X Men 3 (with SPOILERS! and comics nerds)

Post by **Lunkhead** » Tue May 30, 2006 12:34 am

If you don't want spoilers, check out the other thread. This is for talking about the movie, picking it apart, and getting the perspective of some current/former comics nerds on the variations from the comic. BEWARE, SPOILERS, LOOK OUT!

Post by **Lunkhead** » Tue May 30, 2006 12:45 am

So anyway, I was expecting Leech to be critical to killing the Phoenix. How else would anybody be able to get close enough to her then actually kill her, when she was supposedly the most powerful mutant on earth? Would Wolverine stabbing her really be able to do it? It didn't seem like it, from how they talked up her powers.

And good grief, "barriers in her mind"? Granted, that's probably been used in some comics, but it was lame. She was always that powerful? Wha? And yeah, her character in this movie basically was either blank, smiley, afraid, or psycho, with very few words spoken and only some slight changes in her expression to convey the modes.

Cyclops basically got screwed the whole trilogy. He went from generic preppy dude, to somewhat OK action hero, to whiny depressed guy, to vapor. Not so great for him. He seriously got <5 minutes screen time this movie, then he's vaporized. I was pretty shocked when that happened right out of the gate. Obviously he wasn't a super popular character so he didn't factor much into the movies, but I always liked his character, so I was disappointed.

Then, "killing" Prof. X felt almost sacreligious. In terms of having some movement to the story across the three films, and trying to sort of "wrap things up" in this one, I guess it made sense. Ditto for Magneto losing his powers. But then they went and pulled a total comic book move by showing Magneto still having or regaining some of his powers, and the Prof. coming back.

More fallout of Prof. X dying: Storm is in charge. Frankly, Halle Barry has never impressed me, and again I thought she was pretty bland here. They hadn't really established her character in the other movies and suddenly she's more focal, yet still without much establishment.

Back to Magneto, so what's the deal? The "cure" wears off?

In spite of all that I think it was an alright movie. Maybe not from the perspective of somebody who used to read the comics for a while a loooong time ago, but good enough all things considered.

Niveous · Post by **Niveous** » Tue May 30, 2006 9:59 am

The Dark Phoenix saga is one of the best written comic stories ever and they really butchered it. For me, the biggest blasphemy was having Wolverine kill Phoenix. In the books, he knew what he had to do and just couldn't. He loved her too much. And in the end, she killed herself. That suicide was powerful. Killing Cyclops was another bad thing because it's her link to Scott that keeps her human.

prayformojo · Post by **prayformojo** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:35 am

Killing Cyclops was completely unnecessary. So was killing Xavier, though for the number of times he has died and come back in the comic it was loosely justified. It was funny because at the begining of the movie when Xavier is teachign and he says "What woudl be the moral implications of putting someone's mind into a coma patient's body" I turned to my friend and said "Xavier will die and his mind will end up in that body." Bingo bango, thanks for the lame ass after credit scene. I actually figured X woudl die from the trailer. (Wolverievne knealing in front of an empty wheel chair was a pretty big give away.)

I understand the need to change things from source to film. Obviously certain things just wouldn't work. As much as I love the original text, I'm not married to it when it comes to a film adaptation. I do, however, feel that you need to be able to fully justicy those changes before you make them. (IE: Spiderman generates his own webbing in the movie. Makes sense because a 5 minute scene explaining the web shooters, etc would not be interestign and take away from the focus of the movie. Also, the Pheonix force (and, for that matter, Venom in the upcoming Spiderman movie... if teh rumors are true) beign explained as alien or cosmic phenominon in teh movie just couldn't work. It pulls the viewer too far away from the characters and situations in front of them. Changing those details is exceptable ASSUMING you have a good, logical, and not retarded fix. (Ultimate Spiderman's Venom suit was a perfect example of a good fix, X3's Pheonix was an example of a bad shift)) Movies liek Fantastic 4 and X3 that change a lot of stuff for no justifiable reason really bug me. WHY change some characters (Psyloche, Calisto, Collosus) and their powers? If you want a certain set of powers, just include a character with those powers. Or make one up. They have no problem doing that.

I also question WHY would you write so many new characters in if you weren't goign to use them. The random blowfish mutant in the morlocks (spike, perhaps) got more screentime than Angel, and Angel was supposedly a major player in the film. It bad writing, dab directing, and the weakness problems like this create becomes blairingly obvious when the whole film is assembled.

sigh. Soapbox relinquished.

Niveous · Post by **Niveous** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:42 am

I agree. You don't have to be tied to the original story. But at the same point, there is only so much unjustified butchering you can do. Not having Phoenix as a cosmic force- justified. Killing off major characters to the Phoenix story- unjustified. But I guess it's the way of comic books right now. It's in vogue to take existing material and retell the story however you desire to (i,e. The Ultimates).

ken · Post by **ken** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:54 am

This movie seems lacking in adult mutants. Can someone explain the whole mutant ranking scale from 0-5 for me? Are there mutants whose rating is .1 in that they can warm a cup of coffee and that is about it? I really think they should've gone into Beast's backstory more as it is relevant to the storyline and the movie overall lacks depth.

Too many plot holes for me in an otherwise interesting plot.

Ken

prayformojo · Post by **prayformojo** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:06 am

ken wrote:This movie seems lacking in adult mutants. Can someone explain the whole mutant ranking scale from 0-5 for me? Are there mutants whose rating is .1 in that they can warm a cup of coffee and that is about it? I really think they should've gone into Beast's backstory more as it is relevant to the storyline and the movie overall lacks depth.

Too many plot holes for me in an otherwise interesting plot.

Ken

Thereare somne pretty pathetic mutants, hence the "remedial class" throughout Grant Morrison's excellent run on New X-Men. That's also the basis for the Morlocks, who are great characters in the comics and were pretty glossed over in the movie. (The Morlocks were the group that Magneto recruited at that mutant town hall meeting. In the comics they are all somewhat deformed so they can't live among society, and most of them have pretty weak powers. Eventually during the comics Storm becomes their leader, easily one of her best plot lines. They totally could have worked that into the movie, but they chose to use them all as an evil faceless army instead.) I don't recall a specific rating system in the comics, though I woudl not be at all surprised if there was one.

I agree that we didn't get enough on beast. They alluded to him being one of the original students, but that was it. His story in the comics is really interesting (and relivant to the movie's "cure" plot) since he used to look fairly normal, but to to self experimentation ande his mutant gene he became more and more feral. Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men series (the loose basis for the cure plotline) is awesome and has a lot to do with Beast deciding weither or not to take the cure for himself. It's really worth reading.

Post by jb » Tue May 30, 2006 11:58 am

ken wrote:This movie seems lacking in adult mutants. Can someone explain the whole mutant ranking scale from 0-5 for me? Are there mutants whose rating is .1 in that they can warm a cup of coffee and that is about it?

Plot holes and inconsistencies and just the whole jumbled story "arc" ruined it for me.

The weak mutants would be like the kids from Sky High. One who can glow-- but so dimly you have to turn out the lights to see it. Another who can shape-shift-- but only into a guinea pig.

Sky High was much better than X-Men 3.

Bjam · Post by **Bjam** » Tue May 30, 2006 1:33 pm

All the "extra" mutants in X Men 3 are angsty teens who dress in black and want to fight the man. And there were only 50-100 of them in the movie.

I want more kick ass mutants like Magneto, Beast, etc.

ken · Post by **ken** » Tue May 30, 2006 1:44 pm

Bring back Nightcrawler!

Ken

Niveous · Post by **Niveous** » Tue May 30, 2006 1:56 pm

Bjam wrote:All the "extra" mutants in X Men 3 are angsty teens who dress in black and want to fight the man. And there were only 50-100 of them in the movie.

Recently in the comics they decimated the mutant community down to only 198 mutants.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Tue May 30, 2006 2:10 pm

Where the FUCK is Gambit.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:33 pm

I felt that in X2 they added mutants that helped further the storyline, a perfect example being nightcrawler. In X3 their reasons for adding mutants had nothing to do with the plot at all (except Leech); instead it seemed they were voted onto the island based on popularity / how cool their fight scenes would look.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:59 pm

Then on that criterion... again, where the FUCK is Gambit?

john m · Post by **john m** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:02 pm

Gambit is the only reason I was interested in the production of the movie. Unless I am completely mistaken, Gambit was supposed to be in the film, then the idea was canned, around the same time Angel was put in. That is pretty specific for something I don't know much about, though, so maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, yeah. WherethefuckwasGambit.

Post by jb » Tue May 30, 2006 10:03 pm

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:10 pm

According to the credits, one of the many faceless nondescript mutants was Jubilee. WTF.

Also, Spike has got to have the lamest power ever. LOOK OUT I'M MEAN AND SPIKEY! Wait I mean HEY LOOK LET'S BE FRIENDS! {{{HUGS}}}

I was trying to think of what the lamest mutant power could be. The best I could come up with was being an anti-Rogue, and having the ability to transfer that specific mutant power to anyone else. And nothing else.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:10 pm

Supposedly the guy who plays Sawyer on Lost turned down the role of Gambit.

Edge of LA · Post by **Edge of LA** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:10 pm

So the Sawyer guy from Lost and the Nightcrawler guy have good agents that wouldn't let them get tanked in this movie!!! :lol

prayformojo · Post by **prayformojo** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:30 pm

jb wrote: Sky High was much better than X-Men 3.

Sky High was a huge surprise. I love that movie.

I heard part of the no Nightcrawler deal was that "3 blue mutants is one too many". Beast makes a whole lot more since in the whole should-i-take-the-cure-or-not scenario, though I think it's a huge shame to loose argubly the best character from X2 because of that. Cumming migh not have been interested either. (on a side rant, he totally shoudl have been Willy Wonka over Depp)

I actually support Gambit not being in the movies yet. Don't get me wrong, Gambit is one of my favorite mutants, but he doesn't fit YET for these reasons:
1) A Gambit story without a Rogue romance plot is not a Gambit story. I think fans would be more pissed if Gambit showed and didn't romance ROgue than if he didn't show at all.
2) The series needs adult/teacher x-men, not more of the students. Now that you have Iceman, Colossus, Rogue and Shadow Cat as active members, they need to balance it with adults. With the death of Cyclops, it only leaves Storm, Wolverine, and Beast. I can't see Gambit as a teen working well, and an adult Gambit/teenage Rogue romance is a line I'm bettign no one at Marvel or Fox want's to cross.

Also, I believe Jubilee was in X2 as well. Who knows if she was played by the same person.

Post by **Lunkhead** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:43 pm

According to the IMDB Jubilee was in X2 and was played by the same actress, Kea Wong:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0910958/

john m · Post by **john m** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:27 pm

Also, I hear that Gambit was slated to be in, then was removed last minute when Angel was put in. The thought is that if Gambit was in, he would have had a throwaway part like Angel. Better to have him when he's super badass.

(Redundant, I know.)