# Sexy mutant for X-men 3?



## Pseudonym (Jul 5, 2005)

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-07-04/#celeb7

I have a bad feeling about this.


----------



## fba827 (Jul 5, 2005)

it seems too much like he just wants to realize his own wet dream. 

if it comes to pass, well, yeah... it will seem a pathetic and blatant pandering to the pubescent boy demographic... which may be their target audience.. but it will be a turn off for me (and considering how much of an xmen fan i am, if they turn me away, well, it'll just be sad.)   the core of xmen has always been acceptence for differences , powers and teamwork of said powers.  having such a power really doesn't lend for teamwork... it's more a solo act...

i thought mystique was quite sexy in the last 2... she never had to result to being slutty though.  actually with the exception of rogue, all the female characters leads (and some of the male ones) had a good moment of sexiness...  
(not that i am discounting rogue. she was just portrayed as younger and more sweet and innocent and gentle)


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jul 5, 2005)

There was a character for a short while that ran a brothel and she used pheromones to seduce her clients. I seem to recall that Angel was featured in the story arc


----------



## Klaus (Jul 5, 2005)

Stacy X, iirc.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 5, 2005)

Sex sells and if you use a true comic book female figure and costume, all the 13 to 17 year old male geeks will call you god.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jul 5, 2005)

What happened to Mystique? I thought she filled this role quiet nicelly.


----------



## Teemu (Jul 5, 2005)

It's probably Stacy-X. She can/could give orgasms by touch. She did that a lot.


----------



## bolen (Jul 5, 2005)

Hollywood going for sex over story  Gee . .  That never has happened before


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 5, 2005)

Pseudonym said:
			
		

> I have a bad feeling about this.



Of course.  If anyone made an announcement about X3 *without* saying they had a bad feeling about it, the world would probably fly straight into the sun.


----------



## reveal (Jul 5, 2005)

http://mutanthigh.com/xstacy.html



> Stacy X has copper snake-like skin and the ability to control hormones by secreting pheromones through her skin. She can control her pheromones to induce a variety of sensations, from nausea to extreme pleasure, or she can just give a slight adrenaline boost.


----------



## bolen (Jul 5, 2005)

more info

http://filmforce.ign.com/x-men/articles/630/630836p1.html


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 5, 2005)

bolen said:
			
		

> more info







			
				from article said:
			
		

> Arad confirmed that Maggie Grace has left X3 due to scheduling problems with her TV show Lost. Official casting of Kitty Pryde could be known as early as Tuesday July 5th.




I'm rather neutral in opinion on this...  (What's wrong with the young lady from the previous two movies?)



			
				from article said:
			
		

> He also confirmed that Alan Cumming will not reprise his role as Nightcrawler, and that the character has been completely dropped from X3. The reason, said Arad, is that Nightcrawler didn't serve the story and, with so many other characters in the film, he had to go.




Horrible news.  I hate to see Nightcrawler shelved...  Yet again.  



			
				from article said:
			
		

> Arad also reiterated that the small role of Gambit has yet to be cast but that a strong actor is needed since they may have to carry a movie down the line. So does that mean there is going to be a Gambit spin-off film?!




Ahh, neutral again but with some coolness involved…  He’s not the second or third X-men I would like to see in a solo gig but it could make for a good movie.



			
				from article said:
			
		

> Arad added that Daniel Cudmore will be reprising his role as Colossus after all, and that Kelsey Grammer's Beast will be a hybrid of CGI and a suit.




both excellent news. 



			
				from article said:
			
		

> In other X-news, The New York Post claims that director Brett Ratner wants to include a minor character from X-Men lore in the film, a mutant hooker known as Stacy X. The paper reminds us that her "super power is that she secretes a pheromone that helps her to seduce men. She can seduce anyone." Unknown thesps Kate Nauta and Aya Sumika are reportedly in the running for the role.




Okay either Ratner wanted it and they said, "sure we got that" or maybe Ratner does have a clue when it comes to the X-men.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 5, 2005)

Just give me a male Angel that isn't a bit part and I don't think I'll complain too much.

Still, this could be the movie that breaks the X-Men series...I hope it doesn't, but I can't help but worry with Singer not being at the helm(I don't care who else it is, really, Singer was just great)


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 5, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Just give me a male Angel that isn't a bit part and I don't think I'll complain too much.




That's just kinky AMG...     What would the “Yoish “Lover” say about that?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 5, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> That's just kinky AMG...     What would the “Yoish “Lover” say about that?



 Where's that rolleyes smiley when I need it? Need a good metal bat, too.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 5, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Where's that rolleyes smiley when I need it?




I think it got banned, and with good reason.  



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Need a good metal bat, too.




That you do, that you do.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jul 5, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Horrible news. I hate to see Nightcrawler shelved... Yet again.




Nightcrawler need not be shelved, they could get another actor. From what I heard and read Mr. Cummings did not want to do the part because the costume/make up time was to prolonged and complicated. I am sure there were other reasons as well.


----------



## Laurel (Jul 5, 2005)

Pseudonym said:
			
		

> http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-07-04/#celeb7
> 
> I have a bad feeling about this.



Luckily Britney Spears' name didn't appear (competition for Jessica in Dukes of Hazzard).  

The character seems like a bad off shot off of Ivy from the batman movies.  Didn't much like Ivy's character, so can only wait and see....


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 5, 2005)

Pseudonym said:
			
		

> I have a bad feeling about this.




Do when did Halle Berry, Famke Janssen, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos and Kelly Hu stop being sexy?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 5, 2005)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> Nightcrawler need not be shelved, they could get another actor. From what I heard and read Mr. Cummings did not want to do the part because the costume/make up time was to prolonged and complicated. I am sure there were other reasons as well.



Maybe it’s just me but I think Cummings did such a wonderful job as Nightcrawler that I would rather they shelve the character than have someone else try to follow up.

and I could understand no wanting to go through all the make up and what not...  Its not something I would want to do myself.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Jul 5, 2005)

Ehh, I didn't like the freaky scars/tattoos and the hobo outfit anyway.  Nightcrawler's too good for that.


----------



## Endur (Jul 5, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Okay either Ratner wanted it and they said, "sure we got that" or maybe Ratner does have a clue when it comes to the X-men.




I think its pretty obvious that Ratner wanted it and they said, "sure we got that."

If Ratner knew anything about Marvel comics, he would have said he wanted the Enchantress or Sersi in the movie.

Nobody would pick Stacy for an Xmen movie.  I doubt she is even in the top 50 xmen.


----------



## takyris (Jul 5, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Of course.  If anyone made an announcement about X3 *without* saying they had a bad feeling about it, the world would probably fly straight into the sun.




Oh, hush.  It's completely possible to say something bad about a comic-book movie for reasons other than being a raving fanboy who has fallen to the dark side and now must mock everything for not being as good as I could have done it.

I'm not really worried about this news, though. This feels more like a PR guys testing the waters or trying to come up with something to say about X3 this week than a real important story element. I see this as a cameo appearance at best, and yeah, it's in there for the sexyness, but it's not going to take up much screen time with silly titillation. If there's a "bad stuff happening to mutants" montage, this will be one short scenelet in the montage. Or two clandestine people will meet in the brothel and have a short chat with the sexy mutant before starting their "So, Magneto is going to blah blah blah and the X-Men are going to blah blah blah operative conversation."

It would be like a press release saying that the Beast was going to be in X2 -- technically true, as his character had, what five seconds of screen time during a fictional equivalent of crossfire, but hardly worth getting worked up about.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 5, 2005)

Just a quick clearing on the Kitty Pryde angle: Kitty was played by different girls in X-Men and X2.


----------



## Endur (Jul 5, 2005)

Personally, I think they should use the Hellfire club.  Black Queen, White Queen, Black King, White King as the villains.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jul 5, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Maybe it’s just me but I think Cummings did such a wonderful job as Nightcrawler that I would rather they shelve the character than have someone else try to follow up.
> and I could understand no wanting to go through all the make up and what not... Its not something I would want to do myself.




I agrre I think he did an awsome job as Nightcrawler. About the make-up thing though I am one the fence. Rebecca goes through alot more than he did, so part of me is 'suck it up', But I also can see it being a hassle and not wanting to put yourself through that.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 5, 2005)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> Rebecca goes through alot more than he did, so part of me is 'suck it up', But I also can see it being a hassle and not wanting to put yourself through that.




Yes, but some people are claustrophobic and others are not...  I know it seems silly that make up could do such a thing to a person but you hear about a lot of actors who cannot do it.


----------



## Starman (Jul 6, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Famke Janssen




Mmmmm...Famke Janssen. *cough*Ahem*cough*

I'm nervous about the movie with Singer's departion, but I'm crossing my fingers. 

Starman


----------



## warlord (Jul 8, 2005)

The series was already ruined in X-men. I mean c'mon people Iceman belongs on the main team! HE WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL X-MEN. GET IT RIGHT!!!!


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 9, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> The series was already ruined in X-men. I mean c'mon people Iceman belongs on the main team! HE WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL X-MEN. GET IT RIGHT!!!!



So too were the Beast and Angel, but I don't see more people rooting for them. Besides, the _X-Men_ comic book series only got more interesting when Wolverine (formerly of _Alpha Flight_) and Storm joined the team, though there were also forgetteble team members like an Irishman called Banshee.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 9, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> The series was already ruined in X-men. I mean c'mon people Iceman belongs on the main team! HE WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL X-MEN. GET IT RIGHT!!!!



A comic book  movie isn't automatically ruined because it doesn't follow the comics exactly.  Concessions need to be made in the transition to the big screen.  Even the fantastic _Batman Begins_ alters certain parts of Batman's history to make for a better movie.

As for Iceman, he still had a bigger part than my own favorite X-Man (Shadowcat), so you really don't have anything to complain about.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 9, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So too were the Beast and Angel, but I don't see more people rooting for them.




I'm the lone voice rooting for Angel(not Archangel), but I always will. Always has been one of my favorite of the X-Men though I can't say exactly why. He just is. I'm so glad he's going to be in this one...hopefully he'll actually get to do things.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 9, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> A comic book  movie isn't automatically ruined because it doesn't follow the comics exactly.  Concessions need to be made in the transition to the big screen.  Even the fantastic _Batman Begins_ alters certain parts of Batman's history to make for a better movie.




[Sblock]Like a true love interest...[/sblock]


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I'm the lone voice rooting for Angel(not Archangel), but I always will.




Nope, I'm rooting for him also...  but I want him to suffer and turn into archangel.


----------



## reveal (Jul 9, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> [Sblock]Like a true love interest...[/sblock]




[sblock]Batman has a true love interest. It's Catwoman/Seline Kyle. Heck, they even got married on Earth 2 and had a daughter, Huntress.[/sblock]


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 9, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> [sblock]Batman has a true love interest. It's Catwoman/Seline Kyle. Heck, they even got married on Earth 2.[/sblock]



[sblock]far more play than anything else, and earth 2?  What is this you speak off.  [/sblock]


----------



## reveal (Jul 9, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> [sblock]far more play than anything else, and earth 2?  What is this you speak off.  [/sblock]




[sblock]I argued with a friend of mine that Batman and Catwoman got married and he didn't believe me. So I looked it up and, apparently, DC had an Earth and an Earth 2 where different things happened and then DC did something to get rid of E2. Not sure what... Just in case you were serious. [/sblock]


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 9, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Nope, I'm rooting for him also...  but I want him to suffer and turn into archangel.



 ...I'll accept an Archangel if they wait at least two more movies. Of course, if they keep him around, it'll probably be either this one or X4(if it happens). The metal wings just distract everyone.

He looks so much cooler pre-suffering.


----------



## warlord (Jul 9, 2005)

*Gambit*

Minor hijack but I heard Gambit may be in X3. Does anyone have anymore info?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 9, 2005)

Reveal:[sblock]







			
				reveal said:
			
		

> I argued with a friend of mine that Batman and Catwoman got married and he didn't believe me. So I looked it up and, apparently, DC had an Earth and an Earth 2 where different things happened and then DC did something to get rid of E2. Not sure what... Just in case you were serious.




I was actually being a smart ass, their was an earth 3 also and a few other variant worlds and it got so confusing and congested, I'm not sure if you follow marvel right now but the have the original universe, the ultimate universe, and various Max (and their mature line) universes (but some of the Max lines are set in the Original Universe, like the Punisher.)

As you can tell you have multiple copies of the same character…  Anyhow DC cleaned up their universes by killing them all off minus the original and bringing over some of the characters they wanted from the others.  (This happened in the Zero Hour series, lots of no names died, but it explains while the members of the JSA, the predecessor of the JLA, are still young and what not.

More than you ever wanted to know huh? 

Anyhow, Batman is the true persona, while Bruce Wayne, is just a tool to get things done…  The movie did a wonderful job of showing this except for the last few scenes with the Katie Holmes character.  One Batman wouldn’t really hint at who he “truly” is, it could put the other in harms way, and two, it should have been Bruce/Batman that told her to pack sand and go away at the end…  Batman is the protector of Gotham.  He doesn’t have time for “silly” stuff.   (Its what makes him so tragic.)
[/sblock]


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> He looks so much cooler pre-suffering.




Yeah, but he went down like A George Lucas’ villain.   

Oh and I think he looks far better afterwards...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 9, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I'm the lone voice rooting for Angel(not Archangel), but I always will. Always has been one of my favorite of the X-Men though I can't say exactly why. He just is. I'm so glad he's going to be in this one...hopefully he'll actually get to do things.



I think I would prefer they blend Angel/Archangel powers so that while he has those beautiful feathered wings, he can also shoot feather quills from it.

Mind you, I have not seen the newest Archangel since he has left the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse. I was surprised by his bald-headed blue-skinned Death persona as much as having seen Ororo ruined her beautiful tresses by turning them into a mohawk.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 10, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> Minor hijack but I heard Gambit may be in X3. Does anyone have anymore info?



Rumor has it that they're looking for someone to play Gambit. It's supposed to be a small part, but they're looking for an actor who could potentially carry a movie on his own and/or get a bigger part in the next movie.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 11, 2005)

From the Sci-Fi News page:

"According to the British tabloid The Sun, tennis sister stars Venus and Serena Williams are reportedly competing for a role in X-Men 3. The girls apparently both want to play the role of a bisexual hooker in the film, although Serena is likely to win out as Director Brett Ratner recently dated her. A source told the trade: "Brett fells either of the girls would be fantastic for the role, which is a superhero who oozes sex appeal. Her great power is the ability to seduce anyone." Much thanks to Comic Book Movies for the snippet."

Oy.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 11, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Oy.




Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 11, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Couldn't have said it better.




I got a bad feeling about this...   :\


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jul 11, 2005)

That begins to worry me.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 11, 2005)

Sorry for the XMen n00b question but:  Who is Kitty Pryde?  I've only seen the films, I assume she's either one of the children or she's the Asian woman who was being mindcontrolled in X2?

As for the "hooker" mutant: Coming from the standpoint of a person who loves the films but hasn't read any of the comics (i.e. "mainstream society"), the general public will be more likely to see a film that has things that they recognize.  In other words, sex.  This is just something to generate buzz about the film among those who haven't read the comics.


----------



## reveal (Jul 11, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Sorry for the XMen n00b question but:  Who is Kitty Pryde?  I've only seen the films, I assume she's either one of the children or she's the Asian woman who was being mindcontrolled in X2?
> 
> As for the "hooker" mutant: Coming from the standpoint of a person who loves the films but hasn't read any of the comics (i.e. "mainstream society"), the general public will be more likely to see a film that has things that they recognize.  In other words, sex.  This is just something to generate buzz about the film among those who haven't read the comics.




She's the student who phased through the door out of Professor X's office when Wolverine went in to see him.

In the comics, she has the ability to pass through solid matter and can take other people with her. She and Colossus were an item for a long time.


----------



## Tauric (Jul 11, 2005)

In the comic, when they introduced Kitty Pride she was young and unsure of her  power, and she bonded quite strongly with Wolverine.  In the movie, they gave this story to Rogue.

I wasn't thrilled at first, since Kitty was/is one of my favorite characters (thank you Joss Whedon), but it really worked.

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but when Mystique accessed the computer files in X2, there was what looked like an x-ray of a winged mutant, and I think the name Archangel was one of the files.

Either way, I like Angel, and think he would be a good addition.

Venus/Serena as pheromone mutant?  That I really don't like the sound of.

I am glad that they got Daniel Cudmore back.  I love X2 "I can help you."


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 11, 2005)

Tauric said:
			
		

> I don't know if anyone else noticed, but when Mystique accessed the computer files in X2, there was what looked like an x-ray of a winged mutant, and I think the name Archangel was one of the files.
> 
> Either way, I like Angel, and think he would be a good addition.
> 
> ...




The wing x-ray was  on the wall in the lab when Wolverine and Lady Deathstrike (the Asian woman) fought

the computer feaured a whole list of names of various mutants and 'projects' - including the reference to the Sentinels (_giant mutant-hunting robots for the unitiated_)

and of course Dr Hank McCoy (Beast) was the expert being interviewed about mutants on TV

Beast, Collosus and Kitty are my favourite X-Men so I'd love to see them get more screen time. I'm also wondering what they're going to do with Pyro (I liked the way they had him go to the dark side in X-2 *again for the unitiated [sblock]he's the one with the fire powers that went with magneto[/sblock])


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 11, 2005)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> The wing x-ray was the on the wall in the lab when Wolverine and Lady Deathstrike (the Asian women) fought




I've looked at this closesly, and I don't believe its ACTUALLY a wing. Instead, I think its just Lady Deathstrike's hand.


----------



## warlord (Jul 11, 2005)

Well Beast has been confirmed to be in X3. Kelsey Grammer is going to play him. Big, furry, blue him. Also I doubt Angel will appear in X3 because the wing x-ray in X2 was the start of the wings for Angel but they cost too much money to finish.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 11, 2005)

I don't buy that its metal winged Archangel in this movie(at least, not at the start), since they're actually calling him Angel. If it was meal wings, they'd be calling him Archangel...but if they actually DO mean Archangel, then that's just another strike against the movie right there.

I'd prefer to give this as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible at this point.


----------



## Tauric (Jul 12, 2005)

Thanks for the correction Tonguez.  I knew I saw it somewhere.  And, as think about it, I think AMG is correct, as well.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I'd prefer to give this as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible at this point.




What?  Does the truth hurt to much?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> What?  Does the truth hurt to much?



 Damn right it does. I didn't wait this long to finally see Angel and have them start screwing up names of characters...if THAT happens, then I finally join the anti-Ratner crowd. Not that I'm really all for Ratner, but no one can really live up to what Singer's set up IMO.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> but no one can really live up to what Singer's set up IMO.



How odd.  I think there's _plenty_ of room for improvement in the X-franchise.  The first two movies were decent for comic book movies, but they weren't even in the same league as the Spider-man films or _Batman Begins_.  Singer did all right, and another director could certainly do _worse_.  But (s)he could also do better.







			
				Hijinks said:
			
		

> Sorry for the XMen n00b question but: Who is Kitty Pryde?



Everything you ever wanted to know about Kitty Pryde.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 12, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> How odd.  I think there's _plenty_ of room for improvement in the X-franchise.  The first two movies were decent for comic book movies, but they weren't even in the same league as the Spider-man films or _Batman Begins_.  Singer did all right, and another director could certainly do _worse_.  But (s)he could also do better.




Its all a matter of trust, really. Singer knew what he was doing, and that was quickly apparent during the first X-Men movie even if it wasn't perfect. It was still X-Men, and it was a damn good movie.

But handing off the movie to a new director is always going to be a thing for some question, not just in X-Men.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Its all a matter of trust, really. Singer knew what he was doing, and that was quickly apparent during the first X-Men movie even if it wasn't perfect. It was still X-Men, and it was a damn good movie.




To be honest it was fair…  Its not even in the top five, maybe ten, comic book movies of all time. (IMHO)


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> To be honest it was fair…  Its not even in the top five, maybe ten, comic book movies of all time. (IMHO)



 This I agree with.  I'd put Batman Begins, Superman, X2, Spidey 1&2, Hulk, Blade 1&2, The Crow, Hellboy and Sin City ahead of it.  The first X-men had some very cool parts but overall didn't do much for me.  I wasn't even looking forward to X2 until right before it came out and the trailers got me interested.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> To be honest it was fair…  Its not even in the top five, maybe ten, comic book movies of all time. (IMHO)



What is the #1 comic book movie of all time? Christopher Reeves's _Superman_? How can you beat a movie that has Marlon Brando?  :\

Anyhoo...

Rumor has it that Nick Stahl of _Carnivale_ may be a shoo-in for the "Angel" role in _X3._


----------



## fett527 (Jul 12, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> This I agree with.  I'd put Batman Begins, Superman, X2, Spidey 1&2, Hulk, Blade 1&2, The Crow, Hellboy and Sin City ahead of it.  The first X-men had some very cool parts but overall didn't do much for me.  I wasn't even looking forward to X2 until right before it came out and the trailers got me interested.




Blade 1 *AND  * 2?!?!?!  Can't agree with that.  The first Blade I can see if you REALLY like Blade.  The mere presence of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan put X1 above Blade 2.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jul 12, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> Well Beast has been confirmed to be in X3. Kelsey Grammer is going to play him. Big, furry, blue him. Also I doubt Angel will appear in X3 because the wing x-ray in X2 was the start of the wings for Angel but they cost too much money to finish.




Check out this tread And Angel will be..


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 12, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> What is the #1 comic book movie of all time? Christopher Reeves's _Superman_? How can you beat a movie that has Marlon Brando?  :\




Oops missed this, I'll have to give it some thought but as much as I love Christopher Reeves portrayal of Superman it suffers cause its not my favorite character.  (It is quite good though and does beat the first X-men movie, and might beat the second one too.)

Let me think on it...


----------



## warlord (Jul 12, 2005)

Does anyone else keeping thinking Angel the ensouled vampire instead of Angel the winged X-man every time his name is brought up?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 12, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> Does anyone else keeping thinking Angel the ensouled vampire instead of Angel the winged X-man every time his name is brought up?



Nope, a winged mutant named Angel has been around far longer than Angel the show…

First Appearance: X-men # 1 (Uncanny)
Lost Wings: X-factor #14
Became Archangel (metal wings): X-Factor #24 (with a cameo in #23)

That’s all from memory so maybe I’m just programmed to think the other way around.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 12, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> Does anyone else keeping thinking Angel the ensouled vampire instead of Angel the winged X-man every time his name is brought up?




nope, it could be a generation thing - how old are you?

but I'm nowhere near as erudite as Brother Shatterstone

_Actually if you want to know my dirty little secret everytime I hear the word angel I start humming Amy Grants song 'Angels Watching Over Me!!!!!!_


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 12, 2005)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> nope, it could be a generation thing - how old are you?




I'm 28 for the record...



			
				Tonguez said:
			
		

> but I'm nowhere near as erudite as Brother Shatterstone




Ah, thanks.   (Its easier when you have most of the comics in question, I don't have X-Men #1 (The series that turned into the main uncanny title, and also have a "full" run, I'm missing 2, from issue 150 to the current issue. (#462)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 12, 2005)

And I'm 19...though I've had an uncle who's 11 years older that had all the comics. Most of my first exposure to X-Men was through his comics, and they had Angel. Angel was always the coolness...never liked the whole Archangel thing, though.

But, from what I've found, very few people know of Angel. They usually think of metal-winged Archangel.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> But, from what I've found, very few people know of Angel. They usually think of metal-winged Archangel.




That's cause Archangel is the coolness times infinity.    (And far more deadlier too)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 12, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> That's cause Archangel is the coolness times infinity.    (And far more deadlier too)



 Marvel Girl and Angel forever!!!


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 13, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> Does anyone else keeping thinking Angel the ensouled vampire instead of Angel the winged X-man every time his name is brought up?



Only if you don't have a clue about _X-Men_ comic books.

But since we're on that subject... I can see Michael Boreanaz as Caliban/Death.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 13, 2005)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Blade 1 *AND  * 2?!?!?! Can't agree with that. The first Blade I can see if you REALLY like Blade. The mere presence of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan put X1 above Blade 2.



Nah. Their mere presense doesn't make a film for me. They have both been in some sub-par flicks. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate X-men - it's just way down my list of comic book movies. I simply liked Blade a little bit more.

And Blade 2 was excellent.  The only Superhero flicks that I liked more were Spidey 2, X2 and Superman.  There were others that were just as good (like The Crow & Batman Begins).  Blade 2 was dark dark and darker.  My kinda movie.  And the action was superb.  You could actually *see* most of the fights which is a huge plus.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 13, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> And Blade 2 was excellent.  The only Superhero flicks that I liked more were Spidey 2, X2 and Superman.  There were others that were just as good (like The Crow & Batman Begins).  Blade 2 was dark dark and darker.  My kinda movie.  And the action was superb.  You could actually *see* most of the fights which is a huge plus.



I agree.  Except for X2.  That one's definitely several rungs down, IMO.


----------



## takyris (Jul 13, 2005)

Blade 2 was *not* excellent. By any stretch, by any rule, by any standard.

Well, okay, by mine.

I say this as a fight scene snob: Don't change the rules of combat in your movie for no reason. Don't have someone fight like a samurai in one scene and a barroom brawler in another scene. If there's some powerful emotional character thing that makes your hero fight better at the end, sure, fine, as long as you've got it characterized well. But if you have:

- A scene where Blade goes toe-to-toe with his badass sword-skillz in a dazzling display of slightly sped-up swordwork...

followed by

- A scene where Blade is attacked by a guy with a big iron bar with cement on it, and instead of stepping to the side, Blade decides to do an upward block with his powerful cool sword and just stand there so that the bad guy can kick him in the gut, and then the bad guy does the exact same thing again and Blade, genius martial artist badass, does the exact same block and receives the exact same kick...

No. Really, really, really, no.

Heck, I don't even like guns, and having full machine-gun fire not stop the ubervamps from moving forward in one scene while pistol shots blow them backward in another struck me as massively stupid. Maybe a single pistol shot really would knock someone back more than three or four seconds of automatic machine-gun fire hitting your torso, and I'm just full of it -- but I don't think that kind of thinking, even if wrong, makes me unique, and I'd have liked to see some explanation of that... provided that they were right about that.

After seeing the idiocy of Blade's swordwork -- brilliant in one scene, punked by a guy with a pylon in another -- I just chalked it up to lazy, stupid writing that had the hero's ability rise or fall to the level of his opponent.

If you screw up the fight scenes in a movie that is all about the badass fight scenes, you aren't gonna get a "great movie" from me.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 13, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Heck, I don't even like guns, and having full machine-gun fire not stop the ubervamps from moving forward in one scene while pistol shots blow them backward in another struck me as massively stupid. Maybe a single pistol shot really would knock someone back more than three or four seconds of automatic machine-gun fire hitting your torso, and I'm just full of it -- but I don't think that kind of thinking, even if wrong, makes me unique, and I'd have liked to see some explanation of that... provided that they were right about that.




That would have more to do with a caliber of the round...  Some automatic weapons, note there are exceptions, fire a smaller round than some handguns.  (It’s more about quantity and not quality in an automatic weapon.)

Note: I feel asleep the only time I tried to watch Blade 2, which probably doesn’t speak good for Blade 2, but I cannot really comment on the scene at hand in specifics.  Only in generation.

You would have more reaction from a single round of a 50 caliber desert eagle than you would from a couple of rounds from an MP5.


----------



## takyris (Jul 13, 2005)

Right. But if it's one Desert Eagle shot as opposed to 3 or 4 full seconds of absorbing machine gun fire, you think the one full Desert Eagle shot is going to knock a target back further than 3 or 4 seconds of being hit by, um, XX rounds per second from the machine gun?

That's my issue. It's not even an issue with realism, because from what I dimly recall, gunshots don't knock people back in real life. They knock people down from shock. But it's inconsistent to show Bad Guy X walk forward while being hit by full-auto machine-gun stuff and then fly backward from a single pistol shot, unless the movie rules state that pistols do more damage than machine guns.

And even then, there are times when pistols knock bad guys back and times when pistols are absorbed harmlessly. They were so busy trying to look cool that they never figured out how their cinematic universe should work. Which, as I said, in a story whose only selling point is the coolness of the fights, is not a good thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Only if you don't have a clue about _X-Men_ comic books.



Ah, that explains my mistake/confusion...


----------



## vulcan_idic (Jul 14, 2005)

Endur said:
			
		

> Personally, I think they should use the Hellfire club.  Black Queen, White Queen, Black King, White King as the villains.




Doubt it.  As I see it the writing is already on the wall - the next villian is Famke Janssen as (Dark) Phoenix.


----------



## warlord (Jul 14, 2005)

First I'm 17 so it may be a generational thing. But I happen to know alot about comics and lets face it guys Angel the vampire is a hell of alot more mainstream then Angel the superhero.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 14, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> First I'm 17 so it may be a generational thing. But I happen to know alot about comics and lets face it guys Angel the vampire is a hell of alot more mainstream then Angel the superhero.



 But Angel the superhero was first...and better.


----------



## vulcan_idic (Jul 14, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> First I'm 17 so it may be a generational thing. But I happen to know alot about comics and lets face it guys Angel the vampire is a hell of alot more mainstream then Angel the superhero.




I'd have to say so.  I'm 27 now and while I didn't start reading comics until late in college (a best friend - and Marvel fan - got me hooked) I find my thoughts are the other way around.  The first time I saw Angel (at the behest of another college friend - I'd never been into the whole vampire thing) I went into it expecting to see Warren Worthing III flying around.  I didn't know his name was Warren Worthing III back then, but that pop culture reference had a deeper hold on my cultural awareness than that vampiric-type guy.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 14, 2005)

warlord said:
			
		

> First I'm 17 so it may be a generational thing. But I happen to know alot about comics and lets face it guys Angel the vampire is a hell of alot more mainstream then Angel the superhero.




In your age bracket and in your humble opinion, yes.  I could agree with that.


----------



## takyris (Jul 14, 2005)

I'm 29 and read the comics and watched the show. "Archangel" clearly comes through as my blue-skinned razor-feather-flinging buddy, but "Angel" still gives me a momentary "Why do the want a vampire who... oh, duh" the first time I read it in a thread. Of course, that's likely because I read when he was Archangel -- it was only when I went back to read older issues that I got to see him as angel, and then wing-spiked-nobody, and then Archangel. I knew the story from flashbacks, of course, but Archangel was the name that clicked for me, not Angel.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 14, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Right. But if it's one Desert Eagle shot as opposed to 3 or 4 full seconds of absorbing machine gun fire, you think the one full Desert Eagle shot is going to knock a target back further than 3 or 4 seconds of being hit by, um, XX rounds per second from the machine gun?



I don't recall the scene in question, but I do know that when you shoot a machine gun at someone, very, very few of the bullets actually hit what you're aiming at.  Machine guns are devastating when fired into a dense formation of charging soldiers.  Against a single target, you're far better off firing a burst or single round.

In the scene in question, was the advancing ubervamp being hit with every bullet fired by the machine gun?  If so, I'd take more issue with _that_ unreality, rather than the lack of knockback. 

And I thought _Blade 2_ was fantastic exactly because of the action sequences.  I tend not to compare one sequence against another, so I didn't notice the discrepancy you describe.  What I did notice was that most of the fighting was very well choreographed and hardly any shot was reused, unlike a Steven Seagal movie, where you can see the same footage re-inserted in a fight sequence several times.


----------



## takyris (Jul 14, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I don't recall the scene in question, but I do know that when you shoot a machine gun at someone, very, very few of the bullets actually hit what you're aiming at.  Machine guns are devastating when fired into a dense formation of charging soldiers.  Against a single target, you're far better off firing a burst or single round.
> 
> In the scene in question, was the advancing ubervamp being hit with every bullet fired by the machine gun?  If so, I'd take more issue with _that_ unreality, rather than the lack of knockback.




Yep. It was walking forward, and there were an absurd number of bullet-impact squibs going off on its chest, but it wasn't getting knocked back. But the pistol shot WAS knocking it back.

Might not have been a machine gun, though. Might have been, y'know, a vamp... uh, thing.



> And I thought _Blade 2_ was fantastic exactly because of the action sequences.  I tend not to compare one sequence against another, so I didn't notice the discrepancy you describe.  What I did notice was that most of the fighting was very well choreographed and hardly any shot was reused, unlike a Steven Seagal movie, where you can see the same footage re-inserted in a fight sequence several times.




I'll agree that choreography wasn't reused, and their camera angles were good -- they didn't have to fake things out for a stunt double to take over for Snipes. But the "this guy can dodge anything in this fight but gets hit like a chump in this other fight" thing really bugged me. Honestly, it would have bugged me less in a movie that wasn't ABOUT the fights. Pirates of the Carribean? I don't care if the fights are a) unrealistic and b) different from each other in different scenes (although as I remember, they did a good job in that one of establishing the rules of combat in that movie and then sticking with them), because it wasn't about the fights. It was about Johnny Depp chewing the scenery and making you not realize what a corny movie it is most of the time because he's just so incredibly wacky.

But Blade 2 was not a movie I watched for its sterling performances, with the action an occasional little jolt. Blade 2 was all about the fights. And if it's all about the fights, it darn well better get the fights right.

(But I'm a fight snob, so I'm gonna be a hard sell, there.)


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jul 14, 2005)

Oddly enough, I'm 21 and only just got big into comics over the last two years. My only real X-Men exposure when I was young was a little of the old X-Men cartoon. Even with that though, even to this day when I first hear someone mention the show Angel I think of the X-Man.


----------



## Taren Seeker (Jul 14, 2005)

I found the CGI fighting one of the more objectionable things in Blade 2.

Couple that with the "Space Marine" vamp crew, and the inconsistent strength and lack of coolness of the villains...gets a "meh" from me.

The Vamp crew could have been really cool, but they just came off as trying TOO hard to be a badass reproduction of the Aliens Space Marines. Honestly, I expected to see one of those cheesy comic book panel shots of the "new team" with narrative boxes next to each guy stating his name. Seemed like every other issue in the 90's had a panel like that


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 15, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Reveal:[sblock]As you can tell you have multiple copies of the same character…  Anyhow DC cleaned up their universes by killing them all off minus the original and bringing over some of the characters they wanted from the others.  (This happened in the Zero Hour series, lots of no names died, but it explains while the members of the JSA, the predecessor of the JLA, are still young and what not.
> [/sblock]




[sblock]Actually, I think that it was the Crisis of Infinite Earths that did that one.[/sblock]


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 15, 2005)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> [sblock]Actually, I think that it was the Crisis of Infinite Earths that did that one.[/sblock]




[sblock]Crisis on Infinite Earth did kill a number of note worthy heroes but it did little to clean up everything...  But I do see your point.  Zero Hour was done to clean up the messes that Crisis had made.

To be honest, for today’s reader it would be hard to read one without reading the other....  They are almost the same story, or at least the concept of cleaning everything up. [/sblock]


----------



## warlord (Jul 15, 2005)

I'd like to point out that even though I'm only 17 I was exposed to the X-men and Angel the superhero about 8 or 9 years before I even showed remote intrest in Angel the vampire. On another note does anyone know if it'll be Angel or Archangel in the film?


----------



## Klaus (Jul 15, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> [sblock]Crisis on Infinite Earth did kill a number of note worthy heroes but it did little to clean up everything...  But I do see your point.  Zero Hour was done to clean up the messes that Crisis had made.
> 
> To be honest, for today’s reader it would be hard to read one without reading the other....  They are almost the same story, or at least the concept of cleaning everything up. [/sblock]



 What mess? If anything, the only thing that didn't make much sense was having Wonder Woman look like the heroes were meeting her for the first time in Legends, instead of having her show up earlier than the Titans (no Wonder Woman means lots of explaining about Wonder Girl). Even the Superman reboot in Man of Steel takes place over the course of several years (4, IIRC, from the captions), so George Pérez's first 7 issues of WW could have taken place right about when Supes showed up, then jump forward a few years...

Oh, and having Hawkworld not take place in the recent past, which would've allowed for the thanagarian Hawks to be a part of the JLA, as per the Silver Age.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 15, 2005)

> I can see Michael Boreanaz as Caliban/Death.




Who's Michael Boreanaz?  Or do you mean David Boreanaz who starred in the vampire show _Angel_?

Can anyone recommend what I can do if I want to read the XMen comic series from the begininng?  Are there graphic novels I can get?  Or do I have to collect each issue?  Any references would be appreciated.


----------



## warlord (Jul 16, 2005)

The Phoenix saga and God Loves Man Kills are the only X-men graphic novels I can remember right now so try those.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 18, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Who's Michael Boreanaz?  Or do you mean David Boreanaz who starred in the vampire show _Angel_?



Yeah, my bad.


----------

