X-Men 3

hmmm...he got left on the ground and vaporized by phoenix or somebody picked him up and carried him to safety...which is something i don't get because "safety" was where? the end of the chunk of bridge :)
 
novelt said:
the walmart one with the "film school" featurette??? what i find odd is that people are upset that jean grey is dead...well she died in the books several times. psylocke died and returned. professor x has died a couple or more times and returned. just find it strange when people complain they're dead - it's like if you were a true x-men fan you'd be used to it. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry if this reply is not constructive, but people are sad because, frankly, the movie sucks. No depth whatsoever. Singer one's had much better depth- there was a build up in both x1 and 2 to a good finale in 3, which was ruined by over the top effects and basic storytelling. Only thing worth watching in this movie is the Beast and "Frasier's" performance.
 
Sorry if this reply is not constructive, but people are sad because,
Click to expand...

no need to apologize, but i do think you meant mad instead of sad :) and i can't believe you're complaining about the effects. i can take the ratner bashing and overall hatred of the story (even though zak penn was one of "singer's" writers), but to bash the effects...what's that about? i mean that's one thing to say the story was bad, but then to state "the dolly grip sucked" makes no sense. :grin:

ravinesedge...

i have 21 deleted scenes, but now i'm hesitant to buy the walmart exclusive...heck i know the x-men history...the "film school" thing might've been cool.
 
okay just finished listening to the first commentary and for those that "hated" the movie you should listen to the commentary and see why certain decisions were made. ratner got the job after the story had been set and yes he made changes and if you listen you'll see which ones and why...like the golden bridge was originally in the middle of the story and "the war" was at the end of the movie at the white house...and he said "why does every movie end at the white house?" then laughs and says "how am i going to do that in vancouver?" he's the one who pushed to add the "danger room" and the sentinel. singer wanted to have that earlier but the producers said no...hmm...think i said something along those lines several posts back about producers :)

finally ratner shot the end scene saying the producers didn't know about it...he asked patrick stewart to shoot it on his lunch break. so yes that's patrick stewart lying on the bed...and there's a sign that says "p xavier"...story being that charles was born with a twin and that his power being so powerful that his brother was born without any brain function. so it's open there could be an X4 with charles walking...

the explanation of why rogue took the cure is quite funny.
 
novelt said:
okay just finished listening to the first commentary and for those that "hated" the movie you should listen to the commentary and see why certain decisions were made.
Click to expand...

I saw Bett Ratner on the street the other day, so I asked him to explain some things about X-Men 3 for me, because maybe that would change my opinion of the film. This is what the conversation was like:

ME: Why did we hear Lee Ermey's voice for like thirty seconds but never see him, not even a really quick cut-away?
RATNER: Oh well, it was an after-thought. We really quickly filmed the scene of the military on my lunch break, then put it together in editing. And Lee Ermey happened to be in the studio doing ADR for another film, so I asked him to do me a favor real quick, and he recorded that montage speech.
ME: Ah, yeah, that makes that scene that once appeared to be really corny and half-baked before seem so much better now.

My point is, I don't think "why" really changes anything. At the end of the day, it's still poorly written, poorly executed, half-baked movie with terrible acting...and a cheesy ending...a REALLY cheesy ending. It did give me a good laugh though. Actually, come to think of it, the entire movie was really cheesy...and not in a charming, Ed Wood kind of way, but rather an awkward cringe-inducing way. I don't the filmmakers or actors were trying at all.
 
it's still poorly written,
Click to expand...

done before ratner signed on so you're blaming the original writers.

poorly executed,half-baked movie with terrible acting
Click to expand...

the producers didn't think so. it sounds like you don't want to work with/for them, ratner, nor the actors. be sure to be strong enough to take such harsh criticism on your next project. :)
 
novelt said:
the producers didn't think so. it sounds like you don't want to work with/for them, ratner, nor the actors. be sure to be strong enough to take such harsh criticism on your next project. :)
Click to expand...

WHAT??? I really don't understand what you're trying to say to me. I think you severely missed my point. And of course the producers are going to like their own movie, especially since it made them richer than they already were. I said they weren't trying. Most of the cast has done great work before, but that doesn't mean everything they do will automatically be great. And no, I don't think I want to work for the guy who directed Rush Hour, X-men 3, and assorted Mariah Carey music videos. In fact, I don't think I even like the idea of working within the mainstream Hollywood system at all, but that's a different story.

I just had a thought...I think you're Brett Ratner. I think that would explain why you're defending a movie other people don't like. It's the only locigal explaination I can think of. Everyone has their own opinion and taste in film, and I'm entitled to mine. Not everyone likes 'Eraserhead' and not everyone likes 'X-Men 3', and no one has to. I could care less about reviews. I'll listen to them, and take criticism, but my life doesn't depend on it. You liked the movie, I didn't. Get over it.
 
great actors still do great work even if the story is weak. so don't blame xmen3 on them. no i'm not brett ratner and i don't have to get over anything. i don't have a problem with you...well that's up until you tell me what to do. as i've said to every poster here. great you don't like the movie and you're absolutely entitled to your opinion. this is a "forum" and a forum usually means debate. you've got your side. i've got mine.

what would you have done differently?
 
novelt said:
great actors still do great work even if the story is weak. so don't blame xmen3 on them.
Click to expand...

I know, but I said they weren't even trying. I don't know what you mean by "don't blame xmen3 on them". I really don't. It was a terrible production all across the board, and I know I'm not alone in that feeling. I really couldn't find any redeeming aspects in the film, at all. It was just emberassingly bad. And what would I have done differently? I just wouldn't have made it. Plain and simple.
 
one of the most respected actors in the biz...patrick stewart...not trying...wow. unlike most people in the world these guys don't have to make movies for money. if the story is so bad they wouldn't want their name attached to it...might affect their future work. so they must've believed in it.

now i'll say this since i haven't...i will stand up for the effects because i'm an effects guy and i appreciate when filmmakers choose to do effects real-world in-camera and not a ton of CG...hmmm another trilogy pops into my head :)...that was the whole excitement of star wars back in the day "how did they do that?!?!?!?" now with CG it's like nobody cares anymore. so when they say they created a scale of the golden gate bridge, used miniatures, the prop guy goin' to town...that stuff i like. was x-men eye-candy...probably so. was it citizen cane...uh no. was it an opportunity to just cry, laugh, get mad and not think about the mortgage...yes. :)
 
novelt said:
unlike most people in the world these guys don't have to make movies for money. if the story is so bad they wouldn't want their name attached to it...might affect their future work. so they must've believed in it.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget Halle Berry also made 'Catwoman' and 'Gothika'. And if I'm not mistaken, she refused to do X-Men 3 unless they increased her screen time and salary.
 
in the commentary zak penn said he wanted to give her more screen time in X2...and is glad she got it in X3.

geez if you're going to name actors in movies that didn't go over then don't forget "ishtar" :)

anyway here's a quote from halle...

"I would (do it) as long as I could. I've got some projects now that should keep me busy for the next two or three years if I'm lucky. It's a franchise that I love and a character that I love and now that I have a voice in the movie I really love it. If another great X-Men (film) came along I could probably change my plans."
Click to expand...
 
novelt said:
great actors still do great work even if the story is weak. so don't blame xmen3 on them. no i'm not brett ratner and i don't have to get over anything. i don't have a problem with you...well that's up until you tell me what to do. as i've said to every poster here. great you don't like the movie and you're absolutely entitled to your opinion. this is a "forum" and a forum usually means debate. you've got your side. i've got mine.

what would you have done differently?
Click to expand...

FIrst of all, I never said anything about "effects" on my post. Now, what would I do differently? Simple: Less mindless action, more character development and plausible conclusions, more depth on the characters.

I would take the " cure" premise and explore a lot more Xavier and Magneto's past. I would explore a lot more the mutant enlisting for the cure, and the cure vs non cure camp. I would certainly go to a " Genosha" scen'ario if needed, in order to accentuate the racism theme.

I would cut down the cast, and certainly wouldn't kill of Ciclops for a Wolverine/ Jean Grey love cheesefest. IF it was ESSENTIAL ( like in the contract) that Storm got more airtim, I would put her SOLO resolving a sub-plot, and not include her in the " team captain" tone she's in.

Nightcrawler would surelly be a very good character to continue with, with the dicotomy of the character being German and a strong Catholic- which makes for good debate.

Jean Grey is such a great character, I would surelly base the essence of the story in the Scott/ Grey/ Wolverine relationship.

So, Idealy, I would shoot the movie with two main storylines:

The "Cure" , but with a strong metaphor and comparison with the Holocaust- Lots of Xavier and Magneto forming their way of thinking.

Jean/Scott/Wolverine love triangle- I would show The early times of the X-men and how Jean and Scott got together. The phoenix would be the catalyst for this story development. No SHiar. Wolverine would be there, but merely to juice things up a bit (some doubts, rivalry, hormones, etc).

The rest of the cast would just be fillers.

I would certainly cut on the mindless action. (Of course it would still be there, but building up to a great finale).

I would cut off in the silly costumes. I think that the first X's went the right way with a serious tone, and X3 went silly. Just look at Magneto's costume. Even tough similar to the comic book incarnation, it doesn't work in the film. Juggernaut is the same.

This is just what I would do, without much research and millions of dollars to develop the idea.






Angel I would leave for another movie, as well as Colossus, Iceman, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top