X-Men: First Class

[bwwd]

Ahh its only made up cartoon/comic book so anything can happen but i wish it would be shown difrerently and at least one of x-men would be different and laughin from others problems about acceptance cause they could use their talents/gifts and be happy but they dont want to and want to complain and alienate themselves instead, im not talking about fantastic 4 route and all this circus but Mystique ? Come one she would be one of the most wealthiest people in the world, probably most amazing gift from them all.I just dont buy it in this version with all the politics involved and "internationality", i dont believe that mutants would behave like this in these circumstances, its another stupid movie for teenagers to pick some things they can relate to, i hate when they rape classic stories and throw in some things only for audiences cause they want them to relate to characters more, its coming out pathetic at the end.
Im starting to appreciate Watchmen more and more each new superhero movie is coming out.

 

[capitalP]

What a great film. I only went to see it because of the peer reviews. Word of mouth is still the best method, I trust that over a critics review any day.

Man I really enjoyed this film, I went in with a little too much expectation and thought it wouldn't live up to it, boy was I wrong. And though everything under the sun about it was wonderful, what made it truly unique is the Acting. With a film about a man who bends metals and a blue werewolf, you would think Acting would be the least thing they would focus on but boy was I wrong, big thanks to the Producers/Writers on this one for having such a great cast.

And of course the Director combined everything so well to bring it home. Now, I know some true hardcore fans of the comic books who will not even see this because they said it is not true to the original comics, I've never read the original comics so maybe my opinion would change if I did, but strictly going in the theater as a movie lover, I loved this.

Though it's a long shot, I would love to see some acting nominations for this come Awards season.

Bravo!!!

 

[Brian_Rice]

What a great film. I only went to see it because of the peer reviews. Word of mouth is still the best method, I trust that over a critics review any day.

Man I really enjoyed this film, I went in with a little too much expectation and thought it wouldn't live up to it, boy was I wrong. And though everything under the sun about it was wonderful, what made it truly unique is the Acting. With a film about a man who bends metals and a blue werewolf, you would think Acting would be the least thing they would focus on but boy was I wrong, big thanks to the Producers/Writers on this one for having such a great cast.

And of course the Director combined everything so well to bring it home. Now, I know some true hardcore fans of the comic books who will not even see this because they said it is not true to the original comics, I've never read the original comics so maybe my opinion would change if I did, but strictly going in the theater as a movie lover, I loved this.

Though it's a long shot, I would love to see some acting nominations for this come Awards season.

Bravo!!!

I always think it's weird when comic book folks want film transitions to be exact. I mean, why would you want to see the same thing that you've already read?

And, I mean, Ultimate Spiderman (the comic book), while a wild departure from the original Spiderman comic books is considered the best Spiderman title ever written, so...? Confusing.

What I'm bothered by with First Class is the fact that they didn't keep with the actual *films* continuity. X1 all the way through Wolverine: Origins, there were some major errors in continuity. And it's impossible to say this was a "reboot" as it's now being touted, because you would never use the same actors if you were rebooting a franchise the way they did twice in this film. This is absolutely not a reboot -- at least not in any logical sense that I can conjure up. This is a prequal and it has some significant errors in continuity -- errors that can be "fixed" in the later films, except for the "we met when we were 17" error in X1, which I think would be a pretty difficult fix for sure.

I think as the years go on, while this is the best of the bunch, it will continue to lose favor as more and more people scratch their heads at the glaring continuity flaws. We'll see...

 

[bwwd]

What would You say if someone would take your script and changed things you liked the most ? If producers/writers want to make adaptation of material which has huge fanbase then please respect the fans and dont make rape attempts just for ca$h.
This is very simple, if something was presented to fans in certain way and they love it then why change it ? Its hilarious idea to change something and expect people to like it, how about being faithful to source material ?
This is like taking number "8" and rewrite it so it looks like "6" and say to everyone, this is eight !! We are huge fans of the eight ! thats why we made the movie ,we called it "6".Is it smart at all ?
Oh by the way i HATED jackman cameo (which supposed to be cool and spawn a few laughs i guess), it was pointelss and very weird, all actors were changed but why he was there ? I dont get it.

 

[vcassel]

how about being faithful to source material ?

The source material isn't faithful to the source material. Retcons abound.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

What would You say if someone would take your script and changed things you liked the most ? If producers/writers want to make adaptation of material which has huge fanbase then please respect the fans and dont make rape attempts just for ca$h.
This is very simple, if something was presented to fans in certain way and they love it then why change it ? Its hilarious idea to change something and expect people to like it, how about being faithful to source material ?
This is like taking number "8" and rewrite it so it looks like "6" and say to everyone, this is eight !! We are huge fans of the eight ! thats why we made the movie ,we called it "6".Is it smart at all ?
Oh by the way i HATED jackman cameo (which supposed to be cool and spawn a few laughs i guess), it was pointelss and very weird, all actors were changed but why he was there ? I dont get it.

Because it's just a friggin comic book.

 

[vcassel]

Oh by the way i HATED jackman cameo (which supposed to be cool and spawn a few laughs i guess), it was pointelss and very weird, all actors were changed but why he was there ? I dont get it.

His healing factor causes him to age at a significantly decreased rate. In current continuity, he was born in the late 19th century.

 

[Brian_Rice]

What would You say if someone would take your script and changed things you liked the most ? If producers/writers want to make adaptation of material which has huge fanbase then please respect the fans and dont make rape attempts just for ca$h.
This is very simple, if something was presented to fans in certain way and they love it then why change it ? Its hilarious idea to change something and expect people to like it, how about being faithful to source material ?
This is like taking number "8" and rewrite it so it looks like "6" and say to everyone, this is eight !! We are huge fans of the eight ! thats why we made the movie ,we called it "6".Is it smart at all ?
Oh by the way i HATED jackman cameo (which supposed to be cool and spawn a few laughs i guess), it was pointelss and very weird, all actors were changed but why he was there ? I dont get it.

The original Mystique made an appearance too, which again states plainly: Prequel.

I'm not saying that they *shouldn't* have stuck to the original story, but, I mean, NO ONE complained about The Dark Knight's Joker, Two-Face, etc. Every single superhero movie is vastly different from the comic it's based on, so why does Xmen specifically make people so upset? I personally hated the way they handled Two-Face in Dark Knight, but I didn't complain about it. I mean, heck, in Batman and Robin, Alicia Silverstone turns out to be Alfred's niece. In the original Batman, the Joker killed Batman's parents. WTF? lol

The *only* rendition of the Xmen I've never heard people complain outright about is Xmen: The Animated Series which was arguably the *worst* rendition of the Xmen in history, even getting smacked down by Pryde of the Xmen.

Everyone wants Wolverine and Storm and all the *cool* Xmen, but then they pitch a fit when continuity isn't adhered to. Xmen: Evolution is still the best presentation of the Xmen thus far on the big or small screen, and people were absolutely outraged that the series played with the orgin story. For some reason Xmen just can't win when translated from comic book to screen.

Which makes no sense to me since the X titles were the only comics that ever mattered to me growing up and I've been fine with all the changes that production staff has seen the need to change. The issue I've always had with the Xmen films is that they haven't preserved the *themes* well enough by really bringing the civil rights issues to the forefront, always leaving it to take a back seat to the action/adventure stuff. That's what the Avengers are for, the Xmen are supposed to stand for something more (which is one of the reasons this film failed a bit in the third act).

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I don't think the word "reboot" absolutely HAS TO mean we're moving away from a continuity. Casino Royale had the same M as the Pierce Brosnan Bonds, and Q was in pretty much all of them until he died (except for Dr. No) and before Judi Dench, M was played by Bernard Lee.

JJ Abram's Star Trek film was also a reboot, but that still had Leonard Nimoy and was still a continuation of the same timeline. They just split it into an alternative one.

When you reboot a Franchise it's more important to approach it with a new set of rules, a new filmmaker with a fresh take, or just a new timeline, than it is to stick to the rules set up by the previous films.
The idea is to get the audience to start trusting you again. Before Batman Begins, Joel Schumacher killed the previous franchise. Before The Amazing Spider-Man there was Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3. Before X-Men First Class, Brett Rattner and Gavin Hood did their part in killing off these films.

The only thing that's different about this is that Brian Singer is back as a producer.

It would have been really interesting to see Singer's or Vaughn's X-Men 3 (Vaughn was up for it when Singer left the franchise for Superman Returns and took the writers and some of the actorrs with him, remember?), but if either had made part 3 we probably wouldn't have needed X-Men first class.

So I would say this is very much a Franchise Reboot, even if it does take place in the same universe.

 

[Brian_Rice]

If we're being liberal with the definition of "reboot" as it pertains to narrative fiction then I supposed it applies. As in "injecting new life into".

But to be clear JJ Abrams Star Trek, The Bond films and any films "staying in the same universe" absolutely must adhere to continuity. To say that continuity in sequels and prequels doesn't matter is as silly as saying that it doesn't matter in a stand alone film. Once a series of films is completed (or even if they are never completed), they become chapters of a larger piece instead of a stand alone film. The Star Wars films must keep with continuity the same as the Indiana films, Bond, Star Trek, etc. You can call any Bond prequel or sequel a "reboot to the franchise", but in actual terms it's a prequel.

Xmen First Class is a prequel with glaring continuity errors.

Batman Begins was an *actual* franchise reboot because it disregarded all previous interpretations. Xmen First Class embraced previous interpretations, hence it's a prequel.

In some bizarre universe where *some* situations and characters and actors and sets are used to (actually) reboot a franchise (e.g. if Dark Knight had used the same Alfred and Commissioner Gordon from the Burton films and aspects of the continuity but then had Heath Ledger come in as The Joker completely ignoring the Jack Nicholson version) while it's conceivable, it would be grossly confusing to the viewer.

To me, a reboot in narrative fiction franchise terms is when everything that came before is nixed. Anything else is either a prequel or a sequel. No one would ever call The Phantom Menace a "reboot". It's just confusing. But because of the massive (some correctable in later installment) errors in First Class, the term reboot is being toyed with.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Well, the only thing Joel Schumacher's Batman movies had to do with Burton's was the actor who played Alfred and the use of rubber costumes.
They were actually more in line with the 60's Batman TV show than Burton's movies. Nobody called them reboots because both of Burton's films were still popular.

As for Starwars, there are more continuity errors between the prequel trilogy and the original trilogy than most of us can count. The only other franchise I can think of that have THAT many continuity problems is Highlander. Maybe Terminator.
Terminator 3 isn't really considdered a reboot, but Terminator Salvation sure as hell felt like one.

To be honest, I think the only thing all reboots have in common is that the previous film was a flop.

 

[vcassel]

But to be clear JJ Abrams Star Trek, The Bond films and any films "staying in the same universe" absolutely must adhere to continuity.

No, not really "must".

To say that continuity in sequels and prequels doesn't matter is as silly as saying that it doesn't matter in a stand alone film.

To be clear: silly to you, perhaps, but quality is more important to me than continuity.

Once a series of films is completed (or even if they are never completed), they become chapters of a larger piece instead of a stand alone film. The Star Wars films must keep with continuity the same as the Indiana films, Bond, Star Trek, etc. You can call any Bond prequel or sequel a "reboot to the franchise", but in actual terms it's a prequel.

How do you feel about spiritual trilogies or the Evil Dead trilogy, then?

Xmen First Class is a prequel with glaring continuity errors.

X-men as a comic has even more glaring continuity errors. I'd think that you of all people would be used to it. Where's the secret commandment that films must be held to a different standard in this regard?

In some bizarre universe where *some* situations and characters and actors and sets are used to (actually) reboot a franchise (e.g. if Dark Knight had used the same Alfred and Commissioner Gordon from the Burton films and aspects of the continuity but then had Heath Ledger come in as The Joker completely ignoring the Jack Nicholson version) while it's conceivable, it would be grossly confusing to the viewer.

You mean kinda like how Judi Dench plays an older version of M in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, even though they're prequels? I think the majority of viewers deserve more credit.

To me, a reboot in narrative fiction franchise terms is when everything that came before is nixed. Anything else is either a prequel or a sequel. No one would ever call The Phantom Menace a "reboot". It's just confusing. But because of the massive (some correctable in later installment) errors in First Class, the term reboot is being toyed with.

I don't think it's so black and white. Was Superman Returns a reboot, or a sequel? I see it as sort of a vague sequel, but that's mostly because I grew up on the Donner version and read interviews of Singer talking about his intentions. If I were younger and went into the film uninitiated, it likely wouldn't have affected my enjoyment of it any differently. I appreciate individual films for what they are, and I'm clever enough to juggle my suspension of disbelief--and that carries over into suspending prior knowledge from conflicting with my present enjoyment. I'm no stickler.

Though, if there were some sort of qualitative/quantitative study that proved that explicit or implicit continuity issues in a series of films prevented the majority of audiences from enjoying or understanding those films, I'd surely be interested in the results.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Was Superman Returns a reboot, or a sequel? I see it as sort of a vague sequel, but that's mostly because I grew up on the Donner version and read interviews of Singer talking about his intentions. If I were younger and went into the film uninitiated, it likely wouldn't have affected my enjoyment of it any differently. I appreciate individual films for what they are, and I'm clever enough to juggle my suspension of disbelief--and that carries over into suspending prior knowledge from conflicting with my present enjoyment. I'm no stickler.

IMO, SUPERMAN RETURNS is somewhere in HIGHLANDER 3 land.

I can watch Superman The Movie and Superman II - The Donner Cut, and just go straight to Superman Returns. Superman 3 and 4 are better left forgotten.
So is Highlander 2.

 

[vcassel]

IMO, SUPERMAN RETURNS is somewhere in HIGHLANDER 3 land.

I can watch Superman The Movie and Superman II - The Donner Cut, and just go straight to Superman Returns. Superman 3 and 4 are better left forgotten.
So is Highlander 2.

I feel the same way. Superman Returns was carefully crafted to exist either way--a sequel or it's own thing. It's not without it's problems, but I'm one of the few people I know who really, really liked it. I thought it had a lot of heart and solved the major issue of making an invulnerable character very vulnerable. Too bad everyone considers Supes an "emo stalker" in that movie.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I feel the same way. Superman Returns was carefully crafted to exist either way--a sequel or it's own thing. It's not without it's problems, but I'm one of the few people I know who really, really liked it. I thought it had a lot of heart and solved the major issue of making an invulnerable character very vulnerable. Too bad everyone considers Supes an "emo stalker" in that movie.

The only problem I had with it was the Lois Lane casting. What the hell were they thinking anyway?
Other than that i loved the film. Kevin Spacey was amazing as Gene Hackman's Luthor.

 

[vcassel]

The only problem I had with it was the Lois Lane casting. What the hell were they thinking anyway?

It wasn't so much the casting of Lois Lane that I had a problem with but the puerile writing of women roles in these sorts of films. She wasn't written as a character; she was a disguised pedantic plot device. The same is true for the Rachel Dawes character in the Batman films.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

It wasn't so much the casting of Lois Lane that I had a problem with but the puerile writing of women roles in these sorts of films. She wasn't written as a character; she was a disguised pedantic plot device. The same is true for the Rachel Dawes character in the Batman films.

I dunno, man. Everything in a script is a plot device in one way or another. If it's not, it's got no business being there, right?

What would have made Rachel Dawes a better written character?

 

[vcassel]

I dunno, man. Everything in a script is a plot device in one way or another. If it's not, it's got no business being there, right?

What would have made Rachel Dawes a better written character?

Sorry, I said pedantic when I meant didactic. She just dialogues the theme and Bruce Wayne's projected arc way too on the nose. She's like John Galt or something. Like, I want to go to a film that has a theme and makes a statement about that theme, but I don't necessarily want to hear that statement, or at least not have that statement rammed down my throat, know what I mean?

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I thought they handled her well in TDK, and less so in BB. That probably had a lot to do with the actress too, Maggie Gyllenhaal is great. No way did I see that coming in TDK and I think what happens to her is one of the highlights of the film because I care about her character.

That's why I think she works so well in TDK.

 

[Brian_Rice]

No, not really "must".



To be clear: silly to you, perhaps, but quality is more important to me than continuity.



How do you feel about spiritual trilogies or the Evil Dead trilogy, then?



X-men as a comic has even more glaring continuity errors. I'd think that you of all people would be used to it. Where's the secret commandment that films must be held to a different standard in this regard?



You mean kinda like how Judi Dench plays an older version of M in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, even though they're prequels? I think the majority of viewers deserve more credit.



I don't think it's so black and white. Was Superman Returns a reboot, or a sequel? I see it as sort of a vague sequel, but that's mostly because I grew up on the Donner version and read interviews of Singer talking about his intentions. If I were younger and went into the film uninitiated, it likely wouldn't have affected my enjoyment of it any differently. I appreciate individual films for what they are, and I'm clever enough to juggle my suspension of disbelief--and that carries over into suspending prior knowledge from conflicting with my present enjoyment. I'm no stickler.

Though, if there were some sort of qualitative/quantitative study that proved that explicit or implicit continuity issues in a series of films prevented the majority of audiences from enjoying or understanding those films, I'd surely be interested in the results.

I don't agree that the comic book series is laden with continuity errors. DC was big for that, but a lot of Marvel (but especially Xmen) has been able to dodge the continuity bullet. The biggest example of continuity irks would be Psylocke, and even her bizarre continuity issues can be explained.

Obviously there are some people who scratch their head as to how Wolverine can (seemingly) be 10 places at once, but I don't know of many instances in its 50-odd year history where the Xmen book has glaring continuity issues.

To me continuity and "quality" are the same thing. Again, if you have a series of films it's the same thing as having a single film. If you have a series of novels it's the same thing as having a single novel. I think most people would agree that if suddenly in the 3rd book of the Dark Tower Series or the 2nd book of Lord of the Rings or if in The Empire Strikes Back some random thing occured that directly defied all logic or previous films, that would make the film of a lesser "quality". Sticking to continuity doesn't make a film better, but ignoring continuity certainly makes a film worse.

And Judy Dench the actress being older in a Bond prequel is no different than Hugh Jackman being older in an Xmen prequel. The actors themselves had aged and the director chose to not do a bunch of silly aging make-up. Judy Dench was most certainly meant to be portraying a "younger" version of herself (and by younger we could be talking about 5 years). And the Evil Dead movies don't apply. You know that. Everyone knows that.

Similairly, the Living Dead franchise doesn't apply because it's the same story/events simply taking place in whatever time period they're in. If all of the films had been made in the 60s, then all of the films would have taken place in the 60s -- so something like that doesn't apply to them, because that's been their formula throughout.

Just because Dark Knight isn't called Batman Begins II doesn't mean that a viewer should be satisified if the film retains the talent but ignores the previous film. In no way would Dark Knight be a good film if it ignored Batman Begins.