FAQ   Search the Forums   Log in to check your private messages

Recent Headlines

Recent Reviews


Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
Forums Index -> Out of Genre Experience -> Wolverine
Johnny Truant
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:04 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 1256

Fair points about the characters bein like the comics, but the rest still stands.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Truant
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:15 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 1256

Fireflyfan wrote:
EvilRex wrote:
FireFlyFan, you know, dude, I think that's the first time you really presented the reasons behind your love for the film) or least that I've read). I respect that, you gave me clear, definite, tangible things to look at even if I disagree with them.

I still have to get on you, though, that people's dislike for the film isn't 100% stemming from the fact that Bret Ratner's name is attached. And think about this: if it was Bryan Singer's name attached to this, wouldn't the fans who dislike the film even hate it even more and demand Singer's head on a plate? I mean the same guy who brought us to awesome films in the X-Men universe comes back to us with this? Talk about a let down. The film had faults and people are pointing them out.

Sure, though, there is probably a segment of the audience who didn't give it a chance based on Ratner's involvement and/or Singer's lack there of. It's like the people who wouldn't give Hostel a chance on its own merits because of people's hate for Eli Roth. It's ridiculous, childish and you can't get anywhere with that train of thought.

I'll admit X3 is NOT bad. However, it isn't great to me either. There were elements missing in this last one that kept the film at a distance for me unlike the complete submersion I felt from X2. And X2 isn't perfect for me either. I never liked how Singer did nothing with the characterization of Scott and just had him there in the background most of the time. I also didn't like how you can sometimes sense Singer had a hard-on for the development and action revolving around Magneto that it took away from the deeper developments in the Xavier mutants.

My biggest issue is its script. If they were to hold off for one more summer or look at a Xmas '06 release and give more time to fleshing out and reworking the script instead of the mad rush to out-do Superman Returns then I would wager we'd have gotten a much better movie-- even one you'd agree is better than we got.

I hope they do that with Wolverine. There's no rush, no hurry. Give us the best script possible and start from there.



I agree that not all the hate for it comes from Brett Rattner's name...but people like Sirand (I don't mean to pick on him but he's the clearest example I can think of) picked out things that were either wrong or prevelant in Singer's movies as well.

For example, he complained about under use of characters....singer did it with colossus, sabretooth, toad, and Cyclops (who was underused in TWO of his films).

Also he complained about Pyro being able to create fire (which he doesn't in the movie, as you see his lighter/flamethrower device in his hand).

He also said shadowcat and rogue's powers cant be transferred instantly (although they can in the comics and other movies).

so you see what I mean more? Im not saying it applies to all people, but the majority yes. I also believe Johnny Truant cares more about a director's name than the actual quality of the movie....but hopefully you can see what I mean about some of the more baseless critisims people have leveled at the movie.


lmao.

It's not the name of the director it's the quality of his work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Terminal
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:56 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 8052
Location: Bronx, New York

Fireflyfan wrote:
If you don't think the charaters in x3 acted like the comics, I would suggest than you have never read an x men comic in your life.

Jean Grey and Wolverine having a mutual love and attraction?

HELL NAW, THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE COMICS!

WTF? They made Beast an intelligent and smart, thoughtful guy? whattup with dat, dawg?

Magneto and Professor X being friends? where did they get that crazy idea from?

You're completely right about it being nothing like the comics...

whatever next? sabretooth talking like an intelligent and crafty supervillain, instead of a glorified grunt? Stop it now, I tells ya!


Well, yes they had the character elements down, but they were just elements that Ratner could have focused on with much extrapolation. Instead they remained just elements and concepts never fully explored by the writers. If the film had been a half hour longer, they could have used that to focus on characters.

But then Juggernaut was a soccer hooligan with a nice suit, Callisto was a hispanic flash, leech was an obligatory plot device, Angel looked like a mutated Abercrombie and Fitch model, and Rogue was a petulant Dawson's Creek stalwart.
_________________
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Terminal
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:01 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 8052
Location: Bronx, New York

Fireflyfan wrote:
I agree that not all the hate for it comes from Brett Rattner's name...but people like Sirand (I don't mean to pick on him but he's the clearest example I can think of) picked out things that were either wrong or prevelant in Singer's movies as well.


What's wrong with that? Not everyone enjoyed these films.

Fireflyfan wrote:
For example, he complained about under use of characters....singer did it with colossus, sabretooth, toad, and Cyclops (who was underused in TWO of his films).


Actually, Singer was alluding to bigger plots with Colossus, but I agree about Toad, Sabretooth and Cyclops.

Fireflyfan wrote:
Also he complained about Pyro being able to create fire (which he doesn't in the movie, as you see his lighter/flamethrower device in his hand).


He doesn't in the comics either. He has a gas lighter dohicky.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I felt this movie also nailed characters more (storm wasnt just an annoying extra, jean grey actually had personality), and wolverine was more wolverine than before (him lighting up a cigarette on burning debris is pure wolverine, and his little quip about ''grow those back'' after kickign a guy in the nads and playing dirty).


Wolverine's been wolverine since the first film, it's just it was corny. Some things in comics just don't work well on film, which I can attest to in two clear examples: Fantastic Four and Steel.

Storm was in the film more because Berry bitched about her role, it wasn't the writer's intentions I'm sure, as for Jean she didn't do anything, she just stood around watching.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I also liked how it showed another side to xavier other than kindly father figure. it made him more human.


What other side? He was basically the same here.
_________________
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
EvilRex
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:55 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1237
Location: ORLANDO

As for Xavier's "other side"... it really did a very fast drive-by on that idea. In recent X-Men comics (including the Ultimate series) Xavier has been shown more and more to be less benevolent than previously portrayed when it comes to his mission and dream. With the whole, Phoenix sub-plot in X3 it attempted to give us an Xavier who would "cross the line" with his powers. His intentions may have been for the greater good, but his actions aren't any less corupt than those of Magneto's. Logan tried to call him on it, but with Xavier's eventual death a scene later, we ultimately really got nothing out of that exchange including possible internal conflict with the X-Men.

Geek-out moment- yes, Pyro's true powers are that he can control flame. He cannot create it; therefore he is equiped with a flamethrower-type device when in uniform.

I didn't mind Singer's lack of screen-time with Colossus in X2. Of course I wanted more, but I understood the decision to limit his screentime. From what I've read it had a lot to do with additional $$$ and such for his FX. Now X3, on the other hand, wasted Colossus's screentime. By now, we've seen him in X2 so we know he's a badass and one of the young students. So instead of further developing him (ala Bobby Drake from X-Men to X2) he's still limited to minimal screen time and given 1 freaking line. He didn't get any screentime to show how he feels about the struggle or his family or friends in the school. We really didn't even get to see him do something amazing with his powers. All he did was punch a couple guys and perform a couple Fastball Specials.

One thing that I did like about Wolverine in X3 was he was starting to develop more into a Field Leader for the younger students. That reflects a lot of where the character is today in the X-books. I did not, though, like (or buy) the love/lust angle with Jean Grey. There was always sexual Tension between the two but it was a no-no the books avoided most of the time. The true story belongs to Scott who had to watch his true love kill herself to save the world. But because of the utter lack of development between Scott and Jean (and I blame Singer equally with Ratner on this) they were stuck with going the other route and having it be Wolverine forced into the dillema.
_________________
Open your textbooks to the chapter concerning your death.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fireflyfan
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:31 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 149

Terminal wrote:


Well, yes they had the character elements down, but they were just elements that Ratner could have focused on with much extrapolation. Instead they remained just elements and concepts never fully explored by the writers. If the film had been a half hour longer, they could have used that to focus on characters.

But then Juggernaut was a soccer hooligan with a nice suit, Callisto was a hispanic flash, leech was an obligatory plot device, Angel looked like a mutated Abercrombie and Fitch model, and Rogue was a petulant Dawson's Creek stalwart.



Angel is a more or less mutated abercrombie and fitch model in the comics....he is a rich pretty boy who imo is only interesting as archangel.

I personally think it should have been longer, I wish it had been...I would LOVE to have seen more. But being realistic, you can't give everyone the same amount of screentime. You just cant. It's not possible in a two hour movie....someone's favourite is ALWAYS gonna be left out.

Leech was a plot device yes, but I'd rather them use him for the cure (thus adding to the irony of a cure being made from a mutant) than a 'hey presto look what we made out of chemical one and two' cure. It gives it some logical basis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fireflyfan
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:39 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 149

Terminal wrote:
Fireflyfan wrote:
I agree that not all the hate for it comes from Brett Rattner's name...but people like Sirand (I don't mean to pick on him but he's the clearest example I can think of) picked out things that were either wrong or prevelant in Singer's movies as well.


What's wrong with that? Not everyone enjoyed these films.

Fireflyfan wrote:
For example, he complained about under use of characters....singer did it with colossus, sabretooth, toad, and Cyclops (who was underused in TWO of his films).


Actually, Singer was alluding to bigger plots with Colossus, but I agree about Toad, Sabretooth and Cyclops.

Fireflyfan wrote:
Also he complained about Pyro being able to create fire (which he doesn't in the movie, as you see his lighter/flamethrower device in his hand).


He doesn't in the comics either. He has a gas lighter dohicky.



Storm was in the film more because Berry bitched about her role, it wasn't the writer's intentions I'm sure, as for Jean she didn't do anything, she just stood around watching.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I also liked how it showed another side to xavier other than kindly father figure. it made him more human.


What other side? He was basically the same here.


I don't mind if people don't like the movie, but sirand apparently LOVES the other two....and I do mind if you make up points that aren't true to decide you hate the movie. If you hate it, fine, don't make up bullshit reasons.

I know Pyro doesn't create fire....but sirand tried to say he did in x3 (even though you clearly see his lighter in his hand). that was my point...it's clear you WANT to hate a movie when you point out things like that, and it's not even true.

I never saw any plans for colossus...sure he may have asked to go with wolverine, but to me, that's teasing. That's not alluding to anything. So for all his good intentions, he still did nothing with him. And sabretooth, an awesome character in the comics, was a glorified extra.

My point is, if you are gonna level critisism at rattner, fine, but don't ignore it when singer did it first and pretend you don't have a bias..

Jean had more of a prescence in this one than she ever did in the other movies....can you deny that?

Xavier showed he was more than willing to act for others if he thought it was in their best interest (at least in his mind). I guess you could call it somewhat arrogant, that he thought he knew what was best for Jean ( he was probably right, but then again, what if he didn't put the mental blocks on? maybe pheonix wouldn't have been so angry?) and that he wasn't exactly being honest with Jean and maybe even wolverine. Ok it wasn't shown that much, but that's still more sides than Singer managed to show in two movies (he was a kindley figure, and if you wanna talk about wasted characters, wasn't he knocked into a coma or mind controlled in x1 and x2? at least he had something to do in x3).

and cyclops did NOTHING in the movies before, and no one blamed singer for that, but when he dies he's got a fan club all of a sudden bashing rattner?

I don't mind hating the movie, or hating rattner, but you can't deny the hypocrisy ignoring singer's sins but crucifying rattner for the same things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fireflyfan
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:46 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 149

EvilRex wrote:
As for Xavier's "other side"... it really did a very fast drive-by on that idea.

Geek-out moment- yes, Pyro's true powers are that he can control flame. He cannot create it; therefore he is equiped with a flamethrower-type device when in uniform.

I didn't mind Singer's lack of screen-time with Colossus in X2. Of course I wanted more, but I understood the decision to limit his screentime. From what I've read it had a lot to do with additional $$$ and such for his FX. Now X3, on the other hand, wasted Colossus's screentime.

The true story belongs to Scott who had to watch his true love kill herself to save the world. But because of the utter lack of development between Scott and Jean (and I blame Singer equally with Ratner on this) they were stuck with going the other route and having it be Wolverine forced into the dillema.



Ok you didn't see the alternate side to xavier too much, but it was a lot more than what you saw in the other two movies.

If singer had wanted to do more with colossus, he could have brought him in on X1. He could have had him in X2 (he could have easily replaced say storm). But he didn't....Im sure he has excuses, but that's how it happened. Like i said, these are ensemble movies, and not everyone can have equal time. I loved Beast myself, so I am not sorry we got him instead, and cudmore seems like a limited actor, personally. I liked shadowcat, too...her ''love triangle'' with bobby and rogue was beautifully subtle. it wasnt a love triangle really, but rogue saw bobby consoling a distraught shadowcat and knew she could never have that relationship with him as a mutant...even though bobby and shadowcat never did anything wrong, it still brought home the point in her mind.


singer deserves WAY more blame than rattner for cyclops because he had two movies (more or less four hours) to develop him more..but he didnt. I dont think cyclops SHOULD be a central character in an x men movie to be honest....he's just not engaging enough, in my opinion, and it would have been a huge mistake.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Truant
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:15 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 1256

Jean making stuff go boom isn't the same thing as actually have more presence in the movies.

She had more to do in X1 and X2.

She stood around for the majority of her screen time in X3.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Terminal
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:29 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 8052
Location: Bronx, New York

Johnny Truant wrote:
Jean making stuff go boom isn't the same thing as actually have more presence in the movies.

She had more to do in X1 and X2.

She stood around for the majority of her screen time in X3.

Yep.
_________________
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Terminal
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:34 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 8052
Location: Bronx, New York

Fireflyfan wrote:
Angel is a more or less mutated abercrombie and fitch model in the comics....he is a rich pretty boy who imo is only interesting as archangel.


But you see my point, either way. He has TWO scenes only in the movie. That's sad.

Angel was interesting either way, in my opinion. He was the loner millionaire looking for a cure, and the avenging henchman looking for revenge.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I personally think it should have been longer, I wish it had been...I would LOVE to have seen more. But being realistic, you can't give everyone the same amount of screentime. You just cant. It's not possible in a two hour movie....someone's favourite is ALWAYS gonna be left out.


He misses the point.

My explanation was not in terms of "wah, wah, cyclops wasn't in this much", my explanation was in the context of that Ratner found that even the characters he focused on were not explored, dissected, and presented as true individuals.

Colossus had one line, Wolverine was wolverine more, Storm was more authoritarian and not so much a character, the list goes on. He didn't focus on characters that were presented to the audience.

Fireflyfan wrote:
Leech was a plot device yes, but I'd rather them use him for the cure (thus adding to the irony of a cure being made from a mutant) than a 'hey presto look what we made out of chemical one and two' cure. It gives it some logical basis.


The WHOLE chemical thing was stupid.

They found a cure, big whoop. Sure, I know it's detrimental to the X-men lore, I've read those comics, but the only reason why we even met leech was just to serve as a catalyst for the "war". He did nothing in the film and there was no focus.

Besides that kid was already in a movie about super powered beings trying to take down the cure for an inevitable war, it was called "Ultraviolet". The cure storyline is played out.
_________________
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Terminal
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:43 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 8052
Location: Bronx, New York

Fireflyfan wrote:
I don't mind if people don't like the movie, but sirand apparently LOVES the other two....and I do mind if you make up points that aren't true to decide you hate the movie. If you hate it, fine, don't make up bullshit reasons.


Hey, his reasons are his reasons but he didnt like it, so let him.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I know Pyro doesn't create fire....but sirand tried to say he did in x3 (even though you clearly see his lighter in his hand).


In the climax he had the suit, and in the scene where he explodes the mutant lab.

Fireflyfan wrote:
that was my point...it's clear you WANT to hate a movie when you point out things like that, and it's not even true.


It's called nitpicking, it's what fan boys do.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I never saw any plans for colossus...sure he may have asked to go with wolverine, but to me, that's teasing. That's not alluding to anything. So for all his good intentions, he still did nothing with him. And sabretooth, an awesome character in the comics, was a glorified extra.


Sabretooth, you'll get no argument there, but it's clear Singer did was Ratner did except alluded to a more prominent role that Ratner fucked up by making HIM a glorified extra.

Fireflyfan wrote:
My point is, if you are gonna level critisism at rattner, fine, but don't ignore it when singer did it first and pretend you don't have a bias..


Hey, I've really yet to hear someone say that Singer didn't have faults. But Ratner could have shown people he was better, and just further proved how horrible he is with a story.

Fireflyfan wrote:
Jean had more of a prescence in this one than she ever did in the other movies....can you deny that?


Yes I can.

When she stands around for the entire time with no dialogue, no personality, and no involvement in what was SUPPOSED to be a grand story we were waiting for, it's hackneyed writing and directing, pure and simple.

A dog could have been Magneto's aid, would you call that having a "presence" or character focus? It's lame.

Fireflyfan wrote:
Xavier showed he was more than willing to act for others if he thought it was in their best interest (at least in his mind). I guess you could call it somewhat arrogant, that he thought he knew what was best for Jean ( he was probably right, but then again, what if he didn't put the mental blocks on? maybe pheonix wouldn't have been so angry?) and that he wasn't exactly being honest with Jean and maybe even wolverine. Ok it wasn't shown that much,


Yours is based on assumptions you shouldn't even be making. Ratner should have focused on the storyline rather then leaving us to figure it out for ourselves. It's sloppy.

Fireflyfan wrote:
but that's still more sides than Singer managed to show in two movies (he was a kindley figure, and if you wanna talk about wasted characters, wasn't he knocked into a coma or mind controlled in x1 and x2? at least he had something to do in x3).


Well, gee, in X-men he was taken down early.
In X2 he was battling with a telepath who was stronger than him.

And yet you say his character was stronger even though he's barely in the middle and then dies for the remainder of the film? That's odd.

Fireflyfan wrote:
and cyclops did NOTHING in the movies before, and no one blamed singer for that, but when he dies he's got a fan club all of a sudden bashing rattner?


Because Ratner changed the plot line drastically. Singer didn't focus on Cyclops as he should have, that's been a constant annoyance on my level, but he didn't kill him as a lazy way to keep from focusing on him. Ratner clearly said "You know what, I can't handle all those characters, kill a few."

Don't give the clown prince of movies too much credit. You're wasting your time.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I don't mind hating the movie, or hating rattner, but you can't deny the hypocrisy ignoring singer's sins but crucifying rattner for the same things.


No one has. You're assuming again. There's been constant complaints about Singer's faults, but Ratner screwed up the integrity of the first two films while failing in his own effort.

Can you deny that?
_________________
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Fireflyfan
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:05 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 149

Johnny Truant wrote:
Jean making stuff go boom isn't the same thing as actually have more presence in the movies.

She had more to do in X1 and X2.
.



I am shocked you believe that. Or not so shocked, seeing as it's you Wink

The ONLY thing she did in X2 was allow the x men to get away and die (hmm and the cure was a plot device....what was that then?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fireflyfan
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:16 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 149

I do deny Ratner screwed up. I think his movie was far better than what came before, to be honest. So yes, I deny it. I deny it a million times over. I cannot see how anyone can say it lacked heart or emotion. I don't understand that...I guess people see it their own way, but that's part of the reason I think it's Ratner hate...I do believe they see the emotion and heart, but don't want to admit the hated Ratner outdid the beloved Singer, the critic's golden boy. I will always believe that.

And actually, hardly anyone here has ever said a word against singer, while crucifying ratner for the same things.

Er, Ratner changed the plot? Actually, I have NEVER heard that. I have followed the movie since it started pre-production (post X2, when sentinels and beast were first being discussed). The script review (which was pretty much how the whole movie ended up) at AIC was around while Vaughn was still on board.....so I don't know how Rattner changed anything (unless he was on board from the start and Vaughn was a smokescreen?)..that to me, is blatant Ratner hating. Becuase I have read no reports of him changing stories, and the script review described practically the whole movie before Rattner came on board, so is blatantly false.

But you're right. God forbid people die when a threat such as Pheonix come around, especially the guy who finds her. I mean, people don't die in comics! That's just silly talk.

NO ONE gave a damn about cyclops before, but now ratner kills him off, boom, instant reason to hate.

What was this ''big'' role singer allueded to with collossus then? please do enlighten me, because I sure as hell didn't see it.

It's all about finding reasons to HATE Ratner. If anything, a lot of these posts have proven that in my mind, since most ''faults'' were done by singer and often to worse degrees (you can blame Singer for Colossus not having an accent, too).

That's ok, you can hate the movie cause of Ratner, but don't deny it.

I know it's pretty much the main reason a lot of people hate it. I am sure now of that, so thank you for cementing it in my mind that it's down to Ratner's name, and not actual issues with the film itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Terminal
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:49 pm  Reply with quote



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 8052
Location: Bronx, New York

Fireflyfan wrote:
I do deny Ratner screwed up.

Sad you can't admit it.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I think his movie was far better than what came before, to be honest.


Okay, that's your opinion, nothing wrong with that.

Fireflyfan wrote:
So yes, I deny it. I deny it a million times over. I cannot see how anyone can say it lacked heart or emotion.


The story was paper thin, the characterization was almost non-existent.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I don't understand that...I guess people see it their own way, but that's part of the reason I think it's Ratner hate...I do believe they see the emotion and heart, but don't want to admit the hated Ratner outdid the beloved Singer, the critic's golden boy. I will always believe that.


You say that because you enjoyed the movie. It's easier for you to say that people hate it because of Ratner's name instead of admitting that people hated the movie because it just wasn't that good.

Fireflyfan wrote:
And actually, hardly anyone here has ever said a word against singer, while crucifying ratner for the same things.


I'm saying it, so there you go.

Singer had flaws in the films, many of them, but Ratner fucked it up.

Fireflyfan wrote:
Er, Ratner changed the plot? Actually, I have NEVER heard that. I have followed the movie since it started pre-production (post X2, when sentinels and beast were first being discussed). The script review (which was pretty much how the whole movie ended up) at AIC was around while Vaughn was still on board.....so I don't know how Rattner changed anything (unless he was on board from the start and Vaughn was a smokescreen?)..that to me, is blatant Ratner hating.


Really?

Changing the story is what Ratner did. Sorry. You followed the production? Good, I'm glad you enjoyed the film, I'm glad. But he changed the story horribly, sad to say.

Fireflyfan wrote:
Becuase I have read no reports of him changing stories, and the script review described practically the whole movie before Rattner came on board, so is blatantly false.


Come on, man. Come on. Dude, seriously, treading water here.

Fireflyfan wrote:
But you're right. God forbid people die when a threat such as Pheonix come around, especially the guy who finds her.


So you admit he changed the story? Okay. And yes, that was a big change, and a dumb one.

Fireflyfan wrote:
NO ONE gave a damn about cyclops before, but now ratner kills him off, boom, instant reason to hate.


Oh so NOW no one gave a shit about Cyclops so that's okay he died. You keep changing your argument, it's hard to keep up.

Fireflyfan wrote:
What was this ''big'' role singer allueded to with collossus then? please do enlighten me, because I sure as hell didn't see it.


A cameo was hinting at a bigger storyline that apparently Singer never developed. It's sad too. Not to mention there's the rumored "Young X-Men" which I'd love to see if Colossus came back to.

Fireflyfan wrote:
It's all about finding reasons to HATE Ratner.


Sure, it's not that the movie sucked, we just hate the man you're making a martyr, because lord knows he's a cinematic master.

Fireflyfan wrote:
If anything, a lot of these posts have proven that in my mind,


As least it proved a point in your mind.

Fireflyfan wrote:
since most ''faults'' were done by singer and often to worse degrees (you can blame Singer for Colossus not having an accent, too).


Yep, that's very true. Then he became a glorified extra in the third film.

Fireflyfan wrote:
That's ok, you can hate the movie cause of Ratner, but don't deny it.


Still making him a martyr? It's just a movie. A stupid movie, granted, but quit using that as a cop out. The movie wasn't even that good.

Fireflyfan wrote:
I know it's pretty much the main reason a lot of people hate it. I am sure now of that, so thank you for cementing it in my mind that it's down to Ratner's name, and not actual issues with the film itself.


Okay, keep telling yourself that. It helps you, obviously. ENjoy the movie, I sure did, I just didn't think it was as good as the first two. Nowhere near their quality.
_________________
----------
"We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT

View next topic
View previous topic
Page 4 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Dread Central Forum Index -> Out of Genre Experience

Post new topic   Reply to topic


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum