|
|
Post by Non Banjoble Tokens on Sept 2, 2007 2:09:01 GMT -5
Eh, the only thing that really bothered me was the overblown special effects. The movie as a whole was enjoyable to me. Overall, though, I'd say the weakest of the three. I don't know much aboot the comics, so I couldn't get upset about story changes or whatnot. And yes the highlight had to be the Juggernaut, B****!!!!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Thread Pirate Roberts on Sept 2, 2007 2:18:34 GMT -5
Well, first of all, they killed Cyclops and made it the Wolverine movie. . To be Fair Marsden left the X-men film to do Superman. So they had to not include him. |
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Sept 2, 2007 2:49:29 GMT -5
It bastardized not only the characterization, but the film continuity set up with the first two X-Men films. Cyclops was wasted, Wolverine was given Cyclops' role, to the extent that he even acted like Cyclops, they wasted Angel, Gambit wasn't there, it looked like a novice film next to X2, it was too short to tell an epic story, etc. After that run-on sentence, let me just say if you're a real X-Men fan, you know this movie sucks.
|
|
PRIME
Team Rocket
WORSHIP ME!!!!
Posts: 778
|
Post by PRIME on Sept 2, 2007 3:33:53 GMT -5
It was just incredibly poorly written and executed. It really disgraced Singer's earlier work.
|
|
PRIME
Team Rocket
WORSHIP ME!!!!
Posts: 778
|
Post by PRIME on Sept 2, 2007 3:35:07 GMT -5
Well, first of all, they killed Cyclops and made it the Wolverine movie. Then they made Logan a complete wuss and forced a love angle with him and Jean Grey which was barely developed. The movie also just suffered from a crumby story. It wasn't "Wolverine the movie" it was "Storm: the movie" It bastardized not only the characterization, but the film continuity set up with the first two X-Men films. Cyclops was wasted, Wolverine was given Cyclops' role, to the extent that he even acted like Cyclops, they wasted Angel, Gambit wasn't there, it looked like a novice film next to X2, it was too short to tell an epic story, etc. After that run-on sentence, let me just say if you're a real X-Men fan, you know this movie sucks. Not to mention in the first one Storm said she couldn't perfectly control wind, and in the commentary for X2 Singer said having characters fly with lil' reasoning was rediculous in his eyes(irony). Yet in X3 ,Storm flies with ease. Singer was right. It looked stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Sept 2, 2007 3:45:12 GMT -5
I enjoyed it actually and Spider-Man 3 too
|
|
|
|
Post by chibidiablo on Sept 2, 2007 4:02:28 GMT -5
They under-utilised ANGEL~! I wait f***ing three films for Worthington and they do nothing with him? f*** everyone involved with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by chickenwhopper on Sept 2, 2007 4:42:33 GMT -5
People like to complain, especially about comic book type stuff. And they had a target with the trilogy getting a new director. Funny you should mention that because I for one have never ever ever read a single X-Men comic. Why do I hate it? Let's see, even though I never read a comic, I do have some background in knowing something about the Xmen. First of all, they completely ruin it's predecessors by redesigning the story to revolve around Storm and Wolverine. Cyclops is killed off due to the fact that they either had no plot for him or that he was involved with the Superman movie. So you have the leader of the team gone, while he didn't have to be the focal point, he was the glue that kept everyone together. Then they decide, hey why don't we get rid of Prof. X too? And then make Wolverine into more of a paternal character and then play it off like Jean and Logan DID like eachother all along. If they were going to kill her off too, it would've been better that Cyclops did it. Angel had absolutely no reason to be in the movie. Beast was the only redeeming factor. And the underground mutants were SO f***ing stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Nan Flanagan on Sept 2, 2007 5:45:02 GMT -5
*shrug*
I liked it, a lot.
I thought Famke gave her best performance in X3 than in the previous two. Sure, the firebird would have been nice to have, and to be honest that's my only real major niggle.
Because Singer went for the more realistic approach, there was no way any director, even Singer himself could have brought in the Shi'ar.
Too much Wolverine? What, like in X-Men 1 and X2?
There are flaws in all three movies.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Sept 2, 2007 5:46:50 GMT -5
my problem is they took 2 MAJOR Xmen stories and completley butchered them
|
|
The Ultimate
Bubba Ho-Tep
The Golden Disk says TNA isn't doing so well; yeeeeees.
Posts: 655
|
Post by The Ultimate on Sept 2, 2007 6:00:08 GMT -5
My reasons for disliking the movie were pretty much listed in the thread already. However, my biggest peeve with the movie was that Ratner took the helm. I liked the first Rush Hour, but I didn't think his venture into mutant territory would end well.
I DID however, love the Madrox appearance...even if it was only for two less than a minute scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tankmcquade on Sept 2, 2007 8:32:26 GMT -5
I had high hopes for this film but golly did this film sucked. Only good thing about it in my opinion was Beast and........well, thats about it. Hopefully they will make the planned Wolverine and Magneto spin offs, Im sure those would make up for this abortion of a sequel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sharpy Snow on Sept 2, 2007 8:49:35 GMT -5
It was just very dissapointing compared to the first two films.
Even though he had other commitments, killing off the leader and very 1st member of the X-Men in the first 15 minutes if stupid.
Killing off Prof. X seems like the work of a madman.
Gambit is my favourite Marval character of all time, so that annoyed me a little.
But most of all:
Too many mutants. Not enough time.
|
|
Hunt. Hunt.
If you spot terrorism, blow your anti-terrorism whistle. If you are Vin Diesel, yell really loud. 