Claremont?




Claremont's cameo is right before Stan's.

He's the guy mowing his lawn who's lawnmower lifts into the air.

He's credited as "lawnmower man".

Chuck


----------



## RangerWickett (May 27, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> We've got a lot of naysayers on the thread. To them I issue a challenge:
> 
> Name a better third installment sequel for a comic book franchise. You must be able to articulate why and you cannot brush it off with "anything is better than this movie" because that's a cop-out.




 Well, seeing as our options are currently Superman 3 (Richard Pryor) or Batman Forever (Holy Rusted Metal Batman), I suppose you win this round. But that's kind of like saying, "I challenge you to name a better movie that had the Phoenix Saga in it." Define your parameters closely enough, and you're sure to win.

Oh, I guess I forgot Darkman 3. Was there a Darkman 3? *shrug*

The movie does not suck, but it's weak. I won't complain much about weak movies. I only complain about terrible ones.

Like Star Wars Episodes 1, 2, and 3.


----------



## Vigilance (May 27, 2006)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> * Cyclop's death. A lame way to write-out an important character in X1-2. He as in it for 2-3 minutes tops?




I see this a lot. Wolverine ASSUMES Cyke is dead. But we never see a body. By the rules of comics and comic films, Cyke is not dead. Even when you DO see the body, the character often isn't dead, but "death" with no body isn't death. 

Jean died without her body being found at the end of X-2 and Xavier blew up on screen. Neither is dead. 




> * The "classic five" never appeared together (Beast, Cyclops, Angel, Jean, Iceman) despite all being in the movie.




I agree they had the potential for a real fanboy moment, but A) in the movies they are not the classic five, the first generation of movie mutants seems to be Cyke, Jean, Beast and Storm (the action team from movie #1).

Also, during the movie the characters are on much different courses (especially Jean). 



> * Prof X "controlling" Jean.




Feel free to label this character assassination, but everything in the movie is straight from comics canon as laid down by Claremont.

In the comics, when Xavier recruits Jean (in a side story told long ago by Claremont not many have read- it appeared as one of the backup stories in the reprints), Jean had absorbed her best friend's mind as she lay dying after being hit by a car.

Her mind was fractured and her telepathy had surfaced much too early and in an out of control fashion because of this trauma.

Xavier repressed this awful memory and experience, along with her telepathy, to give her a chance to heal.

Then later when Phoenix emerged and was a danger, Xavier again went in and but barriers in Jeans's mind to repress the dangerous side of her power.

You can call it "character assassination", but the story in the movie is 100% consistent with what has been laid down in the comics.

Two options: A) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Xavier is trying to do the right thing but ends up making a bad situation worse (this is the majority view of his actions wrt Jean/Phoenix in the comics).

B) Xavier isn't that different from Magneto and is willing to abuse his power in keeping with his own worldview.

Either way, there was no assassination going on. Xavier just isn't the fluffy bunny a lot of people perceive him to be.

Chuck


----------



## Remathilis (May 27, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I see this a lot. Wolverine ASSUMES Cyke is dead. But we never see a body. By the rules of comics and comic films, Cyke is not dead. Even when you DO see the body, the character often isn't dead, but "death" with no body isn't death.
> 
> Jean died without her body being found at the end of X-2 and Xavier blew up on screen. Neither is dead.




Regardless if he is dead or not, he's barely in the movie and even if he's not, he wasn't a key player in this movie, despite being a key player in the first two and in the comics.




> I agree they had the potential for a real fanboy moment, but A) in the movies they are not the classic five, the first generation of movie mutants seems to be Cyke, Jean, Beast and Storm (the action team from movie Also, during the movie the characters are on much different courses (especially Jean).#1).




Realized, and it was pure fan-boy, but it woulda been neat. 



> Feel free to label this character assassination, but everything in the movie is straight from comics canon as laid down by Claremont.




I realize the whole "protecting Jean from herself" method, but his speech to Logan seems artificial, like he didn't need to justify his actions and he knew what was best. His confrontation with Jean seems less like "I want to help, you're not yourself" and more "let me reset status quo". Good reason, poor execution.


----------



## Thanee (May 27, 2006)

Just saw it and I really liked it. 

So... to start the speculations for part 4 (unless someone has already mentioned it, didn't really read the thread)... the guy in the last scene (yes, the one AFTER the trailer!), that's the guy in that video, the good professor showed his students, when Storm changed the weather, right?

I think this is the professor now (transfered his mind to the new body)!

What do you say?




> And did Anna Parquin gain some weight?




Seemed rather fitting, considering her constant frustration.
Too bad it's going to come back (her powers, and thus the frustration)... poor Rogue. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Vigilance (May 27, 2006)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I realize the whole "protecting Jean from herself" method, but his speech to Logan seems artificial, like he didn't need to justify his actions and he knew what was best. His confrontation with Jean seems less like "I want to help, you're not yourself" and more "let me reset status quo". Good reason, poor execution.




Right but this is Xavier in a nutshell.

He's "dad". He's smarter than you, and he knows best, and if you don't realize that, then you just might be unduly influenced by his power.

You think Magneto and Juggernaut make having a mind-proof helmet a priority cause Xavier is afraid to muck around in people's minds?

He does feel justified for all sorts of mind tampering. In the comics and the movies. Like in X-2 where he and Magneto have a little chat about how they both know more about Wolverine than he does, and Xavier blithely mentions that he has "set Wolverine on the path", to which Magneto replies, "you just want him in your X_men so you're not telling him the real truth".

Ever occur to you Magneto is telling the truth? Xavier promised to help Wolverine, and COULD help him much more than he actually is. In other words he's lying.

The interesting thing about Xavier, is that he does unethical things all the time. He's much less honest than Magneto. But he gets a pass because he's so likable and does a lot of legitimately good things. 

So I agree HE sees nothing wrong with what he did to Jean.

What you seem to have missed is that he does things like that all the time, for reasons he considers good. That doesn't mean they ARE good. 

And now that the third movie has made it a little more obvious what he's been doing all along to you, you consider it character assassination, because you have made the uncomfortable realization that he's not all warm and fuzzy.


----------



## buzzard (May 28, 2006)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> * Character Assassination. Magneto the racist.




In the previous movie Magneto was trying to arrange for every normal human to be exterminated. Every last homo sapiens would have been dead. 

Him snubbing Mystique upsets you, but genocide against all normal humans gets a pass? 

Huh?

buzzard


----------



## KenM (May 28, 2006)

I just saw it. I really liked it, thought it was really good.  I was just wondering thou, how fast can angel fly? He did not go onboard the xjet that has to travel from New York state to San Farnsisco(Sp?) In a matter of hours, but he can fly there in time to save his Dad in about the same time the xjet can?


----------



## Vigilance (May 28, 2006)

buzzard said:
			
		

> In the previous movie Magneto was trying to arrange for every normal human to be exterminated. Every last homo sapiens would have been dead.
> 
> Him snubbing Mystique upsets you, but genocide against all normal humans gets a pass?
> 
> ...




This is a credit to Iam McKellan as an actor I think and why he plays a better villain than anyone alive atm. 

You have the same reaction to him when you watch him play Richard III. He has a way of seeming likable and reasonable while doing horrible things. So since people like him, they try to rationalize away what he does as "not so bad".

Tying in to what I was saying above about Xavier not being as nice as he is likable, this helps explain why Xavier and Magneto don't just kill each other. They're not that different, they like each other, and deep down, don't have a problem with each other's methods.

Like good cop and bad cop, they both have the same agenda and are willing to turn a blind eye to each others' tactics.


----------



## Staffan (May 28, 2006)

KenM said:
			
		

> I just saw it. I really liked it, thought it was really good.  I was just wondering thou, how fast can angel fly? He did not go onboard the xjet that has to travel from New York state to San Farnsisco(Sp?) In a matter of hours, but he can fly there in time to save his Dad in about the same time the xjet can?



I don't know about the movie Angel, but according to wikipedia the comic Angel has a top speed of 150 mph. If he wants to travel longer distances, he probably has to pace himself and go slower, though.
Edit: According to this site, his cruising speed is about 70 mph.


----------



## griff_goodbeard (May 28, 2006)

I saw it last night and found it enjoyable.  It was money well spent.  The only thing I didn't like was how rushed it felt.  I thought the Dark Phoenix storyline would be cool to explore in a movie, and I liked the whole "cure" plotline, but I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if they would have done one or the other instead of cramming them both into the same film.


----------



## Someone (May 28, 2006)

buzzard said:
			
		

> In the previous movie Magneto was trying to arrange for every normal human to be exterminated. Every last homo sapiens would have been dead.
> 
> Him snubbing Mystique upsets you, but genocide against all normal humans gets a pass?
> 
> ...




And in the first move he invented a machine that turned people into mutants (a reverse cure), so maybe in the end his character hasn´t changed so much. But I had the impression that he saw the human-mutant conflict as a war -a total war, meaning complete enemy destruction- while in the 3rd movie it´s clear he dehumanizes non-mutants, to the point that a close and loyal associate wasn´t worthy of a kind word when she loses her powers.

Thinking on it, there´s a progression in the 3 movies: in the first, he wanted to turn leaders into mutants so he could unite humanity. In the second, he reversed Striker´s machine, and in the third he sinks really low with all the blatant racist stuff (even when obviously, killing every human is objetively worse than anything he did in the 3rd movie)


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 28, 2006)

And just as a side thing, Magneto taking in Mystique-sans-powers probably wouldn't be the best idea anyways, as he'd have to protect her from his little Brotherhood mini-army all the time, and (from his perspective) he wouldn't be able to help her regain her powers, so she's probably better off just doing the human thing. Cold, yes, but not much more horrible than Xavier repressing Jean Grey or reprogramming Wolverine's mind. In fact, probably less.


----------



## delericho (May 28, 2006)

Spoilers....



Spoiler



I blinked at the key moment, so didn't see the "Magneto moving the chess piece" thing at the end, and I left before the end of the credits, so didn't see the "Xavier is alive" thing, and I'm really glad of that. I found the ending really sad, showing what Rogue had given up, and everything that Magneto had lost. Ian McKellan did a really fine job of portraying what a lost, defeated and lonely old man Magneto was without his powers, his purpose, or the people he cared about (Mystique and Xavier).

But if Magneto still has his powers, then it means that the 'Cure' isn't permanent (and how I hate calling it a 'Cure'!), which means that Rogue's decision, Mystique's betrayal, and most of the events of the film became meaningless.

Likewise, if Xavier is alive, then all the character reactions to his death are cheated. It's like a big reset button has been pushed. In fact, all they need to do is find some way to bring Cyclops back, and things will be back to exactly where they were without the film.

This sort of bringing characters back from the dead makes for lousy storytelling, IMO. Every time it's done, it cheapens death. People can't make sacrifices, because you just know they'll be back. It's far better IMO for the writers to either make the death stick or, and here's a radical suggestion, _not kill the character off in the first place._


----------



## Thanee (May 28, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> ...it means that the 'Cure' isn't permanent...




Of course it isn't permanent. Leech only removes the powers when someone is nearby, they are regained as soon as one leaves his area of influence. The 'cure' will work for a while, but once the liquid is dissolved, it is gone. It's not a 'cure' (they just call it that, since they think it is, and more importantly, since they think mutation is a disease), it's a suppressor, just like Leech's power, which it is based on.



> This sort of bringing characters back from the dead makes for lousy storytelling...




Well, that's superheroes and supervillains... they don't die... they evolve. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## stevelabny (May 28, 2006)

Random thoughts.

A big EH. Not a disaster, but not great either.

I havent seen anyone mention it, but there was a net rumor that Cyclops was killed off because Marsden signed on to be in Superman.  

The "new" origin of Phoenix was actually something I was ok with. As were a lot of the other moves some people are calling character assassinations. Of course Magneto would leave Mystique behind, because they were allies, he didn't kill her (even knowing she would probably betray him). 

I was glad to see the Prof get offed as wise old mentors are supposed to die, and it would be torturous to have to continue to mostly write him out (x1) or otherwise occupy him (x2) at the end of EVERY movie because he's so ridiculously powerful he can basically stop time.
He needs to die to let the team grow. If only comics had the brains to offf him. Luckily, the after-credits scene doesn't have to be followed up on with a full return.

But with Prof gone, killing Cyclops becomes even more of a mistake. Not only does he get all his end-of-the-Phoenix-saga lines given to Wolverine, but now we're stuck with Halle Berry in charge of the school?  Yikes. That's reason enough to wait 5 years for x4...so Iceman and Rogue can be the "elderstatesmen" teaching a group of New Mutants. (Can I get a Cannonball? )

I don't understand the cries of no characterization either, as the way the script was constructed, you got characterization and closure for Cyclops and Jean. Wolverine continues to be the star. Storm was actually ok in this movie. We took care of Iceman, Pyro and Rogue.  They hit all the notes they absolutely needed to hit (which is why the movie winds up OK)  

What the movie was lacking was humor.  The minor-profanity exchange between Juggernaut and Kitty wasn't half as funny as it was supposed to be.  We already got that humor out of the way in the legendary Cyclops-Wolvy exchange in X1.  The one or two other minor lines just weren't enough.

But Frasier played a good Beat and they gave him a chance to say "Oh my stars and garters" and thats gotta be worth a few points right there. 

So it gets a barely passing grade, but is filled with some franchise-damaging mistakes.  Of course, the X-verse is soooo huge, that could be fixed if they wanted to. But I don't know how likely that is.


----------



## KenM (May 28, 2006)

One thing I would have liked to have seen was Iceman cruising on the ice that he makes like in the old "Spider Man and his amazing friends " cartoon.


----------



## Quasqueton (May 28, 2006)

I saw it last night. I really liked it. I thought it a great movie.

Quasqueton


----------



## Staffan (May 28, 2006)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> He needs to die to let the team grow. If only comics had the brains to offf him. Luckily, the after-credits scene doesn't have to be followed up on with a full return.



They have written him out from time to time. At one time, he was dying of heart failure, got rescued by Lilandra and the Star Jammers, and then they had to high-tail it out of there because they were being pursued. That put him away for 75 issues. Currently, he is depowered (following the House of M thing) and has been thrown out of the X-mansion. We'll see how long that lasts.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (May 28, 2006)

For those complaining that Cyclops only got a few minutes of screen time - did any of you actually see XMen 2?!  He dissappeared for nearly an hour of film time while being 'reconditioned' by Stryker and had very little to do before that (mainly push Xavier around in his wheelchair).  I'm amazed the actor even came back for the role after that.  It was obvious that CYke was being written out even back then.  These are defiantely the Wolverine-show movies.

I liked this movie and am glad that Xavier is not gone (to whomever said that Xavier needed to die - I couldn't disagree more.  Xavier is the heart and soul of the XMen).  I'll miss Scott and Jean but I would still go to Xmen 4 (even with Halle Barry as team leader *shudder*).


----------



## BlueBlackRed (May 28, 2006)

I was horribly disappointed with this film.
It's not a bad movie, it's just a letdown from the quality of the first 2 films.
It still beats The Hulk, DareDevil, and The Fantastic Four easily. But that's not an accomplishment to be proud of.

I felt that the movie was turned into a cheap shoot-em-up style of movie.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 28, 2006)

I'm not surprised in the least that they're killing everyone off.

The official comment is: This is the last of the 'Singer Saga'. We will most likely see more X-franchise movies, but those will be _new_ stories set in the same continuity. This story is over.

In reality I think they're just trying to decrease the cost of the cast: Keeping the big stars like Hugh Jackman and (ugh) Halle Berry, while getting rid of the more expensive secondary cast (Patrick Stewart, Famke Jensen etc.).


----------



## Chimera (May 28, 2006)

Saw it Friday night.  Liked it.

Not a cure, a temporary solution.  Supresses, but as we saw, won't last forever.

I don't see that as being a "then all this was for nothing" type of thing.  Magneto has, in the words of Ricky Ricardo "A lot of 'splainin' to do" to Mystique and probably won't be as easily trusted by "the pawns".

I was more bothered by him being FREE and in the park at the end.  This is a man who has killed a lot of people.  They won't just let him run free because he's no longer a mutant.

Halle Berry was worthwhile in the film.  Love the whole change-of-heart on her part.  ("I'll never do another X-men movie again unless it's all about Storm" - followed by the whole Catwoman debacle...)

Agree that Xavier was far too powerful as given and that they're better off writing him out of the thing entirely.  Very probably makes Berry more interested in sequels, as she's potentially got a beefier role in any future movies.  Also makes me wonder about Patrick Stewart's health, as he's made some comments about being "too old" to do more Star Trek and so forth.  Maybe it's kind of like Ron Glass' character being killed off in Serenity because of the actor's health.

I have NO PROBLEM with Rogue seeking the cure.  If you're a horny teen and you can NEVER have intimate contact with anyone without risk of killing them, then the cure seems like the solution.  Since WE know that it's not permanent, it, in meta-terms, gives her character the time to explore intimacy before ultimately regaining her powers.  (Which aren't like Superman/Xavier/Magneto type powers anyway, folks.)


----------



## Testament (May 28, 2006)

Theory:

If there ends up being an X4 (which I suspect), then the villain is obvious.  Nathaniel Essex, AKA Mr Sinister is the man to go to.  Why?  Because whenever a ressurection is needed, he seems to be the man to do it in the comics.

And consider who died.  Can't be coincidence.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 28, 2006)

Chimera said:
			
		

> I was more bothered by him being FREE and in the park at the end.  This is a man who has killed a lot of people.  They won't just let him run free because he's no longer a mutant.




With all the chaos at the end, everyone who was not Wolverine just got the hell out of Dodge. Magneto can easily slip away in the ensuing chaos and he can't be found afterwards - there's no one that can use Cerebro anymore, even if he'd register on it. There's any number of explanations.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 28, 2006)

Remember when Magneto says something to the effect of "mark my words, the humans will strike first" in reference to them using the "cure" forcefully...  Then when they free Mystique and Juggernaught, one of the guards shoots Mystique.  Magneto says, more or less, "see, I told you so.  I told you they would strike first!".  Doesn't that seem a little... odd?  I mean, moments before it was Magneto that destroyed the caravan that was transporting Mystique.  Wasn't he the one that struck first?

Over all, the movie was good, not great.  The first two were definately better.  Maybe I had too high hopes for it.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 28, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Wasn't he the one that struck first?




No, it was the humans putting the 'cure' into a weapon rather than, say, a hypo.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2006)

Just saw it.

Meh.  Another Wolverine fanboy movie.

I would have preferred seeing cyclpos actually get to do something, but as was said earlier, they pretty much had written him out starting with X2. I would also have liked to see more of Colossus.

Why do all evil mutants look like goth punkers?

Too rushed, too weak, too boring, glad I didn't pay full price to see it.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (May 28, 2006)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> I would also have liked to see more of Colossus.[\QUOTE]
> 
> Gotta agree with that.  More Colossus/Shadowcat would have been even better (since when does Bobby Drake get all the girls??!).
> 
> ...


----------



## GandhitheBFG (May 28, 2006)

SPOILERS!

I'm so confused.

Just saw the movie, and while I was there, WOW. It rocked socks.

Now, though (and before reading this thread, honest!) I'm not so sure.

Aggravation One:

Magneto, after losing all his powers, got sad and went to play chess in the park with the other doddering old men. I personally thought he was going to kill himself, somehow (call me morbid.) The chess piece twitch goes some way to alleviate this irritation.

Aggravation Two:

Mystique. They broke her! In the first two films, particularly the second, she was one of, if not my absolute favourite character(s). She got 'cured', and basically disappeared after pretending to sell out Magneto (unless I missed something; she just sent them to find Multiple-Man, right?)

Aggravation Three:

Where in the name of Bob was Nightcrawler? Fair enough if they didn't want to include him, but they could have mentioned his absence. He was clearly involved in the final scene of the second movie, standing alongside the X-men.

Finally, number four:

Angel. I've never been a big fan, but after his first scene *shudders* I was hopeful. Then he turned into a plot device.

All in all, it was a good popcorn flick, I think, and an OK finish to the trilogy.

I should probably mention my favourite bits, too.

Number one:
 The professor showing his less than ... well, perfect side, I guess is the word. As has been mentioned, he's not a nice fluffy bunny. Not even a nice, fluffy, *psychic* bunny. I wont post my reasons for thinking he's a bit naughty, they've already been said.

Two:

The dark pheonix, non-space version. I've been expecting it (along with everyone else) since the end of the second movie. I was pleasantly surprised.

Three:

Cyclops is gone! Sorry for the  fans, but he annoyed me to no end, and always has. His death (for me) served a much better purpose than his living could have done.

Hmm. Not so confused anymore, I guess.

It's worth a watch. But don't expect X-2.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 28, 2006)

The biggest mistake that the movie franchise did was write out Cyclops.  Cyke was a good foil for Wolverine, and I felt that the two played well off of each other on screen in X1.


----------



## drothgery (May 28, 2006)

The movies never did Cyke well.  I'm not a comics reader, so I don't know what the guy's like there, but movie-Cyclops never seemed like the tough, take-charge guy you'd expect Xavier's heir-apparent to be.

Still minor annoyance 1


Spoiler



Orro's tactical stupidity was kind of bothersome. Why is she ever on the ground, or anywhere near a tall structure in a combat scene (other than the effects budget)? She should be in the sky, rendering mooks useless with bad weather and tossing down lightning strikes. Only a handful of mutants can fly, and the only one Magneto had with him was Jean.

Bobby could have done better, too, but that's more explainable, as he's a lot less experienced. But Wall of Ice is a nice spell to be able to do at will...



and minor annoyance 2


Spoiler



Did anyone else think the Jean at the end was way too reminiscent of Evil Willow?


----------



## EricNoah (May 29, 2006)

Saw it this afternoon, found it pretty enjoyable.  Jean was positively scary.


----------



## Dimwhit (May 29, 2006)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Saw it this afternoon, found it pretty enjoyable.  Jean was positively scary.



 And really hot...


----------



## Vigilance (May 29, 2006)

drothgery said:
			
		

> and minor annoyance 2
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...




LOL!

You have it backward bud.

There's a reason why the geeks refer to her as "Dark Willow". The comic version of that story was told about 15 years before Buffy did a not-so-subtle homage to that storyline.

Which isn't a bad thing. Joss is a huge X-men fan and prolly wanted to see a screen version of Dark Phoenix as much as me, since at that time I didnt think we'd ever have one.

Still, you have it backward. Buffy did the "homage" not this movie.

Chuck


----------



## Psion (May 29, 2006)

Just got back from movie & dinner date with the wife unit.

I liked it. I liked it a lot.

I went into it thinking that they really should have tried another villain than magneto -- there was more to the X-men story than Magneto.

Early on, the movie is crowded with plotlines and events. I thought they did a good job with the existing characters,  but I feel like they didn't try hard enough to give some more focus on the younger team members like Ariel and Collossus.

Beast was cool, but I was an Avengers fan more than an X-men fan; I'll always remember his as an Avenger. (Shrug) I guess in the context of the movie-verse it worked. (AFAIAC, I pretty much had to make peace with the fact that the movie verse was different after gulping down the way different rogue in movie 1).

Phoenix was my favorite X-man from the original comic. But you know what... I was afraid that I was REALLY going to hate what they did with her, being inevitably so different from the comic. But you know, after I saw it, it seemed so much more logical and compelling a crisis than the comic to me. I couldn't help but like how they handled Phoenix, save that 1) I think they could have layed on more of the "arrogant goddess" thing of the original and 2) She was a wallflower for too long; should have brought her in later.

Though I was not ready for another Magneto movie, I will say that McKellan (with the help of the screenwriter) really did good with him, laying bare what a monster he really is. This movies drives home, if you have any doubts, that this guy is WRONG.

In the crowded subplots, Angel was also a victim of the sidelining.

It was sort of good that they invested some time in plot development in the beginning; it takes the edge off of later when it turns into a Bruckheimer film...

The "magneto on the bridge scene" lost the movie half of the "this makes sense" points that Phoenix earned.

Towards the end, I was playing a game of "saw that coming" with my wife. Lots of things I could have seen. The only thing that blindsided me was the clip at the end. And it totally shouldn't have. Oh well. Score one "surprise me" point for the flick.

In the end, I enjoyed it.


----------



## Klaus (May 29, 2006)

"Still, you have it backward. Buffy did the "homage" not this movie."

I believe he's talking about the make-up of Dark Phoenix. In the comics Dark Phenix just had a shadow over her face and white eyes, like she was lit up from inside. The veiny look could be a homage to the series that did a homage to the comics. Talk about cross-polinization!


----------



## Vigilance (May 29, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> "Still, you have it backward. Buffy did the "homage" not this movie."
> 
> I believe he's talking about the make-up of Dark Phoenix. In the comics Dark Phenix just had a shadow over her face and white eyes, like she was lit up from inside. The veiny look could be a homage to the series that did a homage to the comics. Talk about cross-polinization!




Yeah that's a possibility. I think Joss just nailed a good way to represent Phoenix on screen.

And when you consider that the "mutant cure" storyline comes from Joss' run on Astonishing X-men, you have a lot of ideas flying back and forth.

Chuck


----------



## drothgery (May 29, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> "Still, you have it backward. Buffy did the "homage" not this movie."
> 
> I believe he's talking about the make-up of Dark Phoenix. In the comics Dark Phenix just had a shadow over her face and white eyes, like she was lit up from inside. The veiny look could be a homage to the series that did a homage to the comics. Talk about cross-polinization!




Yeah, the makeup, and the special effects, and Dark Phoenix floating in the air with the surroundings exploding around her were just so reminiscent of the season 6 Buffy finale that I thought it was worth commenting on.

Of course, being a non-comic reader, I don't have more than a rank in knowledge(X-men lore)...


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 29, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> And when you consider that the "mutant cure" storyline comes from Joss' run on Astonishing X-men, you have a lot of ideas flying back and forth.



All respect to Joss Whedon, but he was hardly the first to give us that plotline.


----------



## Aesthetic Monk (May 29, 2006)

I'll call it a slightly-above-average end to a slightly-above-average series, a movie that I think will probably not age all that well or be much thought about a few years from now, one that fails to reach the bar set by X2, much less Spider-man 2, which for my money has become the gold standard for superhero movies.

Pros: Lots of interesting heroes and villians portrayed in a pretty short span of time. The characterization for the minor characters was generally pretty good--brief, fairly one-dimensional, but nonetheless effective given the time/space limitations. Much of the action's pretty good. I've never liked Beast, really, but I thought Grammer did a pretty good job with him. Ian McKellen was, of course, superlative, and he carries much of this picture on his powerful shoulders. Wolverine's never been my favorite character, but it's nice to actually see him be a little more of the stalker, even for just a minute (and not all that effectively).

Cons: Quite a few, unfortunately.

-- The length. Longer doesn't always mean better, but at about 1:40, this movie can't possibly cover all the territory it sets out to. Of course we were never going to get the whole Phoenix/Dark Pheonix saga, and for the most part I don't mind the character revision, but what we get here was a squished-together Phoenix mini-saga plus the end of the main Magneto storyline. Either would've been enough for a film; together, they feel like mashed potatoes. I'm sure the 14-month development schedule can be blamed for some of this, as can the absence of Singer. (As an aside, why can't this series have a single naming convention--X-Men, X2, X-Men 3? Odd.)

-- Phoenix. This builds off of the first con. I've always liked Famke as Jean, and I thought she did a pretty good job in X2, but here, after the opening scene and her time at her home again, she's got nothing to do but stand around and glare. Sure, she gets kinda scary, but she's hardly the emotional weight for this story, which leads to ...

-- Xavier. What he gets to do in this movie, he does pretty well, although his I-don't-have-to-explain-myself-to-you-least-of-all bit is tiresome and wearily delivered. I don't know whether Stewart wanted out, but he seems at the exhaustion point here, and it's probably just as well that his role is minor.

-- Halle. Not a Halle-hater here, but if not as an actress at least as Storm she's got severe limitations. If you're the filmmaker and counting on her to carry the emotional weight of your movie, you're in trouble. She pretty much utterly fails to deliver; her speech at the school is utterly unconvincing, and her appeal to Wolverine to "be with them" is, well, I guess unsuccessful even for him, 'cause he goes and runs off. (I know he comes back, but ...)

-- Insufficient impact. Not surprisingly, I didn't find much emotional resonance here. What should've been a big moment at the end just feels flat to me.

This movie isn't the disaster that one might fairly have predicted from all the off-the-screen hijinks and the rushed development schedule. I can't help feeling like those of us who liked the series and the books deserved better.


----------



## Thanee (May 29, 2006)

GandhitheBFG said:
			
		

> Magneto, after losing all his powers, got sad and went to play chess in the park with the other doddering old men. I personally thought he was going to kill himself, somehow (call me morbid.) The chess piece twitch goes some way to alleviate this irritation.




_“Wiggle your big toe!”_

The chess park scene is only to let the audience _think_, that Magneto is a broken man now. Hey, it makes sense for such a brilliant mind, playing chess, especially with the chess analogies before ('that's why you send in the pawns first'). It looks like... wow, look how deep he has fallen. Now he cannot have his mutant army for pawns, he has to rely on regular pawns. Then comes the surprise (which shouldn't really be one, though, once you realized, that with Leech's power being non-permanent, the 'cure' cannot really be permanent either)!



> Mystique. They broke her! In the first two films, particularly the second, she was one of, if not my absolute favourite character(s). She got 'cured', and basically disappeared after pretending to sell out Magneto (unless I missed something; she just sent them to find Multiple-Man, right?)




No, Magneto figured she would betray them and set that up.

Also, Mystique will join the X-Men in X4 now, of course. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dog Moon (May 29, 2006)

So if the cure is not permanent, then Rogue can get her power back.  If she gets her power back, then in the 4th movie, she will chase away Bobbie because he needs Human contact, but she'll find a new hubbie [Gambit!] and at some point in time be turned evil momentarily by Mystique and suck the powers of the Superhero lady [forgot her name] and become more like the Rogue she should be.  Not sure how she'd gain the accent though...


----------



## Fast Learner (May 29, 2006)

Marvel Girl.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 29, 2006)

*Slight correction*

Don't you mean Ms. Marvel? Marvel Girl was Jean Gray. At least until the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix story lines.


----------



## Klaus (May 29, 2006)

Indeed, Ms. Marvel was the one drained by Rogue in the comics. I was thinking that after she got her white streak from Magneto, she'd have a bit of magnetic powers in the movies, like she did in Age of Apocalypse.

I never understood why the don't just bury the Phoenix hatchet in the comics and let Jean become Marvel Woman. I mean, it worked for Sue Storm/Richards, right?


----------



## drothgery (May 29, 2006)

Dog Moon said:
			
		

> So if the cure is not permanent, then Rogue can get her power back.




If the cure's not permanent, then I'd think some mutants (especially Rogue, and, going by the "no body=not dead" theory, Cyclops) would really like an 8-hour powers-free pill.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 29, 2006)

D'oh, Ms. Marvel.

That whole "company-named characters" thing always confuses me. I'm forever mixing Dr. DC with DC Dude.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 29, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Indeed, Ms. Marvel was the one drained by Rogue in the comics. I was thinking that after she got her white streak from Magneto, she'd have a bit of magnetic powers in the movies, like she did in Age of Apocalypse.



That would have been fun.

[tangent]I read X-Men for a few months, and for the longest time I thought Rogue's mutations were flight and super-strength. (Marvel Strenght?) Of course, I also thought Wolverine's mutation was having metal claws come out of his hands, and that the Beast's mutation was being blue and furry. Didn't Stan Lee create mutants so he wouldn't have to explain their orgian? [/tangent]



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> I never understood why the don't just bury the Phoenix hatchet in the comics and let Jean become Marvel Woman. I mean, it worked for Sue Storm/Richards, right?



You got me, I don't know why either.

I enjoyed the movie. Of course I'm a big fan of Beast, Shadowcat, and Iceman. 

That said, I have the same problem with this movie that I did with the X2. In X2, I kept thinking, "there's a big thing of water comming at the plane, I know *let's have the guy who's power is to freeze water stop it!*" Logic lost out to mayrterism.

With X3, I thought: "Jean's out of control? I know, *let's get the guy who's power it is to nullify other mutant powers!*" Logic lost out agin. 

Neither one of these things was enough to keep from enjoying the film overall.

Of course, I'm a fanboy. What did you expect?


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (May 29, 2006)

I think more characters should have died. I always think more characters should have died. And I did not see Mag's move the cheese piece with his mutant powers, I thought it was shaking the board or poking the piece.


----------



## drothgery (May 29, 2006)

KenM said:
			
		

> I just saw it. I really liked it, thought it was really good.  I was just wondering thou, how fast can angel fly? He did not go onboard the xjet that has to travel from New York state to San Farnsisco(Sp?) In a matter of hours, but he can fly there in time to save his Dad in about the same time the xjet can?




He didn't. He flew to the airport, got the Worthington corporate jet to take him to SFO, and flew from there    Alternatively, he stowed away on the Xjet when nobody was looking.


----------



## Mimic (May 29, 2006)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> With X3, I thought: "Jean's out of control? I know, *let's get the guy who's power it is to nullify other mutant powers!*" Logic lost out agin.




Not to defend the movie or anything but how are they going to get the child close enough to her? Considering she A) knows about him and what he can do and B) Obliterating everything around her and the only reason Logan made it close to her was because of his healing powers?

Do you really want to risk the life of a innocent child in the vague hope that he gets close enough to affect her?

I liked the movie, it wasn't super fantastic but it was worth the ticket purchase. I thought the personalities of Magneto an Professer X were perfect.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 29, 2006)

Yeah, I thought the same thing about the final fight: get Leech close to Phoenix and you're set, but then ran into that very puzzle, Mimic. And it's not like anyone who would help him get close could use their powers, either. And with the world's most powerful telepath being all omniscient and stuff, I don't see any way you could get the kid close.

(Ok, I did think of the possibility of using either Magneto's helmet or Juggernaut's, both of which block telepathy iirc, but still had no plan to get through the maelstrom.)


----------



## Lord Pendragon (May 30, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> ...what a monster [Magneto] really is. This movies drives home, if you have any doubts, that this guy is WRONG.



This actually comes as a disappointment to me.  For me, coming from the days of _Fatal Attraction_, Magneto has always been the ultimate "gray villain."  Which is to say he's the villain who, if you squint your eyes, almost seems like not a villain at all.  He's the violent freedom fighter, the righteous wrath of the oppressed, the protector of the unique.  Yes, he goes too far, and that is what makes him one of the bad guys.  But you can understand his reasons and to a degree sympathize with him.  He lived through the concentration camps in WWII, and is seeing the same thing looming on the horizon, this time for mutants, and he's not willing to wait around until his people are being burned _again_.

The movie Magneto, though, is simply a racist.  Clearly black-letter bad.

How very boring.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 30, 2006)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> That would have been fun.
> 
> [tangent]I read X-Men for a few months, and for the longest time I thought Rogue's mutations were flight and super-strength. (Marvel Strenght?) Of course, I also thought Wolverine's mutation was having metal claws come out of his hands, and that the Beast's mutation was being blue and furry. Didn't Stan Lee create mutants so he wouldn't have to explain their orgian? [/tangent]




Well, Rogue and Wolverine, IIRC, weren't created by Stan Lee.  And, really, Rogue's kinda useless without other mutants to steal powers from or Ms. Marvel's stolen powers.

I actually rather enjoyed the movie.  It was a lot better than I'd heard.  I'd've appreciated a flaming nimbus around the Phoenix in the last scene, though.

Brad


----------



## Darth K'Trava (May 30, 2006)

I'd rather not think of Ms. Marvel. Reminds me of that dingbat from Dragoncon.... if you go there, then you'd know.......   


As for the movie, I enjoyed it. There was alot going on and definitely ALOT of special effects. Probably a bit too much.... which overshadowed some of the plot. Easily could've been split into more than one movie. And the tidbit at the end of the credits, coupled with the chess piece moving, left it WIDE OPEN for a next installment.


----------



## BlueBlackRed (May 30, 2006)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> The movie Magneto, though, is simply a racist.  Clearly black-letter bad.
> 
> How very boring.



I totally agree.
Also, Professor X seemed very unlike the previous movies Professor X and the comics version.
He was darker, and not in a good way.


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2006)

I really didn't like this movie.  The lethality was REDICULOUS and really stepped on the peaceful mutant theme the last two movies set up.  I"ve watched the X-men in different genres, i've never seen "good" x'men rack up a body count like that.  (not phoenix, that made sense, i'm talking about wolverine slashing and killing what really was just some angry teens much like the ones at the mansion. 

What were they thinking...


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2006)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Yeah, I thought the same thing about the final fight: get Leech close to Phoenix and you're set, but then ran into that very puzzle, Mimic. And it's not like anyone who would help him get close could use their powers, either. And with the world's most powerful telepath being all omniscient and stuff, I don't see any way you could get the kid close.
> 
> (Ok, I did think of the possibility of using either Magneto's helmet or Juggernaut's, both of which block telepathy iirc, but still had no plan to get through the maelstrom.)



This is my thought, the movie lacked intelligence.  It was like watching a bunch of idiots with super powers whom didn't know tactics nor work with each other.   I kept thinking, man there are so many ways they could have solved this like they would in teh comic books without killing anyone or at least the minor villians.   Puts the movie in the same categories as the first batman.  This may work in Sincity and PUnisher but really ruins the flavor of "comic book violence".


----------



## WayneLigon (May 30, 2006)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> That said, I have the same problem with this movie that I did with the X2. In X2, I kept thinking, "there's a big thing of water comming at the plane, I know *let's have the guy who's power is to freeze water stop it!*" Logic lost out to mayrterism.




Yeah, because there is no difference at all between making a small ice wall or freezing up a small still pond and billions of tons of water moving at a hundred miles an hour or so.


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> We've got a lot of naysayers on the thread. To them I issue a challenge:
> 
> Name a better third installment sequel for a comic book franchise. You must be able to articulate why and you cannot brush it off with "anything is better than this movie" because that's a cop-out.



Lets see, the Superman third installment was good for what it was.  Superman didn't go ape crap and start killing all the bad guys out of frustration. 

Batman 3, atl east tried to keep the characters traditional to their comic book heritage.  It's main flaw is that it over does it with a bad script. 

I"m not sure there are any more trillogies of superhero movies.  So putting it at the best is like saying you're the king of the ape crap mountain.


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Yeah, because there is no difference at all between making a small ice wall or freezing up a small still pond and billions of tons of water moving at a hundred miles an hour or so.



errr aren't they superheroes.  Can't they do anything.


----------



## Firebeetle (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Lets see, the Superman third installment was good for what it was.  Superman didn't go ape crap and start killing all the bad guys out of frustration.




Two words "Richard Pryor"



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Batman 3, atl east tried to keep the characters traditional to their comic book heritage.  It's main flaw is that it over does it with a bad script.




Wrong-o. I kept the characters to their TV show tradition. They should have called that "Batman Whatever"



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I"m not sure there are any more trillogies of superhero movies.  So putting it at the best is like saying you're the king of the ape crap mountain.




You just said the two prior movies where NOT ape crap but OK. So which is it? Seems like you're just putting a contrary argument out there. Take a stand, is X3 the king of ape crap mountain or where those two movies really OK after all?


----------



## Firebeetle (May 30, 2006)

*Record weekend!*

X-Men 3 just blew the doors off the Memorial Day record, even up against DaVinci Code and Over the Hedge (which sold lots of tickets too BTW.)

$120 million. Wow. The movie going public definately felt this movie was worthwhile. At the theater we had people seeing it 2 and 3 times in a row. Here's the box office mojo report:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2078&p=.htm

So, if you didn't like it, that's too bad. I guarentee you this will be the new model for trilogy enders in the future. Maybe you'll learn to love it.  I appreciated it deeply myself.


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> Two words "Richard Pryor"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I said both of them were ok for what they were.  They were at least comic book movies.  And please, Richard Pryor is HILLARIOUS.  Made the movie for me (especially when you didn't see a lot of black comics in main stream movies at the time).  

As for the RIddler and two face.  It was very golden age super hero human, not television.  Of course your collection has to expand past the 90s to get that.  

Xmen is going to break records, but it is again another failed attempt at hollywood to make a comic book movie only for some idiot director to get it and turn it into his big explosion action fest.  I mean, man, these were the dumbest X-men ever.  

YOu can see Halle's big paycheck and screen time nawing away at it.  I mean, did we really need to see a scene where she could show those oscar caliber tears... and don't get me started on how she couldn't take out oa b-level villian.  She controls the freaken weather.  it was just another escuse to get her some one on one screentime.  

For a movie about an x-men teams, there was a lack of team work.  

The bad thing was not even the diversions from the comic book (the only one of which i hated with that jaggaurents abilities were now mutant origin- but this was only done not to save time on inputing the plot-- which would have been ok- but was done so that they can show him running into a wall and knocking himself out like an idiot). 

The bad thing was the lack of the superpowers being used for anything other than mindless violence.  Blow up cars, kill people...yay.  The bad thing is that it takes the stuff Xavier was pushing in the first two movies, and throws them out the door.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 30, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Yeah, because there is no difference at all between making a small ice wall or freezing up a small still pond and billions of tons of water moving at a hundred miles an hour or so.



Oh, there's a big difference, but Iceman's been shown to freeze large amounts of water in the comics. If they de-powered him for the movie, (and X3 seems to suggest that they haven't) then I feel that some kind of limitation should have been mentioned or shown. As the movie stands now, the only reason I would think he can't stop it is because he didn't.

Also, a team effort of Bobby and Jean could have accomplished the same thing without anyone dying. What Bobby couldn't freeze, Jean could have telekinetically stopped, easing the load on both of them. It's a team movie, I want to see them operate as a team (i.e.the final scenes of X3) rather than just fighting the Brotherhood one-on-one.

For whatever it's worth, there are 6.02 x 10^23 molecules of water in 18 grams of water (~18 milliliters of water). So the still pond has billions and billions of water. The counter argument is that a dammed body of water has many, many more than that. I really don't have a counter to that, except what I said above. 



			
				Mimic said:
			
		

> Not to defend the movie or anything but how are they going to get the child close enough to her? Considering she A) knows about him and what he can do and B) Obliterating everything around her and the only reason Logan made it close to her was because of his healing powers?
> 
> Do you really want to risk the life of a innocent child in the vague hope that he gets close enough to affect her?



I saw the movie again today, and I'm starting to come-around to that way of thinking. I'm not there yet, but that's because I'm stubborn.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> The bad thing was the lack of the superpowers being used for anything other than mindless violence.  Blow up cars, kill people...yay.  The bad thing is that it takes the stuff Xavier was pushing in the first two movies, and throws them out the door.



I liked the use of superpowers in this movie. For example: Beast reading on the ceiling, Mystique trying to play mind games with guards, Iceman taking Kitty iceskating, Kitty tricking Juggernaut, the kid flying the paper airplanes, and Storm's mood manifesting in the weather. There are more examples, but thouse are some of my favorites.


----------



## Abraxas (May 30, 2006)

> Oh, there's a big difference, but Iceman's been shown to freeze large amounts of water in the comics. If they de-powered him for the movie, (and X3 seems to suggest that they haven't) then I feel that some kind of limitation should have been mentioned or shown. As the movie stands now, the only reason I would think he can't stop it is because he didn't.



Well this is a young iceman, and his powers were limited when he was younger - it was only later that he really gets powerful, and X3 showed that he was getting more powerful at the end when he takes on the body of ice.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> errr aren't they superheroes.  Can't they do anything.




Uh, no. They can't. Marvel heroes in particular have a lot more limitations on them to begin with; not that they have to contend with physics and all that nonsense but they Marvel more than DC makes a nod to the real world and how it limits what their heroes can do.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> ...jaggaurents abilities were now mutant origin- but this was only done not to save time on inputing the plot-- which would have been ok- but was done so that they can show him running into a wall and knocking himself out like an idiot).




No, it was done to showcase Kitty's cleverness under pressure that she tricks him to going to the one place where his mutant power means nothing: inside Leech's nullification field.


----------



## Abraxas (May 30, 2006)

> I guarentee you this will be the new model for trilogy enders in the future



Lord I hope not.
The movie going public can be suckered into a lot.


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2006)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> I liked the use of superpowers in this movie. For example: Beast reading on the ceiling, Mystique trying to play mind games with guards, Iceman taking Kitty iceskating, Kitty tricking Juggernaut, the kid flying the paper airplanes, and Storm's mood manifesting in the weather. There are more examples, but thouse are some of my favorites.



Errr, yeah, wow, yeah thats why I love comic books and media.  To see them fly paper airplanes and change the weather.  Storm controls the weather but can't stop the trouble at the end of part, two, not alone Iceman couldn't.  


What would have been better, attempting to find a way to stop hte juggarnet in the traditional non-mutant sense or depowering him so that you can get a good comic relief scene. 

THe numbers just prove that if you take a popular title and blow enough stuff up it will make money.  

As aparto f a triology it fails miserably.  It took the whole non violent, find a good way to use your powers, different message and squatted on it for showboating one ups men ship.  Ironically, it reminds me of the way the Detroit Pistons are playing basketball now.  In the regular season (I:E: last two xmen films), teamwork and defense were pushed.  IN the playoffs, their having tough fights with low level minions for the sake of giving the actors individual screen time.  

IN part two, a crazy military operation to wipe out mutants is stopped by the xmen.  In part three, a military operation to create a weapon that will wipe out a mutants powers is saved.  IN part one and two, Xavier stresses individual choice and self control over powers.  IN x3 he's a control freak whom stresses that there area select few whom should make decisions on what is right and what is wrong.  In part one and two, the xmen have a couple of good teamwork teams where they get the bad guys, minimal casulaties and save the day.  Not a single scene like that in the movie.  I watched it with my nephew and was seriously surprised that this movie wasn't rated R.   We saw simulated sex, countless onscreen killings, a few beheadings, lots of people shot


----------



## WayneLigon (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I"ve watched the X-men in different genres, i've never seen "good" x'men rack up a body count like that.  (not phoenix, that made sense, i'm talking about wolverine slashing and killing what really was just some angry teens much like the ones at the mansion.




A couple other people mentioned this, so I'll talk about it.

If you've _watched _ them, other than in the first two movies, you've seen them in cartoons made for kids where you can't show any killing. In the comics, he's murdered probably hundreds of people. Mutants, ninjas, guards doing their job, whatever; especially when he goes into a berserker rage.

The movie Wolverine is a psychopathic killer barely holding himself in check. He was a _volunteer _ for the process that made him what he is, remember, and somewhere back in his mind he's still like that. It's probably a testement to that fact that they want him as a somewhat sympathetic character that he's not killed more people than they show.

This was a war. People die in wars. They kill, or they get killed. You're dealing with a group of superpowerful mutants, most of whom you have no idea what their powers are, who are under orders to kill you. It's pretty obvious from his higher-ups that Magneto has recruited the lower dregs of mutant society to use as his army; porcupine guy, Callisto and others certainly aren't stopping at killing people. For a movie, you're going to see more bloodshed, because most of the movie-going public isn't going to sit still for the standard comics superhero trope of 'knock them out and take them to jail'.


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> A couple other people mentioned this, so I'll talk about it.
> 
> If you've _watched _ them, other than in the first two movies, you've seen them in cartoons made for kids where you can't show any killing. In the comics, he's murdered probably hundreds of people. Mutants, ninjas, guards doing their job, whatever; especially when he goes into a berserker rage.
> 
> ...



First things first.  This is the movie, and you have to go by the mythos you establish in the movie.  That is why I am not touching the inconsistiacies with the comib book.  Even in the comib, people are played out to be very...evil.. when killing is involved, or there is somethng detromential to be gained.  NEither is shown in the movie.  Again killing is a "last resort" not to be used on angry teenager rebellious tens.  But this is the movie, and its already been shown that the xschool does not support killing from 1 and 2, so the blatant use of it was a big diversion from its own mythos.  Now, you'd have a fighting chance at this argument if there was an army full of calistos, but mosto f the mutants killed didnt even have powers.  Thats what really irked me.  If you're a comic book reader, you know that the x-men will try to use other tactics to apprehend minor mutants and criminals.  They wouldnt kill in the name of professor X.  

Errr, this was a war? how so.  What the heck were the yfighting about.  I couldn't tell.  I dont think the audience could either.  Again lots of boom booms ...yay.  Magneto had a reason, but the xmen's reason was pretty ...well unknown.  I mean in the last movie they did the exact same thing from the other side.  

And you're wrong, more families will probably enjoy this movie more (see the reviews at rotten tomatoes) if the lethality was toned down in lue of more good old fashion traditional x-men action.  If you look at the best comic book movies of the decade, spidermans, batman begins, they apprehended their villians, thats what hte good guys do.  Man, I wish this was DC because Alexander Luthor needs to merge this movie with a much more pleasant x-world.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Errr, yeah, wow, yeah thats why I love comic books and media.  To see them fly paper airplanes and change the weather.



To some extent, I do read and watch superhero comics and movies to see thouse things. If I had superpowers, I wouldn't just use them to help people, I'd use them in my everyday life.

I agree with you about the lack team work in this movie, though. 



> I watched it with my nephew and was seriously surprised that this movie wasn't rated R.



I'm not going to argue the rating, (I'm a poor judge of such things) but I will state this is one reason why ratings are useless in helping people guage what to see with small children in their care. As much work as it is, I don't think there is an adiquite subsitute for watching the movie without the kid first and then deciding to whether to take said child.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 30, 2006)

Killing a surprise?

Did we not watch X2?! Wolverine tore through tons of military men in that movie just by himself...


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2006)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Killing a surprise?
> 
> Did we not watch X2?! Wolverine tore through tons of military men in that movie just by himself...



Watched it and one this weekend.  What you are referring to is the 'minion beatdown" where the men are knocked from side to side, not stabbed or killed.  The only timie military were killed was by the brotherhood.


----------



## Wayside (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But this is the movie, and its already been shown that the xschool does not support killing from 1 and 2, so the blatant use of it was a big diversion from its own mythos.



Dude, you keep saying this, which leads me to believe you've never actually seen X2. If you're going from memory, don't. Watch all 3 movies together. You'll find the disconnect you're trying to prove here isn't nearly as pronounced as you'd like it to be.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> If you're a comic book reader, you know that the x-men will try to use other tactics to apprehend minor mutants and criminals.  They wouldnt kill in the name of professor X.





			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> First things first.  This is the movie, and you have to go by the mythos you establish in the movie.  That is why I am not touching the inconsistiacies with the comib book.



What about the inconsistencies in your own argument?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Watched it and one this weekend.  What you are referring to is the 'minion beatdown" where the men are knocked from side to side, not stabbed or killed.  The only timie military were killed was by the brotherhood.



 What version of the movie do you have?

Wolverine is definitely KILLING those military guys with his CLAWS in the mansion.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 30, 2006)

Like the guy whose chest he shoved both sets of claws through and into the door of the fridge behind him.

There's no blood, probably for ratings purposes, but there are six vertical slashes in the fridge.

Wolverine actually using his claws to kill was one of the major departures between _X-Men_ and _X2_, and was clearly noted by everyone I saw both movies with - and I went to both films in a group of thirty people.


----------



## Wayside (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Watched it and one this weekend.  What you are referring to is the 'minion beatdown" where the men are knocked from side to side, not stabbed or killed.  The only timie military were killed was by the brotherhood.



Wolverine _kills _ 10 soldiers--that's regular humans, not mutants--in minutes 35-39 of the movie. The last 2 look like they might not have received fatal wounds, but the rest are all pretty obviously gone. They would've been joined by a lot more, too, if Stryker hadn't shown up.


----------



## DonTadow (May 30, 2006)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Dude, you keep saying this, which leads me to believe you've never actually seen X2. If you're going from memory, don't. Watch all 3 movies together. You'll find the disconnect you're trying to prove here isn't nearly as pronounced as you'd like it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the inconsistencies in your own argument?



I have, I mean dang, the bad thing is you couldn't help but watch the movies before this movie came out.  Every channel every day.  I honestly watched two on cable the day before when i got to my friends beach home.  I watched the second half later in the week.  When you see those last two alive, they show you that so that you realize htat he was giving them non fatal wounds.  I will watch it again, but I remember seeing it and commenting to my GF About that scene.  As a matter of fact, the irony is we were having a conversation in the car about how they tried to remain faithful and how unfahtiful batman was to the mythos.  It was a surprise and made ma hypocrit to see x-3.  

There are no deaths of people just "doing their job".The only deaths are absolutely have to situations.  They certainly didn't kill a bunch of teenagers in the name of a war.  Talk about Tetiman square. 

As for my argument, I said that comic book wise there wre lots of inconsistances and named them, but said that the inconsisitances are not why i didnt like the movie, i just through them out there.  The other two movies attempted to stay somewhat faithful to the mythos whereas the last cose another route


----------



## GandhitheBFG (May 30, 2006)

Personally, I saw Wolverine killing the Brotherhood mutants as pretty much in character. He's had a lot going on in the film, and the series as a whole, and he's not the best person at dealing with emotions. 

Add the fact that he's probably psychotic (i'm not sure of the exact definition), violent, has razorsharp adamantine claws, and an excuse to use 'em (the fact that *they* were trying to kill *him*), well...

As has already been mentioned, he volunteered for the Weapon X process.

He's not a nice guy.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 30, 2006)

I thought it was an excellent film, well made. Slightly below the spiderman movies, but above any of the other comic book movies that I've seen.

I liked the twists in the plot (and the ending), I felt that there was more emotional depth and impact than I'd seen in the other x-men movies and if they do end it here (and don't do any more) it would be a fitting end to a series of three films.

I honestly don't think there is anything I'd have changed for the film.

Cheers


----------



## Firebeetle (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I said both of them were ok for what they were.  They were at least comic book movies.  And please, Richard Pryor is HILLARIOUS.  Made the movie for me (especially when you didn't see a lot of black comics in main stream movies at the time).




Still avoiding the issue of "OK" or "Ape crap", which is it?

Yeah, you're right about Richard Pryor. Richard Pryor would have made this movie too. He could play a mutant that burns like the human torch but only when he's running. Everybody would be talking about how much better he was that Patrick Stewart and Ian McKlellan. Man, he's just that good. 



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> As for the RIddler and two face.  It was very golden age super hero human, not television.  Of course your collection has to expand past the 90s to get that.




Son, I used to sell Silver Age comics for a living. Tell me what issue has Two-face laughing hysterically like the Joker and I'll concede this point.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Xmen is going to break records, but it is again another failed attempt at hollywood to make a comic book movie only for some idiot director to get it and turn it into his big explosion action fest.  I mean, man, these were the dumbest X-men ever.




No, they talk through the whole film. Colusses doesn't have many lines, but that doesn't make him dumb just underpaid.

The rest is just fanboy tirade, so I'll skip it. I won't respond to the next one, last word is yours.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> There are no deaths of people just "doing their job".The only deaths are absolutely have to situations.




Wolverine practically went crazy and killed tons of soldiers who were just "doing their job". He put six claws through the CHEST of one of them, and put his claws into the necks of at least two...not to mention general slashing through people and clawing someone's foot before dragging them offscreen.

But this is in no way a huge departure...even from the comics. Wolverine is an animal and a killer. He's got the whole bad boy thing going and that's why he's taken over not only the movies, but the comics for a long while, too.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 30, 2006)

Saw it last night. Speaking as someone who knows very little about the X-Men and doesn't care for comics, this movie stunk it up for me. Considering the previous two movies, the events in this movie, and then the end tidbits, it felt like a big waste of my time. But then, I thought X2 on a repeated viewing was execrable, so I'm in the minority. Whatever.

Needless to say, I didn't enjoy myself.


----------



## Black Omega (May 30, 2006)

Watched the movie a second time.  Definitely enjoyed it.  More violence and less of a plot than previous movies.  Magneto's definitely the bad guy, but I can still understand his point of view.  Typical comic book deaths, only Cyclops might not be able to be brought back (and the actor is not coming back anyway, he left to follow Singer to Superman).  Everyone else can return in some form or another.  The de-powered people can come back, though it's unclear if it's only some of them or the cure is not nearly as permanant as was thought.


----------



## sniffles (May 30, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I thought it was an excellent film, well made. Slightly below the spiderman movies, but above any of the other comic book movies that I've seen.
> 
> I liked the twists in the plot (and the ending), I felt that there was more emotional depth and impact than I'd seen in the other x-men movies and if they do end it here (and don't do any more) it would be a fitting end to a series of three films.
> 
> ...



Funny, I thought there was more emotional depth in the first two movies. Not that there wasn't any in 3, just that it didn't seem as well-realized. 

I felt that my concerns of an oversized cast were somewhat justified, but fortunately they didn't try to give the new characters much screen time, which had been my biggest fear.     I think the movie would have been fine without Angel or Juggernaut, but I didn't find them too bothersome. 

I was really surprised by some of the story choices they made. They made this film a lot more final than I expected. I like it when producers aren't afraid to kill off major characters.


----------



## GSHamster (May 30, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I have, I mean dang, the bad thing is you couldn't help but watch the movies before this movie came out.  Every channel every day.  I honestly watched two on cable the day before when i got to my friends beach home.  I watched the second half later in the week.  When you see those last two alive, they show you that so that you realize htat he was giving them non fatal wounds.  I will watch it again, but I remember seeing it and commenting to my GF About that scene.  As a matter of fact, the irony is we were having a conversation in the car about how they tried to remain faithful and how unfahtiful batman was to the mythos.  It was a surprise and made ma hypocrit to see x-3.




DonTadow, it's possible that the versions you watched on television were edited for content.  Indeed, it is extremely likely that the television stations clipped the killing to reduce the violence rating and avoid complaints.

In the theatrical release, Wolverine kills the soldiers.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 30, 2006)

I never knew there was a warm and fluffy Wolverine, he has always been the killer and the berserker, there was even a cross-over with Spidrman where he showed Spiderman that it was sometimes the only option.  Hugh is way too tall but the character personality is dead on, I really expected the movie to show him with a Hustler mag.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (May 30, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I never knew there was a warm and fluffy Wolverine, he has always been the killer and the berserker, there was even a cross-over with Spidrman where he showed Spiderman that it was sometimes the only option.  Hugh is way too tall but the character personality is dead on, I really expected the movie to show him with a Hustler mag.




I saw a brief desc. of Wolverine somewhere and he's listed at 5'3". Which does make Hugh too tall. But I do like his portrayal of Wolvie in the movies. 

And the Hustler mag was probably done but left on the cutting floor....


----------



## Shade (May 30, 2006)

I was delightfully surprised.  I had little hopes for this film, but found that it stands up to its predecessors.

As for humor, I loved Wolverine's solution (and subsequent one-liner) to the stalemate against the fast-regenerating mutant.


----------



## jasper (May 30, 2006)

Great movie stay true to most of story lines and cleaned them up.
Juggernaunt. If forget when in the comics his powers chg from mutant to magic.
Prof X. sorry character right on. Plenty of times the X step across the line to mess with peoples minds. (of course some of this was explaining power boost in characters).
No Nightcrawler. So what? Did we need a triple of blue people?)

I will be getting on dvd the week it comes out.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 30, 2006)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Regardless if he is dead or not, he's barely in the movie and even if he's not, he wasn't a key player in this movie, despite being a key player in the first two and in the comics.



See, I didn't see Scott as a key playerin the 2nd movie. I remember walking out of it thinking they barely used him. He get's captured pretty early in the movie and you don't see him again until he fights Jean


----------



## Black Omega (May 30, 2006)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> See, I didn't see Scott as a key playerin the 2nd movie. I remember walking out of it thinking they barely used him. He get's captured pretty early in the movie and you don't see him again until he fights Jean



True.  And in 3, the actor left the project to work on Superman with Singer.  So there was no way for Cyke to play a big role in the movie.  I seem to recall Marsden had to complain before he was allowed to beat up the guards before getting taken out.

Edited for spelling.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 30, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> Funny, I thought there was more emotional depth in the first two movies. Not that there wasn't any in 3, just that it didn't seem as well-realized.




I concede that in absolute terms you may well be right!

The bits which I found impressive in this movie on the emotional level include

a) young Warren clipping his wings in the bathroom.

b) death of Professor X. I didn't see that coming!

c) betrayal of Mystique by Magneto when she became human

d) Wolverine and Jean at the end

I was sorry that Cyclops didn't emotionally involve me, but frankly I hardly recognised the character in the film from the ones in the comics that I used to enjoy, so it wasn't really surprising.

Cheers


----------



## Black Omega (May 30, 2006)

After some thought, I think the problem is this.

Marsden never became a star.  Halle Berry did.  Cyclops should have been in the Storm role in 3.  But Halle Berry was too big a name to push into the background.  And Marsden was already on his way out, preferring to work on Superman.  It's also possible there was some cool factor at work on the SFX side.  Storm can do alot of cool visual stuff.  Cyclops blasts things.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 30, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Like good cop and bad cop, they both have the same agenda and are willing to turn a blind eye to each others' tactics.



Problem is they don't have the same agenda and if they turned a blind eye to each others tactics then the X-men would not be fighting the Brotherhood.

The profesor is trying to build a world where humans and Mutants live together. Magneto was humans, heck he was everyone humans as well as mutants around the world to bow down to him.


----------



## Mistwell (May 30, 2006)

Saw it this weekend.  I re-watched the first two before seeing this.

This movie was far and away the weakest of the three, and not nearly up to the standards set in the first two movies.  I really wish Singer hand done this movie, since it was obvious to me the director messed it up.

I did overall find it enjoyable, as pure entertainment that I will rapidly forget.  But this movie seriously lacked the depth of the other two movies.

Angel - served almost no purpose, was not developed as a character, yet was marketed in all posters and adds as if he was a big part of the film.  Marketing just plain old lied.

Beast - Liked him, but he was just a cover for the absence of Nightcrawler, who I liked more and who was more thought out and developed in the prior movie.

Most new mutants on both sides - Just cover for additional special effects and fights to replace character development and plot.

Kitty Pride - Worth a LOT more time to develope, and was not.

Storm - this is a character with a meaninful past and interesting history and way of thinking about the world, and we will never see it because this movie completely blew those issues off.  Hallie Berry said she is done with superhero movies for all time, and I believe her.  Storm is now done, and we never even got to see the story unfold at all for her.

Cyclops - not even an interesting death.

Dark Phoenix - Apparently she should have been named Dumb Phoenix, since she became an idiot easily manipulated like a child once she transformed.

Rogue - Never gave her the powers she was supposed to get this movie, never really dealt with the struggle she faced and instead resolved it with a cheap cop-out that doesn't even make sense since she is back and school but no longer a mutant.

Wolverine - Getting his own movie so no need to spend all that time re-doing the same character development already done in prior movies just to take away development from other characters who badly needed it.

Seriously, I cannot understand how people think this movie was better than either of the prior ones, if they have watched the prior ones recently.  There was just no comparison.  It's an okay summer action flick, but relative to what came before it's a B-movie with a big budget.


----------



## Vigilance (May 30, 2006)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> Problem is they don't have the same agenda and if they turned a blind eye to each others tactics then the X-men would not be fighting the Brotherhood.
> 
> The profesor is trying to build a world where humans and Mutants live together. Magneto was humans, heck he was everyone humans as well as mutants around the world to bow down to him.




Uhhuh.

Which is why they hate each other so much, actively try to kill one another and don't visit each other between adventures to play chess.

Obviously they are NOT seriously trying to eliminate one another, they are just arguing over procedures. They are shown to be friends and confidants throughout all three movies and would obviously prefer to look the other way to what each other is doing.

Remember that in movie #1, Xavier runs into Magneto and has a clear chance to just enter his mind and find out what's going on. But he doesn't do that. They have a nice little chat. 

In movies one and two they're shown playing chess and having casual conversations. 

They are not enemies, they're friends, and clearly view the whole "building bridges between human and mutant" or "mutants should rule the Earth" as a political debate. Each thinks the other will someday see it his way so there's no need for them to kill one another. 

Chuck


----------



## Klaus (May 30, 2006)

Black Omega said:
			
		

> True.  And in 3, the actor left the project to work on Superman with Singer.  So there was no way for Cyke to play a big role in the movie.  I seem to recall Marsden had to complain before he was allowed to beat up the guards before getting taken out.
> 
> Edited for spelling.



 Yeah, Marsden had to fight tooth and nail to get some non-optic-blast action in X2.

But he didn't "leave X-Men" to do "Superman". He was signed to do a third X-Men movie, and that movie was scheduled to begin shooting in September, IIRC. So when Singer invited him to the role of Richard White in Superman Returns, the scheduling all fit. But then Fox rushed X3 to get it out before Superman Returns. Even then, Marsden had time to shoot his part, and there would be enough time to use him in a more classic "Dark Phoenix Saga" ending (with Cyclops getting back all the dialogue he lost to Wolverine).


----------



## RangerWickett (May 30, 2006)

I let myself enjoy the movie, though I felt it was weak. Still, it was better than Elektra, Fantastic Four, and Punisher.


----------



## iwatt (May 30, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I let myself enjoy the movie, though I felt it was weak. Still, it was better than Elektra, Fantastic Four, and Punisher.




I kind of liked Punisher. 

If I watched _Honey_ for Jessica Alba, FF4 was a step up in entertainment value   

Elektra was craptastic, I agree.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 31, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> No, it was done to showcase Kitty's cleverness under pressure that she tricks him to going to the one place where his mutant power means nothing: inside Leech's nullification field.



See, in the movie they said something about Juggernaut needing momentum, so I expected that Kitty had immobilized him in the floor, but nope. Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure solidifing him in the floor should have simply killed him.

All three movies have had a problem with "super powers", it's one of the things I liked about F4 really. Rogue doesn't fly or have super strength for example. In fact, almost no one flies, and none of them were very maneuverable. Super Strength also lagged. Rogue can lift what, 20 tons? Collosus 100tons? All were hideously weak, comparatively speaking. 

In X1, I thought the actors didn't have enough lines, they seemed too queit, only getting off catchphrases. (Sabertooth has what, 2 lines, both about Storm?)
X2 had a better balance, more lines and such.
X3 though, they had a lot more lines, but they all seemed to be delivered in a vaccuum. Very little chemistry, very little emotion.

My main problem with Cyclops death was that no one mentioned it. Phoenix returns to the mansion, time passes, Wolverine asks her when she wakes up. Prof X saw him die, but says nothing. 

And really, to beat Phoenix, you just have Rogue steal the healing factor, charge her and give a good kiss!
Or, something like that...

Also, the movie XMen seem to ignore the rest of the world, so they removed the mysticism elements. Juggernaut doesn't have the bands (and, looked stupid), but Prof X's Astral Projection stuff would fit better with his New Body Taking.


----------



## Vigilance (May 31, 2006)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> All respect to Joss Whedon, but he was hardly the first to give us that plotline.




The Doc in charge being Kavita Rao (the character who developed the cure in Astonishing XMen) is sort of a big clue.

And this is the first time I saw a cure. We had Forge's Neutralizer before this, but never a cure that I knew of.


----------



## warlord (May 31, 2006)

Wolverine never volunteered for the Weapon X project. In both continueties he had to be forcibly dragged to the Weapon X facility. You're thinking of Sabertooth he's the psycho you were talking about. Our good friend Logan on the other hand is just a brooding, angry warrior with a crappy love life. He also happens to be a berzerker whichs leads to the appearence of psychosis but is in fact not.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 31, 2006)

warlord said:
			
		

> Wolverine never volunteered for the Weapon X project. In both continueties he had to be forcibly dragged to the Weapon X facility. You're thinking of Sabertooth he's the psycho you were talking about. Our good friend Logan on the other hand is just a brooding, angry warrior with a crappy love life. He also happens to be a berzerker whichs leads to the appearence of psychosis but is in fact not.



 But in the movies, he DID volunteer for it.


----------



## Steverooo (May 31, 2006)

Stryker LIED?


----------



## Larcen (May 31, 2006)

KenM said:
			
		

> One thing I would have liked to have seen was Iceman cruising on the ice that he makes like in the old "Spider Man and his amazing friends " cartoon.



Watch "The Incredibles".


----------



## WayneLigon (May 31, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> My main problem with Cyclops death was that no one mentioned it. Phoenix returns to the mansion, time passes, Wolverine asks her when she wakes up. Prof X saw him die, but says nothing.




They do in fact mention this to Professor X when they return from the lake or after she leaves; either Storm or Wolverine say 'And.. I think she killed Scott'. Professor X does not see him die; he's reacting to her power spike, probably, in a 'millions of voices cried out and then were silenced'-type of thing.


----------



## bodhi (May 31, 2006)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I think more characters should have died. I always think more characters should have died. And I did not see Mag's move the cheese piece with his mutant powers, I thought it was shaking the board or poking the piece.



Ooh, that'll be an extra on the DVD. Magneto gestures at the board, brow furrowed in concentration. Suddenly, his knee jerks up and hits the underside of the table, making the pieces shudder. He smiles knowingly, then proceeds to pull coins from the air while muttering "they called me MAD!" under his breath.


----------



## glass (May 31, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Wonder what the chances are of an X-Men 4  given the heavily casualties.



I wondered if they deliberately killed off a bunch of characters so they wouldn't have to pay those actors for X4... but I'm cynical like that.  


glass.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 31, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Uhhuh.
> 
> Which is why they hate each other so much, actively try to kill one another and don't visit each other between adventures to play chess.
> 
> ...



But they don't have the same agenda - Magnetos goals are different from Xaviers. But their friendship goes back so long that they avoid killing each other, even if it would be better for their respective plans. 

But I also think they underestimated each other a few times. Xavier didn't stop Magneto immediately in X-Men 1, because he wasn't aware of what he was willing to do (and out of their friendship didn't make it a habit to scan Magnetos mind). Still, Magneto was stopped by the X-Men. Once he was in prison, Xavier was visiting him, because Magneto was no longer harm, and maybe he even hoped he could convince him of his own side (and considering that prison is not only supposed to be punishment, but also reeducation/resocialisation, that makes absolute sense for somone like Xavier.)


----------



## WayneLigon (May 31, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> I wondered if they deliberately killed off a bunch of characters so they wouldn't have to pay those actors for X4... but I'm cynical like that.




Contracts usually don't work like that. If they were signed for further films - and most contracts I've read about say 2-3 films for the major stars - the studio would still be out money for renegotiation, or penalty fees or whatever (assuming some amazing cirsumstance occurred. Typically they'd say 'um, you can't kill so and so, he's signed for X4' and that would be that unless the parties renegotiated. For the people in the battle scene or people like Callisto? They are typically not going to have contracts like that. They show up, they work a few weeks, they leave. They won't have multi-film contracts.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 31, 2006)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Oh, there's a big difference, but Iceman's been shown to freeze large amounts of water in the comics. If they de-powered him for the movie, (and X3 seems to suggest that they haven't) then I feel that some kind of limitation should have been mentioned or shown. As the movie stands now, the only reason I would think he can't stop it is because he didn't.



But in the moive he is alot younger than in the comics. yeah eventually he might be able to stop a wall lof water, but right now he is just figuring out how to turn his body into ice.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 31, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> What would have been better, attempting to find a way to stop hte juggarnet in the traditional non-mutant sense or depowering him so that you can get a good comic relief scene.



I personaly liked the comic releif 



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> IN part two, a crazy military operation to wipe out mutants is stopped by the xmen.  In part three, a military operation to create a weapon that will wipe out a mutants powers is saved.



In part 2 military wanted to _kill_ mutants, in 3 the cure was intended as an option for mutants, it originaly wasn't forced on them.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> IN part one and two, Xavier stresses individual choice and self control over powers.  IN x3 he's a control freak whom stresses that there area select few whom should make decisions on what is right and what is wrong.



I do agree with you on this one. It was a little strange to see Xavier do a 180 on this issue



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> In part one and two, the xmen have a couple of good teamwork teams where they get the bad guys, minimal casulaties and save the day.  Not a single scene like that in the movie.



Did you mis the whole fight scene at the end. That _was_ team work. You could not have all 6 X-Men taking on each pawn individually. They fight who they can and get each others backs.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I watched it with my nephew and was seriously surprised that this movie wasn't rated R.   We saw simulated sex, countless onscreen killings, a few beheadings, lots of people shot




I honestly don't remember any simulated sex in the movie. Wolverine killing a bunch of mutants in the woods goes right along with the comic version of Wolverine. And as far as people being shot I would say 90% were mutants shot with the cure, which is kinded needed since the cure was a central theme of the movie


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 31, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> but mosto f the mutants killed didnt even have powers.  Thats what really irked me.




So if they didn't have powers how could they be mutants. Are you saying they needed to blow the buget through the roof just so each mutant on shown on screen had their powers displayed?


----------



## buzz (May 31, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

> We've got a lot of naysayers on the thread. To them I issue a challenge:
> 
> Name a better third installment sequel for a comic book franchise. You must be able to articulate why and you cannot brush it off with "anything is better than this movie" because that's a cop-out.



Why should my ability to answer this question relate in any way to the quality of X3? How many comic franchises other than Superman and Batman have even reached a thrid film? What, Blade? Heck, how many non-comic franchises made it to three films?

Is your point that second sequels tend to suck, and in that light, X3 is pretty good becasue it only sucked so much?

This review is pretty spot on: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/179186.php

I had a moderate amount of fun watching X3. I, nonetheless, did not think it was particularly good, and it was certianly the weakest X-film, by a wide margin.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 31, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Errr, this was a war? how so.  What the heck were the yfighting about.  I couldn't tell.  I dont think the audience could either.  Again lots of boom booms ...yay.  Magneto had a reason, but the xmen's reason was pretty ...well unknown.




Man if you could not tell what the X-Men were fighter for I don't know what movie you were watching.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I mean in the last movie they did the exact same thing from the other side.



In the 2nd movie they fought to stop a crazed military man from exterminating mutants. In the 3rd movie they are fighting to stop a crazed mutant from exterminating humans.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 31, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I have, I mean dang, the bad thing is you couldn't help but watch the movies before this movie came out.  Every channel every day.  I honestly watched two on cable the day before when i got to my friends beach home.  I watched the second half later in the week.



Honestly I think that may be your problem right there you watched them on cable and they may have edited out the more violent scenes


----------



## buzz (May 31, 2006)

Another review, this one from Mr. Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060525/REVIEWS/60509005

A decent counterpoint to the more snarky, negative review I posted earlier. The summary is fairly spot-on:



			
				Roger Ebert said:
			
		

> My guess is there are just plain too many mutants, and their powers are so various and ill-matched that it's hard to keep them all on the same canvas. The addition of Beast, Angel and Leech, not to mention Multiple Man, Juggernaut and the revived Dr. Jean Grey (reborn as Dark Phoenix) causes a Mutant Jam, because there are too many X-Men with too many powers for a 104-minute movie. There are times when the director, Brett Ratner, seems to be scurrying from one plot line to another like that guy who had to keep all of his plates spinning on top of their poles.
> 
> All the same, I enjoyed "X-Men: The Last Stand." I liked the action, I liked the absurdity, I liked the incongruous use and misuse of mutant powers, and I especially liked the way it introduces all of those political issues and lets them fight it out with the special effects. Magneto would say this is a test of survival of the fittest. Xavier would hope they could learn to live together.



I've read that X3 was rushed to theaters to hit before _Superman Returns_, and it shows in the script, direction, and FX. Overall, it's just iffy enough that you'll see the lack of unified opinion demonstrated on this thread.

Given this is the last X-Men film (for now), it's kind of a bummer. Going out on a definitive high note would have been a lot more satisfying.


----------



## Abraxas (May 31, 2006)

> Honestly I think that may be your problem right there you watched them on cable and they may have edited out the more violent scenes




They didn't edit out the scenes in my neck of the woods, probably because there isn't any blood or gore shown. However, Wolverine only racks up a body count of about 6 or 8 total before offing the mutant chick with adamantium fingernails. (And even thats suspect, because a number of those could just be crippling attacks and not fatal - as if thats a whole lot better.)


----------



## buzz (May 31, 2006)

Here's The Onion's take, also quite accurate:



			
				The Onion said:
			
		

> X-Men: The Last Stand
> Director: Brett Ratner
> Cast: Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry
> Rated: PG-13
> ...


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 31, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> They are not enemies, they're friends
> Chuck




I believe we are agreed on this. I just did a poor job of explaining my self in the previous post. I was trying to show that they are indeed friends.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 31, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> All three movies have had a problem with "super powers", it's one of the things I liked about F4 really. Rogue doesn't fly or have super strength for example. In fact, almost no one flies, and none of them were very maneuverable. Super Strength also lagged. Rogue can lift what, 20 tons? Collosus 100tons? All were hideously weak, comparatively speaking.



Those aren't Rogue's original powers. She stole those from another charcter, when she helkp on to long. She also ended up stealling some of Carol Danvers (Ms Marvel) personality.



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> And really, to beat Phoenix, you just have Rogue steal the healing factor, charge her and give a good kiss!
> Or, something like that...



If Rogue had done that she would actually be more dangerous than Jean, since she has no training at all in how to handle psychic powers, it would have been to much for her, and possibly lead to more destruction.



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Also, the movie XMen seem to ignore the rest of the world, so they removed the mysticism elements. Juggernaut doesn't have the bands (and, looked stupid), but Prof X's Astral Projection stuff would fit better with his New Body Taking.




I don't believe the bands are what gives Juggernaut his power. I think it's a crystal of some sort.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 31, 2006)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> I don't believe the bands are what gives Juggernaut his power. I think it's a crystal of some sort.




From UNcanny X-men.net (Which is also a perfect place for people to go if you're wondering what the comic versions of the movie characters are like; most of them have the same extended writeup.

Infused with the power of the Ruby Gem of Cyttorak that gives him immeasurable strength and endurance, a massive indestructible body reinforced by an inertia-canceling force field, and an enchantment that renders him virtually unstoppable once in motion.

Cyttorak is a magical entity usually called on for spells of binding and protection, like Dr. Stranges 'Crimson Bands of Cyttorak'.

In the comics, the helmet prevented psionic assault, his only vulnerability.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 31, 2006)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> Those aren't Rogue's original powers. She stole those from another charcter, when she helkp on to long. She also ended up stealling some of Carol Danvers (Ms Marvel) personality.



I know, it was a general statement on how all the characters were reduced.



> If Rogue had done that she would actually be more dangerous than Jean, since she has no training at all in how to handle psychic powers, it would have been to much for her, and possibly lead to more destruction.



An untrained UberPower being more dangerous than someone intent on using them to kill you?



> I don't believe the bands are what gives Juggernaut his power. I think it's a crystal of some sort.



my mistake, I remembered the Crimson Bands and cross-thought them to Jugg's.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 31, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> They do in fact mention this to Professor X when they return from the lake or after she leaves; either Storm or Wolverine say 'And.. I think she killed Scott'. Professor X does not see him die; he's reacting to her power spike, probably, in a 'millions of voices cried out and then were silenced'-type of thing.




Wolverine mentions it when Prof X finds him after Jean leaves.

Of course, Prof X has cause to believe Cyclops was killed.
Wolverine has the glasses.
::insert indeterminate amount of time between Jean being recovered from the lake shore and waking up, which also includes Prof X talking to Wolverine about Jean's psychic circuitry::
Jean flakes, Wolverine mentions Cyclops to Prof X.

Also, Prof X blames Wolverine for Jean getting out, but he didn't seem to do anything directly. I can see Wolverine not caring to defend himself from the accusation, but the accusation and also Prof X's "I don't have to explain this to YOU" comment are out of place for Prof X IMO. He may be a ratbastard, but he's also quite polite and diplomatic about it. 

Either way, Cyclops is missing, two folks believe he's dead, no one cares to check cerebro.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 31, 2006)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Also, Prof X blames Wolverine for Jean getting out, but he didn't seem to do anything directly. I can see Wolverine not caring to defend himself from the accusation, but the accusation and also Prof X's "I don't have to explain this to YOU" comment are out of place for Prof X IMO. He may be a ratbastard, but he's also quite polite and diplomatic about it.




Maybe Xaviers actions are setting up the Onslaught story line? Was he not acting abnormal in the comics before that story line started?


----------



## Vigilance (May 31, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> Another review, this one from Mr. Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060525/REVIEWS/60509005
> 
> A decent counterpoint to the more snarky, negative review I posted earlier. The summary is fairly spot-on:
> 
> ...




Edit. Snarky today.


----------



## buzz (May 31, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Given how much money it made, there will be another movie whether you like it or not.



_Shrek 2_ is the #3 top-grossing film of all time. Does that mean it's the #3 best movie ever made?

The producers have said that this is the last X-Men (proper) film for the time being. There will be a Wolverine movie, at least. I look forward to it.



			
				Vigilance said:
			
		

> Apparently a lot of people DID like it, no matter how much you post reviews and talk about it being bad and the last as facts and not opinions.



Please don't turn this thread towards "I shoudln't have to post 'IMO' after every single sentence" tomfoolery. I haven't represented anything as fact; I posted my opinions along with some reviews that are on-topic. The Ebert review, if you had bothered to read it, gave the film 3 out of 4 stars. Ebert _liked_ the movie. I even wrote, "This is a nice counterpoint to the negative review I posted before".

Seriously, Vigilance, I know you're smarter than this. Don't fall into the fanboy mentality that assumes I'm attacking you because I don't like the genre artifact you like. (And I even wrote that I had some fun with the film.)

That, or you're just confusing me with someone else.


----------



## Aesthetic Monk (May 31, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The bits which I found impressive in this movie on the emotional level include
> 
> a) young Warren clipping his wings in the bathroom.
> 
> ...




This would be the list I'd cite, too. Not every moment in a movie has to be heartrending, but it strikes me that these scenes were pretty brief and not very central to the story (with the obvious exception of [d], although even that's handled more brusquely than it might've been).

(A) is painful, but it's ultimately in the service of a very minor character. (B) seems mainly there to establish Jean's bad-gal cred (and sounds like it's undercut at the end, anyway). (C) actually *hurts* the film because it neuters one of the better characters from the first two movies. For me, this is a movie that gets the minor notes right (good scenes for some minor characters, for example) but trashes the major ones. Plus, with the possibility that the cure isn't really a cure, that people who died aren't really dead, any kind of emotional impact is undercut and everything feels like cheating anyway, or at least hedging bets. I know this sort of thing is endemic to comics, but I'd rather the future writers and director of X4 have to go to elaborate lengths to ret-con people back alive than have it all built into this movie. It's just like how I have to watch that "Remember" bit in Star Trek II each time, knowing how they're cheating me there.

But I'm glad you liked the movie.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 31, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> _Shrek 2_ is the #3 top-grossing film of all time. Does that mean it's the #3 best movie ever made?
> 
> The producers have said that this is the last X-Men (proper) film for the time being. There will be a Wolverine movie, at least. I look forward to it.



What they've said that this is the last of _this saga_. There may well be a X-Men 4 in two years, but that will begin a new story.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 31, 2006)

buzz said:
			
		

> Don't fall into the fanboy mentality that assumes I'm attacking you because I don't like the genre artifact you like.



Did someone call me? 

Stephen Nicholson


----------



## Shalimar (May 31, 2006)

One would hope that the next x-men movie would move on to new characters along the lines of Gen X or New Mutants.  With the characters being so different in age it be came Wolverine and Storm as the babysitters.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 1, 2006)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> Honestly I think that may be your problem right there you watched them on cable and they may have edited out the more violent scenes




They usually do. You'd do better going out and getting the DVDs. Although getting 3 will be separate from my set of the first two that I already have.


----------



## buzz (Jun 1, 2006)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> What they've said that this is the last of _this saga_. There may well be a X-Men 4 in two years, but that will begin a new story.



Well, there's the "for the time being" in my original sentence.


----------



## glass (Jun 1, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Contracts usually don't work like that. If they were signed for further films - and most contracts I've read about say 2-3 films for the major stars - -snip-



Huh? There's been three films! So if they were on 2-3 film contracts, why would that be a problem?


glass.


----------



## JoeBlank (Jun 2, 2006)

I saw the movie last night. Liked it, but not as much as the first two.

One caveat, I seem to be far more forgiving that the usual internet nit-picking geek. Not that I don't pick nits, and I'm certainly geeky, but I set out to have a good time when I go to the movies, and I usually manage to allow myself to enjoy the flick.

For example, I thought Daredevil and Fantastic Four were pretty decent movies. But I join in the universal hate for Elektra, which I watched on DVD until I fell asleep, and never finished.

The biggest plus I give to X3 is that they got the feel of the characters. Individually, I thought the characters were well portrayed, and the cast selections were good. Beast was great, except that it took me a long time not to picture Frasier when I heard him speak. Colossus was very good. Kitty was pretty near perfect. 

But like others I would have liked to see a little more of some of the supporting cast, and a little less Wolverine. I like the character all right, and Jackman does a great job, but the guy is already getting his own movie. Let some other shine. 

And while I was impressed at first with the decision to off Cyclops, upon reflecting I think it had too many negative consequences. The death showed that this movie was playing for keeps, and made Phoenix more interesting. But the result was that Storm took over the group lead role, and Wolverine became the love interest who has to do the right thing. I don't like Storm, at least not in the movies, mostly because I don't much care for the actress. And Wolvy already had enough to do. 

Here's hoping that the move forward with the franchise, and the next movie can focus on the background characters more. A cameo from one or two of the big wigs, followed by a good romp with Colossus, Kitty, Rogue, Angel, and maybe Iceman and one or two newer characters would be a good show. And they wouldn't have to pay any high-priced stars.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 2, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I never understood why the don't just bury the Phoenix hatchet in the comics and let Jean become Marvel Woman. I mean, it worked for Sue Storm/Richards, right?



Well, she is currently dead. Although I kinda agree with SWORD Agent Brand: "Yeah, that'll last."


----------



## Klaus (Jun 2, 2006)

Yeah, I know. It's just that "Jean Grey" is hardly a superhero name, and "Phoenix" doesn't relate to her mutant power...

... unless her mutant power is resurrection, and THAT explains a lot!


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 2, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> ...and "Phoenix" doesn't relate to her mutant power...
> 
> ... unless her mutant power is resurrection, and THAT explains a lot!



That, my kind sir, is an epiphany of the larger sort.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 3, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yeah, I know. It's just that "Jean Grey" is hardly a superhero name, and "Phoenix" doesn't relate to her mutant power...
> 
> ... unless her mutant power is resurrection, and THAT explains a lot!




Didn't most of the X-men a few years ago go through a 2nd mutation, or had their mutants powers evolve. Maybe that was hers


----------



## Staffan (Jun 3, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yeah, I know. It's just that "Jean Grey" is hardly a superhero name, and "Phoenix" doesn't relate to her mutant power...
> 
> ... unless her mutant power is resurrection, and THAT explains a lot!



I think the current version is that part of her mutant power *is* to be adapted to be the host of the Phoenix Force. I'm told there's a comic where Emma Frost gets possessed by it ("Phoenix: Endsong" or something like that), and can't stand the strain and is thus being consumed by it.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 3, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> I wondered if they deliberately killed off a bunch of characters so they wouldn't have to pay those actors for X4... but I'm cynical like that.
> 
> 
> glass.




I know everyone automatically assumes there will be an X4 because the first three did so well.  But really, they do not currently have a plan for an X4.  The next movie plans are just Wolverine movies, and not X-Men movies.  Hallie Berrie said flat out she will never do another superhero movie.  The actors signed for 3 movies (or two movies or one movie, depending on the person), and nobody is signed for another movie except for the Wolverine movie.

It could be they make an X-force or X-factor movie instead or something like that.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 3, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I know everyone automatically assumes there will be an X4 because the first three did so well.  But really, they do not currently have a plan for an X4.  The next movie plans are just Wolverine movies, and not X-Men movies.  Hallie Berrie said flat out she will never do another superhero movie.
> 
> It could be they make an X-force or X-factor movie instead or something like that.



here is an interview where Avi talks about the possibility fo future "X-Men" movies



			
				iFMagazine.com said:
			
		

> iF: What are the chances of you and 20th Century Fox agreeing to do another X-MEN film?
> 
> ARAD: There’s always a chance of an X-MEN sequel.  It’s more of an issue of what is the next X-Men story, and when to do it.  The X-Men universe is forever and ever, and it’s the number one comic book.  There are an endless amount of stories and great sagas that can go into the future, the past, and the present.  There are so many more characters that we didn’t deal with yet.  It’s such a rich world.  I would not preclude anything.




the whole interview can be read  here


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 4, 2006)

They really did set it up in X3 for a sequel, even though they say there won't be one.  Xavier returns from the dead at the end, Magneto is slowly getting back his powers, Jean Grey is the Phoenix.  The only character who was eliminated (killed/depowered) without an easy way back was Cyclops (and even then, we didn't see a body).

The movie really did feel a lot like a comic book: fast & frentic action, occasional breaks for exposition, lots of big "wow" visual moments (like Magneto moving the entire Golden Gate Bridge), the serial feel of it stacking on the events of the prior movies, and even though main characters are killed off or seemingly ruined, you really know that all the important ones will come back one day.

Even if they don't do "X-Men 4", future spinoff movies could well be set in the future of this continuity, focusing on one member of the X-Men, but with others making cameos, or subplots that advance plots brought up in the original 3 movies.  So Halle Berry won't appear as Storm again, there is such a large stable of characters for the X-Men from all the comics, and so many well known characters (and such a reputation for changing lineups), that a few actors not wanting to come back isn't a big deal.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 4, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Hallie Berrie said flat out she will never do another superhero movie.



You say that as if it were a bad thing.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 4, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yeah, I know. It's just that "Jean Grey" is hardly a superhero name, and "Phoenix" doesn't relate to her mutant power...
> 
> ... unless her mutant power is resurrection, and THAT explains a lot!



I have no idea why the original writers chose Phoenix (since originally there was no Phoenix Force, IIRC, and originally Jean was supposed to live, and even once it was decided she would die, originally she wasn't supposed to be resurrected); _but_ 'phoinix' is Greek for a deep red, crimson sort of color, which certainly suits Jean in the same way Cyclops' name suits him.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 4, 2006)

Actually, Jean Grey's original codename wasn't Phoenix, it was Marvel Girl (which was quickly dropped and she just went by her real name).  The whole Phoenix thing came about with the Phoenix plotline when she was originally killed (and later Dark Phoenix when Phoenix lost control of her expanded powers).

She has died and been reborn several times, thanks to the Phoenix Force.  While the movie changes Phoenix from a mysterious cosmic force she is the host of into her own innate mutant power (like it made Juggernaut from somebody powered by magic into being a mutant), coming back from the dead is a well established part of Jean Grey's powers once she becomes Phoenix.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 4, 2006)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I think the current version is that part of her mutant power *is* to be adapted to be the host of the Phoenix Force. I'm told there's a comic where Emma Frost gets possessed by it ("Phoenix: Endsong" or something like that), and can't stand the strain and is thus being consumed by it.



Well, Morrison played around with it a lot in his New X-Men run. Basically, in his version, the Phoenix is less of a singular force/being, as a state of being. There comes a time, when a mortal being becomes so powerful that it trancends time and space and becomes a Phoenix. They ascend to a higher plane of existance where they sit as gods (ala the ancients in SG).

Paraphrased, of course (it's Morrison).

What exactly happened the first time she became Phoenix is left a bit vague, but it has been suggested that it happened exactly as written. _A_ Phoenix entity possessed Jean sensing her potentinal and made the cocoon and all that retconny goodness, but the latter time it was all Jean herself that tapped into the Phoenix force without any help from outer forces.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2006)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> While the movie changes Phoenix from a mysterious cosmic force she is the host of into her own innate mutant power ....




I have only read the beginning of the run as trade-collections, so I don't know where they take it, but the idea that it may be her own innate power was also raised some years ago in Ultimate X-Men.  The Hellfire Club seem to think Phoenix is an external force, while Professor X thinks it's just Jean's full power.


----------



## bodhi (Jun 4, 2006)

The Onion said:
			
		

> the misbegotten offspring of a werewolf and a Smurf



Ooh, what are the stats on a weresmurf? Err, smurfwolf. Maybe it'd be like the WoD version, except the warform is the Smurf! Three apples tall and FULL OF SMURFY RAGE!

Scurrying noises behind your back. Shadowy blue blurs out of the corner of your eye. The last sound you ever here is "la la, la-la-la-la, la, la-la, la-la!" And then it eats your head.

No, wait. La! La! Smurfuthulhu Fthagn!


----------



## Wayside (Jun 4, 2006)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Actually, Jean Grey's original codename wasn't Phoenix, it was Marvel Girl (which was quickly dropped and she just went by her real name).  The whole Phoenix thing came about with the Phoenix plotline when she was originally killed (and later Dark Phoenix when Phoenix lost control of her expanded powers).



By "original" I'm referring to the original Dark/Phoenix Saga. She was given the name Phoenix despite the fact that, originally, she was supposed to survive the ordeal, and after that, even when her death had been written, her resurrection was never planned (Claremont vocally opposed it).



			
				wingsandsword said:
			
		

> She has died and been reborn several times, thanks to the Phoenix Force.  While the movie changes Phoenix from a mysterious cosmic force she is the host of into her own innate mutant power (like it made Juggernaut from somebody powered by magic into being a mutant), coming back from the dead is a well established part of Jean Grey's powers once she becomes Phoenix.



In the original it was her own innate mutant power, no? The invention of the Phoenix Force was a later insertion (by Byrne) allowing Jean to be resurrected.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jun 4, 2006)

Wayside said:
			
		

> By "original" I'm referring to the original Dark/Phoenix Saga. She was given the name Phoenix despite the fact that, originally, she was supposed to survive the ordeal, and after that, even when her death had been written, her resurrection was never planned (Claremont vocally opposed it).



She took the name Phoenix when she flew out of the water in her new costume after riding a space ship/shuttle down in flames and everyone thought she had to have died in the crash, or drowned. *"I am Phoenix!"* Or something like that with a full page splash panel as the last page in that issue, IIRC.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 4, 2006)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Actually, Jean Grey's original codename wasn't Phoenix, it was Marvel Girl (which was quickly dropped and she just went by her real name).




No, heroes going by just a normal name is a recent construction. She went by 'Marvel Girl' and was billed as such, for decades.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 4, 2006)

Wayside said:
			
		

> I have no idea why the original writers chose Phoenix (since originally there was no Phoenix Force, IIRC, and originally Jean was supposed to live, and even once it was decided she would die, originally she wasn't supposed to be resurrected); _but_ 'phoinix' is Greek for a deep red, crimson sort of color, which certainly suits Jean in the same way Cyclops' name suits him.




Because she died in fire and was reborn in fire, as the mythical phoenix does. My God, is it so hard to make that connection?


----------



## TanisFrey (Jun 5, 2006)

bodhi said:
			
		

> Ooh, what are the stats on a weresmurf? Err, smurfwolf. Maybe it'd be like the WoD version, except the warform is the Smurf! Three apples tall and FULL OF SMURFY RAGE!
> 
> Scurrying noises behind your back. Shadowy blue blurs out of the corner of your eye. The last sound you ever here is "la la, la-la-la-la, la, la-la, la-la!" And then it eats your head.
> 
> No, wait. La! La! Smurfuthulhu Fthagn!



Thanks for giving me a laught.


----------



## Wayside (Jun 5, 2006)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> She took the name Phoenix when she flew out of the water in her new costume after riding a space ship/shuttle down in flames and everyone thought she had to have died in the crash, or drowned. *"I am Phoenix!"* Or something like that with a full page splash panel as the last page in that issue, IIRC.



It makes perfect sense in that context.



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Because she died in fire and was reborn in fire, as the mythical phoenix does. My God, is it so hard to make that connection?



Not if you have time and money to read the comics. I haven't seen them since I was 9, though, which was about 16 years ago. You can imagine how I'd be fuzzy on the details. Yet not so fuzzy as to forget that the Phoenix Force was a bit of a retcon (making the movie, oddly enough, more faithful to the original story). This doesn't have much to do with Klaus' tangent though.


----------



## Servitor of Wrath (Jun 5, 2006)

*a little off-topic, but...*

now that I've seen X3 and X2 (in that order), should I see the first movie?

On-topic: I rather liked the movie, although I saw Jean's death coming WELL in advance.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 5, 2006)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Not if you have time and money to read the comics.... This doesn't have much to do with Klaus' tangent though.




The phoenix is a common mythological symbol dealing with ressurection, which is exactly his tangent. It has nothing to do with the comics.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2006)

Servitor of Wrath said:
			
		

> now that I've seen X3 and X2 (in that order), should I see the first movie?



Yes, I think you should. The first movie is good, too.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 5, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> There's a reason why the geeks refer to her as "Dark Willow". The comic version of that story was told about 15 years before Buffy did a not-so-subtle homage to that storyline.




In fact, one of the Nerd Trio complains about Willow "going all Dark Phoenix" on them, doesn't he?

-Hyp.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 5, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In fact, one of the Nerd Trio complains about Willow "going all Dark Phoenix" on them, doesn't he?
> 
> -Hyp.




Yeah the nerds use two (typically nerdy) referents to "dark Willow" one where they say she's "going Dark Phoenix" and another where Andrew hilariously remarks "not one of you has the metachlorians to stop Darth Rosenberg".


----------



## shilsen (Jun 5, 2006)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Yeah the nerds use two (typically nerdy) referents to "dark Willow" one where they say she's "going Dark Phoenix" and another where Andrew hilariously remarks "not one of you has the metachlorians to stop Darth Rosenberg".



 *geek on*

midichlorians

*geek off*


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 5, 2006)

Servitor of Wrath said:
			
		

> On-topic: I rather liked the movie, although I saw Jean's death coming WELL in advance.




I wonder how anyone could -not- see it coming  

Now if you had seen Xaviers death coming well in advance I'd be impressed...


----------



## iwatt (Jun 5, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I wonder how anyone could -not- see it coming
> 
> Now if you had seen Xaviers death coming well in advance I'd be impressed...




After she offed Cyclop's all bets were off. That one caught me completely off guard.

Personally, Cyke was never my favorite X-men (too much of a goody two-shoes) but about the only thing I never liked of the movies is how they completely down-played how great a natural leader he is. The first one at least showed this better, but 2 and 3 really butchered that character.


----------



## Servitor of Wrath (Jun 5, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I wonder how anyone could -not- see it coming
> 
> Now if you had seen Xaviers death coming well in advance I'd be impressed...



I don't know how impressive anticipating that would be (not that I did until his hand started disintegrating). As mentioned earlier, the wise old mentors tend to die off: Kenobi, Gandalf (or so it seems for a while), Dumbledore, Qui-gon....


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 6, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> if you had seen Xaviers death coming well in advance I'd be impressed...



I saw it comming about a minute aftere it happened.

Yeah, I'm slow. Post-cognition is a real pain.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 8, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> After she offed Cyclop's all bets were off. That one caught me completely off guard.



Definitely.

I was hoping one of those darts would go into Phoenix, before Beast used them all on Magneto.

I was hoping that Xavier would pull of saving Jean at the last second, but after he died, I thought, "... Ben Kenobi? ... He's gotta come back somewhere." That smile gave it away.

I just came from the movie and was very impressed. My favorite of the three.


----------



## Chaldfont (Jun 12, 2006)

Just saw this movie Friday. I have to say, of the three, this was the first time I saw action scenes of truely comic book proportions. Magneto moving the GG bridge! Pyro and Magneto throwing car bombs! Storm finally being somewhat cool! Iceman finally looks like Iceman (for like 10 seconds)!

And we get to see Shadowcat and Colossus in action! Claremont's X-men rule!

And, as all who read comics know, no villain is truely defeated and no hero is ever really dead.

Great summer flick. Makes me want to read comics again.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 12, 2006)

While I agree with many of the complaints people have made, I did thoroughly enjoyed it.

I don't really consider Cyclops dead. We didn't even see him die. Pff. It's the X-Men, forgawdssake!


----------



## danzig138 (Jun 13, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> I kind of liked Punisher.



If it wasn't for the SO, I would sometimes feel like I'm the only person who really, really liked _The Punisher _(the new one). I watched it, and turned around and watched it again with the SO. And I've watched it several more times, and I enjoy it just as much. While Batman Begins is my favorite*, The Punisher is right up under it with Spiderman 1/2, and Superman. Way above the X-Men films. 

X2 is right there with F4, and Blade 1, but below Blade 2. 

I enjoyed X-Men 1 about as much as I enjoyed Hulk and Blade: Trinity. Which is to say, not very much. 

So far, nothing I've seen about X3 indicates that ti will be a film I like.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jun 13, 2006)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Personally, Cyke was never my favorite X-men (too much of a goody two-shoes) but about the only thing I never liked of the movies is how they completely down-played how great a natural leader he is. The first one at least showed this better, but 2 and 3 really butchered that character.




Actually, i think that Cyclops of the movies is a pretty good rendition of the character from the early comics (including and especially the dark phoenix saga). An annoying boy scout with emotional and selfconfidence issues. I'm not sure he was such a good teamleader in those early issues, seeing as phoenix isn't the only X-men to die in those issues. It is merely hinted (okay, more than hinted probably) that he could BECOME a great leader. The cyclops-wolverine-phoenix lovetrangle is also spot-on. 
Storm is more like the later incarnation, less of a weather "goddess"/witch. Too bad they didn't go with the "punkrock chick with an attitude (and mohawk)" version.

Another small surprise was that we learned Rogue's real name. has this ever been revealed in the comics?


----------



## iwatt (Jun 13, 2006)

cwhs01 said:
			
		

> Actually, i think that Cyclops of the movies is a pretty good rendition of the character from the early comics (including and especially the dark phoenix saga).




But he barely apperas in X-2 and X-3. I thought they did a good job with him in X-1 (with the very short scren time he got), but he really isn't in the other 2 flicks.


----------



## David Howery (Jun 14, 2006)

finally got around to seeing this tonight.  I'll agree with some of the others on here that there seemed to be too much going on... the script was definitely weaker.  Now, I never did read superhero comics when I was a kid, but as I understand it, there were two separate story arcs: the mutant 'cure' was one, and the Phoenix saga was another.  The movie would probably have done better to concentrate on one or the other, and save the other for a 4th movie.  IMO, the cure story would have done better for this one (leave Jean still presumed dead and gone), with the cure non-permanent... and then everyone shows up in the 4th movie for the Phoenix saga/final battle/grand showdown....
that said, I did rather like this movie... I wouldn't call it a bad movie... and I'm a sucker for special effects.... the battle at the end was pretty neat, although the whole Phoenix thing at the end seemed kinda added on....


----------



## David Howery (Jun 14, 2006)

couple of questions.... some character named Gambit has been mentioned on here a few times... who's he?  and he's Rogue's boyfriend?  Is he immune to her power or something?

who's the actress who played Kitty in the movie... she's a tiny little thing....


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 14, 2006)

Gambit is an X-Men character that hasn't appeared or been mentioned in the movies. His powers don't have anything to do with Rogue, I think.


----------



## hafrogman (Jun 14, 2006)

He's a got the power to charge objects that then explode.  He likes to do this with playing cards.  He's been romantically linked to Rogue, but as an unrequited kinda thing since they can't touch.

His "real" name showed up on a computer list in X-2, but he's never been shown in the movies.

As for Shadowcat. . . Ellen Page.  http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0680983/ 

IMBD is your friend.


----------

