Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: House of Mustard on May 02, 2003, 06:30:59 PM
-
So - when Prof X is zapping all the mutants world wide, how come it doesn't hurt him or, more importantly, Jason? Does Cerebro shelter them somehow?
-
It doesn't hurt Xavier because HE is the one doing the zapping. Jason is probably so whacked out on drugs being administered directly through his spinal cord by that... THING implanted on his back that it would take a while for him to feel the pain (long enough to ensure Xavier has killed all the mutants), but I am assuming that Stryker meant for Jason to die as well. Follwoing that, it would have been a simple matter for Stryker to just come in and put a bullet into Xavier's brain.
-
I just think it's awfully convenient that mutant Jason is the only unaffected mutant - allowing him to continue mind controling. Then again, I guess if Jason is calling the shots, he could just tell Prof X not to kill him.
-
Just came home from watching X2. Loved it. We were arguing as we left whether Jean was going to come back next time more powerful than ever, or if she was really just dead. Personally, I don't think she's dead. Anyone who's read the comics, want to enlighten me? Okay, so I guess I'm asking for spoilers for a movie that hasn't been made yet, but I really want to know!
-
Well, to put it short Jean is reborn as Pheonix (that's why she was glowing every so often in the eyes and all over at the end). I forget what happened and all, but thats what I do remember from watching the cartoon years ago.
-
In the comic it's the result of a journey in space and an encounter with aliens and some other stuff. i think they're trying to keep from adding new elements. but yeah, she's not dead.
I though the "killing" of Jean was the most "convenient" rather than necessary actions in the movie. Why, when the Jet was above the waterline, didn't she allow Nightcrawler to grab her and shoot back? Answer: because they wanted to do a simplified Dark Phoenix saga. My friend disagrees and has lots of reasons why not (the most convincing being that her telekinesis was pushing out in all directions, not just against the flow of water, and that she doesn't have the control still).
Jason, however, is INSIDE Cerebro, so there's another reason for him not to be affected.
-
Hmm... I sort of figured that Jean was telepathically preventing Nightcrawler from getting her.
My question is why couldn't they just have Iceman freeze the lake?
-
maybe his powers can't do that much at once
-
Nightcrawler does say that she was preventing him from getting her. And everything about the Phoenix makes so much more sense now. Remember the last shot? There was the image of a bird flying over the lake, and I couldn't figure out why. Must be it--the bird was flying while Jean's voice narrated that whole thing about evolution taking a jump forward.
-
Ok stacer, I agree and disagree. I'm pretty sure that was Jean swimming in the lake as the Phoenix.
-
Either works for me. I couldn't tell if it was a shadow (from a bird flying above) or the image of something swimming beneath.
-
The kid X-men were lame as usual but you had to love Pyro's line "Im tired of all this Kids table crap."
And NightCrawler was just as cool as I expected YAY.
I think this one was better than the first one.
-
Hmm... I sort of figured that Jean was telepathically preventing Nightcrawler from getting her.
My question is why couldn't they just have Iceman freeze the lake?
A she was. But there's no reason for her to specifically forbid him to do so once the jet is above the waterline except for "plot convenience.
Also, Freezing the entire lake would have taken a lot of energy and concentration and time.
and on another note:
The X-kids were lame? They only showed the powers of three of them, and the one with the weakest power was the coolest personality (and the only one they really showed any personality for). IMO, Collossus was incredibly cool for how little they showed him. I didn't think there was anything lame about that. I just have to reiterate that the only real complaint I have is how convenient it was that Jean "died." And maybe how Stryker found someone with identical powers to Wolverine. But then, that scene was really cool, so I went with it.
-
Collossus was cool, really cool.
Yeah I thought The X Kids were a little lame. But hey they're kids!!! All in all it was everything I expected and more.
Except they didnt kill Cyclops off.
Man I would have paid good money for that.
-
Cyclops was much cooler in the first movie. In this one, he was just window dressing.
I would have loved to see what powers those mutant kids had. maybe combined they might have been able to free themselves without the X-Men (although this would have deprived Nightcrawler of being cool and heroic).
And I also really loved Collossus, but the scene where Xavier is surrounded by all of his new students at the end: all these little nine and ten year olds, and big hulking Collossus, just kinda looked VERY not right. Aaaanyway, I hope Peter Rasputin gets more of a part in the third installment.
And am I the oly one who found it strange that with all the slicing and dicing Wolverine did at the mansion, there wasn't a single drop of blood on him? Not even on his claws. Guess he has the mutant power of Teflon.
So it looks like Rogue CAN touch people safely, as long as the touch is not prolonged or intense. I wonder if they will play this up either in the next movie or maybe even in the comics.
The shadow seen in the water at the end was the Dark Phoenix emblam, indicating very strongly that in movie #3, Dark Phoenix makes her appearance and will probably be the one who tips the scales to the side of the X-Men in their upcoming war against Magneto/humankind/Sentinals/etc.
Nightcrawler was great! I hope he gets his own costume in the next film.
Oh well, that's my two cents worth for the day.
-
Collossus, IMHO, should have gotten more scenes in that movie. For what its worth I don't think it helps the clueless ones (like stacer) know why he is Collossus. I highly doubt that anyone is born with that power, and if they are then it must have been a painful birth.
Nightcrawler was very awesome.
I can't wait to see a CGIed Sentinel. That'll be really cool.
-
I think the stuff with the X-kids was fine as it was. Yes, there was very little there, but this movie wasn't about them. It gave fun little foreshadowings for Colossus and Kitty Pryde and some others, but they ARE supposed to be still just kids.
I'm sure that if they're able to keep making movies, all the younger ones will grow into cool characters. I especially hope they do something with Rogue, who has a lot of potential.
Nightcrawler is now one of my favorite characters.
-
Nightcrawler is just now one of your favorite characters? ;)
Actually, I'm sort of glad they didn't show more of the mutant kids. They were juggling far too many characters as is. they do a great job, considering that having more than 3 main characters is usually very confusing and problematic.
-
Yes, the problem with doing a huge brawl at the mansion (which admittedly would have been very cool to watch) would have been that the movie (already over 2 hours long) would have just gotten longer to do the exact same thing and not add any depth. I guess it also would have raised another issue that the movie wasn't really about: why are these kids so emotionally capable of fighting a dangerous battle with adult authority figures carrying heavy weapons. Sure, Wolvie can do it, he's violent already. But kids? I think I'm glad they didn't do it.
And yes Colossus was cool. I think they showed him in contrast to the smaller kids because we're supposed to be challenging our presuppositions about what is right. Colossus is supposed to be the same age as the kids he schools with, he's just a mutated and huge.
Now, for Dark Phoenix. Yes, anyone who's seen the flick now knows she shows up in Ep. 3. BUT! Didn't the X-Men have to fight her? From what I understand (and even though I love comics, I've never followed the X-men closely, too many titles to buy -- and I've *never* watched the cartoon) she really didn't remember much about her life and her goals and desires were twisted. Anyone read the comics and know about that?
And the X-Men, far as I know, have NEVER had the tide turned against their enemies. They've always been underdogs, which is what has made them so appealing (aside from the cool powers). The closest that I know they've ever come to being ahead was when Prof X gave into temptation and, feeling he had no other option, wiped Magneto's mind. This DEFINITELY didn't put them on top because although Magneto joined their side for a while, it also signalled the rise of Onslaught (which "killed," among others, Capt. America, the Hulk, Iron Man, Punisher, Dr. Doom, the Fantastic Four, the Avengers, etc. etc...). All of which is to say a) please someone who's read the Dark Phoenix Saga (tv cartoon doesn't count) who can enlighten me more about it? and b) I have a nerdly amount of knowledge about Marvel continuity
-
Just to speculate...
What do you think the chances are of seeing a) Gambit, b) the Sentials, or c) Cable in an upcoming X-Men movie?
-
Okay, after I saw the end of X2 I ran (well, drove) home and checked my Marvel illustrated history thing. Apparently, Jean Gray first becomes Pheonix, a reborn good superhero, then *later* goes crazy or something and becomes Dark Pheonix. So personally, I don't think X3 will have them fighting Dark Pheonix. Most likely they'll introduce the Sentinels. And my guesses for new characters are Beast (with more than a cameo), Gambit, and possibly Cable. The real question, though, is when will Jubilee get more than 3 second cameos in each film?
-
Jubilee is an all around worthless character. She couldn't even beat up Robin, much as my brother and I rooted for her. (I refer to DC vs. Marvel vol 2, wherein they fall in love first). I say not to bring her up. They've already got the two teen characters who are getting larger roles.
Cable's the one from the future though, I'd imagine Bishop has a better shot than Cable. I don't see a need to introduce Beast as a mutant either. I mean, he was one of the originals, which is why he's been around so long, but Wolverine does the job of the animal better. I guess Beast is more of a monkey than a beat down guy tho, and he has a vastly different personality, so they could work him in. But I don't think they need him. They've got enough characters. Which I guess applies to Cable and Gambit too, but I like those characters more.
On the other hand, we should start posting this stuff as official rumors, get more traffic, and seriously mess with the minds of comic nerds across the planet.
-
I for one would be more than happy if Gambit NEVER shows up in an X-Men film. The truth is, though, he might be in number 3 simply because he looks normal and his powers would be very simple to handle through special effects. Cable I would LOVE to see, alongside his X-Force strike team members like Domino (who has always been a personal favorite of mine), Shatterstar (cool character, lousy design), and Cannonball (as if Rogue wasn't southern fried enough). The sentinals would be great to see, and from what I am hearing they might indeed be appearing, but it is waaaay too soon to confirm anything like that.
I'd like to see Beast (I forget who brought him up), but it is doubtful. His selling points are his high IQ, his athletic prowess, and his bizarre appearance. With Nightcrawler we already have somebody who is athletic and weird looking, and Jean Grey seems to be the resident brain of the group (and yes, we all know that she will be popping up again in the next film).
Some characters I would personally like to see: Juggernaut (and his buddy Archie-naut; sorry, couldn't resist), Apocalypse, Deadpool, Collossus, Shadowcat (in a REAL role), Sabretooth, and Blob. I think that if they focus on a human-mutant war in the next film, we will see a LOT of Marvel's mutants, but only in brief cameos.
Some characters I DON'T want to see: Gambit, Maggot, Marrow, Celia Reyes, Black Tom, Pete Wisdom, any of those freaking loser Morlocks (well, maybe except for Caliban and Callisto), the X-Babies, Longshot, Dazzler, Starjammers (ie: X-Men: the Star Wars Rip-off), anybody with an "X" in their code name.
-
I can agree with most of that just on general principle. But I don't get what your beef is with Gambit
-
I would sor tof like to see gambit.
Jubilee doesn't bother me, I think she makes a good contrast in showing that not all mutants have really powerful abilities.
Course, I read a review by Roger Ebert where he complained that Wolverine was the weakest of the X-Men from what he gathered watching the film. He did have a point that more often than not they make sure the mutants are in positions where their powers are useful rather than showing situations where their powers just suck. For example, Wolverine in most daily activities reaps no benefits from being a mutant and really isn't all that cool, but in a fight he suddenly seems awsome. I just found that to be intersting commentary.
-
Just got back from seeing this and I must say I am thoroughly rocked! Not only did they do the characters well, but they managed to juggle all the characters pretty well and still keep a fairly tight narrative.
One of my favorite scenes is when Magneto tells Rogue he loves what he did to her hair. Nice. My biggest problem was that I went with a bunch of folks who never read the comics so when I saw Phoenix underneat the waves at the end I couldn't go "OH! OH! PHOENIX!" because none of them would get it. They did a great job of foreshadowing it I thought.
You all have the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix story right except you neglect to mention that Phoenix was pretty much all-powerful. When the power got to her she didn't just mess with the Earth, she started comsuming other planets. She was one big bad hunk of woman.
The Hulk preview before it changed my outlook on that movie from "eh" to "hmmmmmmmm" I'm starting to get excited about it now too.
Also, I wouldn't expect to see either Cable or Bishop. Both are from the future and both carry whole new complex storylines with them. Plus, Bishop's powers are close enough to Rogue's that there'd be some overlap.
-
Wolverine has a wide variety of powers, but unlike, say, Cyclops, most of them don't have a lot of flash (claws nonwithstanding). He has super senses that would give him all sorts of little advantages in life. Just think how hard it would be to lie to a guy who can hear your heartbeat. Logan's most valuable power is actually the one that we never actually get to "see." It is his longevity. Very often we don't remember that even though he only looks to be in his early 40's or so (in the comic), he is actually somewhere around 120.
Oh, and did I mention his mutant ability to always get the babes? You gotta love that one.
My problem with Gambit is simply that he is an annoying character. He isn't the WORST X-Man of all time (that award would likely go to Maggot), but he is certainly the most overrated. I don't like how he just hangs out in his civilian identity wearing his superhero costume. I mean come ON, if you were in a Starbucks and some guy came in wearing pink spandex and a wool coat wouldn't you kinda think there was something not right about him? I'm just not fond of the character for a million little reasons. It isn't a hate thing; I just think he's goofy and I don't understand why people like him so much. But I WILL say that I liked the "Ultimate" version of Gambit and what he did to Hammerhead. THAT was wicked cool!
-
The coolest thing about Wolverine is that you can't do ANYTHING to him.
Ok, Magneto can hold him back, but even when he ripped all the metal off of Wolvie's bones and out of his body the man recovered.
then the other thing about him that they haven't explored is that when his healing factor is working, especially when it's working HARD like in his big fight during the movie he loses discipline and control, he becomes more and more animalistic. Which is the chief way of getting to him. There was a story about that in his solo comics.
Anyway, if your chief problem is his costume, realize that it's going to be very different in the movie, and that the character you see will be some sort of Jackie Chan who can turn anything he touches into explosive ammunition. Plus, he lives in the world of comic books. NO ONE is exactly normal, even the unpowered civilians.
-
Here's something interesting I came across....
Here is a supposedly complete list of the little details in the film from comics2film.com:
"O.k. kids, I have what I "believe to be a definite list of the X-men easter eggs from X-2 Most of the names come from the computer screen that Mystique is looking at in Yuriko's office.
Lebeau, Remy(Gambit) Gibney, Kyle (aka Wild-Child) Samuel Guthrie, Paige Guthrie (aka Cannonball, Husk) Harada Keniuchio (aka Silver Samurai) Kane Garrison (aka Weapon-X) Lensherr, Eric M. (aka Magneto) Meddicks, Artie (aka Artie) Maddox, Jamie (aka Multiple Man) Mahn, Xi'an Coy (aka Karma) Maximoff, Pietro and Wanda (aka Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch) McTaggart, Kevin (Proteus) Moonstar, Danielle (Moonstar) Munroe, Ororo (Storm)
These are the names of the files that are around the CERBRO file in the window that Mystique looks at. In clockwise order Omega Red, Franklin Richards (YEAH!!!!!!!) and Muir Island. Also on the TV screen in the bar Dr Henry ( Hank) Mccoy (aka Beast) also mentioned in the same sequence "Dr Shaw" (Black King from the Hellfire Club.) I also belive there is some reference to Stark Industries in connection with Magneto's Plastic Prison."
-
I think that the reference to "Stark" industries is actually Stryker, as he tells Mystique (disguised as our favorite Senator) that he was responsible for the prison.
And now they'll never actually show Franklin Richards, but I think it's great that they nodded at him.
-
I think, though I am not 100% certain, that the Stark company logo was on the plastic cell wall where Magneto was being housed at the end of the first film. I will have to go back and check, though.
-
I have also heard from a friend at school today that when whoever it was that was searching for Magneto's name there was Gambit's real name above or below it. I'm not 100% sure if this is true, but I liked the sound of it.
-
Check my "easter egg" post one page back. Good 'ol Remy is in there along with many, many others.
-
Ok, I just accidentally wrote a frickin' essay to Scott Kurtz (http://www.pvponline.com). The short of it is that my only serious concern about Bryan Singer's filmmaking ability was resolved just by writing it out. I now see how The Once and Future King is appropriate for Prof X to bring up again at the end. Wow, there's some good stuff there. If anyone is interested in reading it, I can post, but it's long-ish so I'll only do so if asked.
-
Post it, im interested.
-
Not only that, but "The Once and Future King" is the title of the current story arc in Ultimate X-Men, which deals with the return of Magneto and how he attepts to take over the world.
"Gee, Magneto, what are we gonna do tomorrow night?"
"The same thing we do every night, Sabretooth: try to take over the WORLD!"
-
Frankly, using the current story arc title isn't sufficient to justify it's use. Plus I wasn't upset about Magneto reading it, I was concerned about Prof. X, cuz i couldn't see the relevance. But then I wrote this, and you can see my mind changing as I work through it:
Begin quote:
I wasn't bothered by the lack of Cyclops. He kind of annoys me. The biggest hole I see is that I can't figure out why they felt it necessary for Prof X (a physics teacher, if I remember from the first film) to bring up a discussion of Once and Future King with his students. I found it powerfully ironic and very well done to have Magneto read it, after all, in his own twisted way, he thinks he IS King Arthur and dreams of returning to power, making both the title and subject obviously relevant. The further irony of White being anti-war and Magneto starting one was also delicious.
But everything ISN'T all right at the end of OaFK. Everyone dies except one supporting character and page who introduced on the final page for the simple purpose of surviving (and also give a nod to previous Arthurian author Thomas Mallory). And on top of that, Arthur spends the entire book struggling with how his subjects don't agree with his dream and is forced to destroy everything he's built to retain a semblence of justice. Perhaps I can see how Xavier can identify with the ending of the novel, since he doesn't know if he'll ever achieve the idyllic "Camelot" where everyone lives in harmony, but he believes that what they're doing will eventually impact the world in the same way that the stories of Arthur do: ie, our memories of them inspire us to hope for it and live by it. Perhaps he even sees the fractiousness among the Mutants (which could be considered his "subjects") and he IS betrayed by a close friend (as opposed to Arthurs son, but we can't be too literal in our parallels, can we).
So I take it back, writing this email has convinced me that the parallel and sympathy Xavier has for the book is stronger than I previously gave it credit for.Ok, I feel better about being nearly as ecstatic as you for the film. Although this discussion now puts in disagreement with you about Xavier knowing "everything will be all right."
/End quote
End of Line.
-
Okay, I finally saw this movie so now I can read this thread. Yay! And I can even make comments.
You probably all noticed but since no one mentioned it I'll state it explicitly: the voice over by Jean Grey at the end is word for word identical to that given by Xavier at the beginning of the first movie. The talk of evolutionary leaps, combined with the image of the Phoenix in the water, was a very cool way of showing that Jean Grey just took a second leap forward--she's effectively become a supermutant. I thought it was great, and all handled very well.
(Of course, I'm the kind of guy who thinks that all their goofy trips to outer space and other dimensions and the future are just dumb. I think this is a better way to handle the Dark Phoenix saga because it cuts out all that goofy crap and keeps them here on Earth, where they belong. For that same reason I hope that Cable and Bishop and all their ilk stay far away from the movies, because they're just goofy. But that's my opinion, with which you are welcome to disagree.)
As for the next movie, I'd like to see a couple more good mutants (maybe Gambit, Psylocke, and real part for Shadowcat), but I honestly don't think they need too many. They've got a good group, Rogue and Iceman have uniforms, and they're ready to go. If they bring in new mutants I want them to be bad guys, like Juggernaught and Omega Red (which would call for the return of Sabertooth).
(Is this a good time to say that I also think the Sentinels are stupid? Man, for a guy who claims to like the X-Men I sure take issue with a lot of their standard icons.)
-
Having talked it over with some friends, I think the Sentinels could be cool if they got "Bryan Singer-ized." Get rid of the giant purple androids and portray them as sleek, raptor-style hunter/killer drones. That could be very cool.
-
The thing about the sentinels is giant purple robots works for comics. You can have several guys fighting a single one and it's overwhelming still. It works really well for a static image format where the only way to show several guys taking on one thing the same size is to pan out and use a whole spread for the picture. Not very efficient for a comic book where page real estate needs to be used more efficiently.
However, I have to agree. On the screen, that would be a little goofy, and it really wouldn't fit in with the mood Singer has established. I say yeah, shrink 'em down and make 'em like the Terminator or something. That'd be cool.
-
He're the latetes on what was going to be in X-2. Sentanals were, but were cut for budget. Angel was, they even had the wings built. And beast again. As for X-3, lady deathstrike will be back, they've allready signed kelly hu for a third which is odd sence she's dead. Also Brian Singer said if he does the third one he's add angel, beast and Gambit. He also said that x-2 was about Jene not so much Wolverne.
-
I'll be interested to see their exuse of how lady Deathstrike survived adamantium in her blood stream and body.
-
I don't know, but imagine how touch she'll be with half a metric ton of adamantium filling her body cavities. Might slow her down a touch, though ;)
-
I was thinking about that a little bit. Wolverine's body ejected the bullet in his head. wouldn't LD's body eventually manage to eject the adamantium? Sure, she'd be in raging screaming pain for days, but she heals, so, she'd live. And probably have a mad on for Wolvie.
-
According to the X-Men United novel (written by X-Men uber-guru Chris Clairmont), Deathstrike is a cyborg who's cybernetic systems remained fully intact and operational, even after she was loaded down with adamantium. It was implied that she would be able to survive indefinitely until somebody found her.
Personally, I tend to agree with Sait in the idea that her body's healing factor would eventually push all the adamantium out anyway. It would be very messy, but if Logan could survive when Magneto ripped all the adamantium out of his body, she could also.
-
Why would her body reject the new adamantium and keep the old? How does it recognize the difference between an intentional implant and a combat-based injection?
-
The "old" adamantium is fused to her skeleton, the body can't eject it without ejecting every bone in her body. Assuming that the adamantium has holes in it to allow the blood vessels in and out, the body could adapt. That "new" adamantium, however, is filling up lots of places where it isn't supposed to be. It's a foreign object.
But on that subject... if Wolvie ends up fighting "himself" again in X3 I'm goign to write a letter to Mr. Singer demanding he come up with something more clever. In the first, he fights Mystique when she's in his shape. In the second, he fights someone exactly the same as him (but oh so female...) It's at once freudian and narcissistic and masochistic. How weird.
-
Maybe Mr. Singer is subconsciouly channeling "The Infinity War."
*shudders*
Let's hope that material never finds its way to the big screen.
-
Maybe Magneto sucks all of the Adamantium from her body.
The most likely explanation for her appearence is Mystique.
-
Or maybe she's learned to replicate herself and there's a hundred copies of her fighting Keanu Reeves and...
oh. Wait....
-
Why would anyone ever copy a movie???? ???
-
Good filmakers create, great filmakers steal. ;D
-
Deathstrike was already ejecting the adamantium. In the last frame where Wolverine goes to stop the base, from flooding, you see that the tank Deathstrike fell into is filling with little silver filaments -- Hot Adamantium!
As for other easter Eggs, the computer Mystique hacks also has a folder marked Sentinals and one marked Lazarus (Prehaps forshadowing Apocalyse?)
When she seduces the guard of Magneto's Prison, she calls him 'Lo-baax', prehaps a mockery of the name Leabeu, as in my favorite mutant. I think This guy is some relation to Gambit (prays for his apperance in the next movie, as his cameo was cut)
The was the Stark Industries logo and I heard the name mentioned on the museum PA as well.
I've heard lots of rumors -- from Sentinals to Omega Red to Muir Island and Apocalypse for X3. One thing is for sure -- we will see Phoenix, though how thier going to change the ancient Alien Guardian of the Shie-ar is anyone's guess
-
So I saw X2...well, it was okay, in my opinion. Lots of great action, but it lacked a definitive conflict for me. There was a lot of conflict, but perhaps too much, because I felt that in trying to treat too many sub-plots it took away from the movie as a whole. But I like my movies pretty tight plot-wise. And these powers all of a sudden growing...Jean Gray's was a little believable, but all of a sudden Prof. X is powerful enough to kill everyone on Earth? I know, he could probably do that before, but whoa, Nelly! You'd think that's the first thing someone would tell you about a guy. Top of the resume kind of stuff. I thought that they were trying to get him to use Cerebro to try and find all of the mutants to hunt them down. But that he could kill them...that just seems a little too much for me.
Lest I come down too hard on the movie, let me mention that I think that the introduction of Kurt Wagner was awesome. I know next to nothing when it comes to overall X-Men storyline, so I hadn't been too familiar with Nightcrawler. His character was the best thing about the movie, in my opinion. The faith and idealism and general niceness about him, besides the fact that his opening scene was the best of the movie, made him my favorite character. I'm writing this as a general response to the movie without having read the whole thread previous so I'm probably repeating some things. Maybe my biggest complaint with the movie was that Kurt did not take more of a leading or assertive role. After he expressed his idealism to Storm (where he seemed to become a very strong character,) he got pretty passive. So that's all...
-
Oh, and I would have thought that Storm would know a little bit more about using her powers responsibly...I wonder how many people she killed by creating dozens of tornados over New York State, or wherever they were at the time.
-
And while I'm thinking about it...
That "new" adamantium, however, is filling up lots of places where it isn't supposed to be. It's a foreign object.
Filling up her lungs, maybe? Would her body know to reject the adamantium from the lungs, which are accustomed to accepting foreign objects (air particles, for example?) Perhaps she could be killed (and wolverine as well) by suffocation. Unless her body can manufacture oxygen to keep itself alive. But I don't know enough about the X-Men to know if ex nihilo nihil fit applies. So I don't know if she comes back or not, but that's how I justify thinking she's dead.
-
I think you're thinking about BOTH those events too much. Well, three, counting the whole major powers things. X-Men falls into a little respected category of SF called Superheroes. It has two sets of physics: one for normal people, and then a second for superbeings. Batman can stay awake for weeks at a time with no diminished performance. Unexplained things happen to superbeings, which is why in X-Men is scares people to death. If you want to pick on it like that, how does an altered gene allow Storm to alter weather, something that is completely external to her? etc. There are too many highly unlikelies, even given a few changes to the science system in the body of fiction to pick on things like that. Yes, when you've established that something COULD do something, (for example, even someone with a neat healing factor can die) then yeah, you have to justify an exception. However, part of the genre is that you don't have to explain variations of the anamoly or objections to your explanation. Another part of it is that people not on the page don't exist unless it becomes directly germain to the story.
You'll enjoy SPB fiction a lot more if you stop thinking of it as "normal" science fiction.
-
Oh, and I would have thought that Storm would know a little bit more about using her powers responsibly...I wonder how many people she killed by creating dozens of tornados over New York State, or wherever they were at the time.
Responsible or not, wouldn't it have been a lot more effective to start tossing lightning around?
-
Yes, but lightning's been done to death. Tornados made for a more interesting visual.
-
If I remember right, her tornadoes never touched the ground, so they weren't really all that destructive to innocent bystanders. I lived in Denver for years and saw a lot of tornadoes, the ones that never touched the ground were just shrugged off by everyone (someone might have to get a new roof or something, but that's about it).
Actually think the tornadoes would be a lot more effective than lightning. One of the many reasons that tornadoes are so dangerous is that they tend to act like a blender to everything they hit. Course what amazed me is that they had Storm dogfighting the best pilots and jets ever to exist. Most pilots won't get anywhere close to a tornado because of the amount of turbulance would tear them apart before they even hit the thing.
-
Yeah, and come to think of it, many airplanes are designed to be able to survive a lightning hit so it can at least land...
-
Yeah, I know, there's a suspension of disbelief. But the fairly casual way they introduced Prof X's ability ("oh yeah, he can kill everyone on the planet just by thinking about it") was a little much for me. You'd think someone would keep that kind of stuff a little more secret. Loose lips sink ships (or get everyone and their mother sending in hit squads to kill you just because you can do what you do.)
-
Prof X can only do that with Ceribrol (or however you spell that computer).
-
Actually, they DID send a hit squad to kill him.
-
Cerebro man, Cerebro.
-
You know, this could be its own thread--'heroes' who, if you think about it, probably just wasted a bunch of innocent people. One of my favorites is in Ocean's 11. How many people do you think bit it when the guys decided to blow the power in the entire city?
-
The characters in Ocean's 11 aren't a good example of heroes. They don't do anything heroic or even good, except that they steal from someon with even MORE whacked priorities than themselves.
-
I have to agree, the main characters in Ocean's 11 are crooks in both the new and original versions.
-
That's why I liked it: more heroes should be crooks.
-
There's something disturbing about that statement.
-
Ah, but despite logical complaints, the characters in Ocean's 11 were indeed presented as heroes, and not anti-heroes. The plotting and characterization of the movie produced empathy for the characters, and a desire for them to succeed. While they did illegal things, their actions were presented in the 'loveable rogue' vein. We aren't supposed to think 'these are ruthless men who would kill dozens of people to get what they want' we're supposed to think 'aw, look at all those nice people who are stealing from the big bad gambling-kingpin.' In fact, I think that the characters presented--if confronted with factual knowledge that they were going to kill people with their little electricity thing--would probably have found another way. As it stands, it's just an example of 'don't think too hard about this' plotting.
Of course, despite being a great movie, it was rife with that kind of plotting sloppiness. I mean, what was the point of carving up explosives like gemstones and going through all of the trouble of sending them down in a briefcase when you have a guy sneaking into the vault in one of the money bins? Couldn't he have just taken the explosives with him. . . .
-
What exactly makes anyone think that people were killed in a power outage? Power outages happen all the time, and the cities don't fall into deadly chaos.
-
Hospitals all have backup generators to prevent such death from a power outage, actually.
-
EUOL, I disagree, just because someone is presented empathetically, even if he is a protagonist, does not necessarily make him heroic, even as opposed to anti-heroic. Peter David's Sir Apropos of Nothing is an example. No, I don't think they're heroes, even if they are the "good guys"
-
Unless you're using an overly literate definition, the good guys are always heroes. That's a colloquial definition. This reminds me of the time my English teacher tried to convince me that Luke wasn't a hero because he didn't get the girl.
-
I'm not being so obtuse. But we must be using different terms. You're using "hero" to mean "protagonist." I'm using it to mean someone who does heroic things. in your definition, "anti-hero" would mean "antagonist," which makes it a fairly useless term. I'm not being so ridiculous as to say a hero has to fit an perfect fit, but I think that "hero" is a term better used for a more narrow range of character than "protagonist."
-
Look, I don't want to get into a semantic argument about it, I just want the protein.
-
Ok, maybe it *is* the lit student in me coming out, but I only bring it up because I find it to be an important and useful distinction, not just nitpicking.
And here's some Soylent Green. Enjoy your protein.
-
I have to agree with SE. The protagonist and hero are not the same thing. Just because a story has a protagonist doesn't mean that they are a hero.
I would go as far as to say that heroes belong to a certain kind of story, not just any story in general. I might even say that heroes are tied to morality tales.
-
I don't know if I'd say "morality tales" as (to be semantic again) that implies a certain type and form, but certainly they involve stories that carry a certain moral discussion germain to the culture they're written for.
-
:DYum!!! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!! :o
-
SE. I will agree to the point that a 'Hero' is different than a 'hero.' One is a person who does heroic things. However, the second is the commonly-accepted term for the protagonist of a story. The first title is far more subjective than the second--one man's "Hero" is another man's despot.
These characters were presented as heros, and perhaps even as "Heros" in a Robin-Hood sort of way.
And, in argument against the power-outage not killing anyone--the backup generators wouldn't have worked. That was the entire point of using the pulse. Whatever a hospital used, the casino presented could afford far better. If it took out the casino's security systems for thirty seconds, then it certainly did the same for hospitals, street-lights, and other vital utilities. People died. Maybe not many, but in a city of that size, and in the rules of physics they presented, people died.
-
I'm not sure if hero is a commonly accepted term for protagonist. It seems to to me that interchanging the two is a common misunderstanding, not acceptable usage.
-
Every book on writing I've read, nearly every writing panel I've attended that addresses the subject, and nearly every writer I know uses hero as the term that means 'main point of view protagonist of the story.'
-
"Common misunderstanding" counts as "commonly accepted term" when you're discussing language. That's what it means. The simple rule is that if everybody does it, it's right.
-
It's right, but not precise. I'm saying that when you fall to using "hero" interchangeably with "protagonist" than you're losing important nuances that can be used to elucidate matters. I'm suggesting that rather than defend the common usage, it's profitable to adopt a better definition to clear matters up.
And no, I don't think the protagonists in Ocean's 11 are heroes in the same sense as Robin Hood.
-
In order to have a intelligible discussion, you'll have to make a distinction.
A common mistake means that basicly everyone makes the same mistake commonly. For example, in my field people interchange the words graphic and picture a lot. Technically, they're not the same thing, but people in the field exchange them a lot unless the discussion demands otherwise.
This discussion demands otherwise, because a hero is usually the protagonist, but the protagonist doesn't have to be a hero. Therefor a distinction needs to be made.
-
I disagree. In my industry, the two are synonyms, and quibbling over distinctions is silly. Hero=Main Viewpoint Protagonist. You can write a book without a hero, but it is difficult to do. 99% of the stories we experience have one--and Ocean's 11 is certainly included in the 99. If you want to make a distinction here, simply say you didn't find them very 'heroic' which means something else.
If you'll notice, I said the character's in the movie were PRESENTED as Robin-Hood like characters. The viewers were encouraged not to think about the consequences of the heros' actions. Indeed, the core of the main hero's conflict was enhanced by hinting that his actions were done in the name of love, rather than money. They made several of the characters comedic sidekicks, and even threw in a small 'apprentice' storyline.
The 'hero' of a story is completely dependent on viewpoint presentation. This story, if told with the exact same events, could be shown from the casino-owner's viewpoint. If we were made to empathize with him as he struggled to protect his casino from bandits, he would instead become the hero of the story--if a tragic one. The same could be done for a police man, or some random worker in the casino.
The person with whom the reader/viewer is made to empathize becomes the hero of the story. The only exception to this are anti-heroes, for whom our empathy may grow, but so does our level of discomfort. In the end, when an Anti-Hero fails, we are glad, though we often pity him at the same time. Michael Douglas in "Falling Down" is a wonderful example.
-
Then you've missed what I've said. Because I made the distinction of what a "hero" is and and then said they don't fit it, which is what you told me to say, only using a more strict terminology. One that is less confusing than using "hero" in two different ways. Using "hero" to mean something, and then using "heroic" as something other than the adjectival form is definitely confusing. I'm just arguing for more precise language.
-
I still agree with Saint. As I see things now, if EUOL insists on not being clear then there is no point in discussing.
-
I don't see what's confusing about using hero this way. We do similar things in English all the time. An example:
An American (noun) can be called un-American (adjective.) No one is calling into question the subject's citizenship--the fact that he or she is an American is indisputable. Just like the Ocean's 11 crew are undisputedly heroes. The phrase 'un-American' refers to a person who doesn't, in someone's opinion, live up to their title.
This discussion began because Saint Ehlers claimed that the Ocean's 11 crew made bad examples of heroes. I quibbled because I think they are perfect examples of something that bothers me a lot in Hollywood plotting. The discussion is focusing around the idea that the Ocean's 11 people are un-heroic. However, I still think they were presented to BE heroic. But, it was a kind of false heroism. If you stop to think about it, you realize the moviemakers are building empathy for a group that doesn't deserve it.
In a similar vein, after thinking about it, I realized that I don't find the heroes of the Matrix particularly heroic. In fact, I'd probably rather hang out with the crooks of Ocean's 11 than Neo and Trinity. At least the Ocean's 11 guys killed their innocents on accident. The only way Neo--armed with all kinds of superpowers, the ability to learn anything, and the ability to create virtually any object--could think to get to the top floor of a building was to blow his way through a bunch of hapless guards. (While, of course, looking and acting incredibly cool.)
This didn't stop me from empathizing with them while watching the movie--if asked during the actual screening, I would have had no trouble calling them heroic. Only after thinking about it, and rewatching the movie, did I realize how soundly I'd been duped.
-
Oh, and by the way, 42:
Hero: he·ro n. pl. he·roes
(4) The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.
(Dictionary.com)
You're simply wrong. You cannot make a distinction between protagonist and hero because they are the same thing. Trying to make a distinction would lead to confusion, not the other way around.
-
I still think it's a poor definition. Your example of "unamerican" is an example I'd use to explain both political and linguistic abuses.
Just because we use it, and other words that way, doesn't mean it's clear. I prefer to use words carefully, which is something ELSE good writers do. "Hero" has connotations beyond "primary male character." I prefer to acknowledge those and use soemthing I don't have to explain.
And yes, your and Fell's usage needed explanation, hence this whole topic of convo
-
EUOL, your using a=b then b=a logic. Which is fine but not always true, particular when a or b is a subset of the other. What you failed to do was to look up the word "protagonist" to see if it agreed with with the definition of "hero". And using your source, dictionary.com, we find thus:
pro·tag·o·nist ( P ) n.
- 1. The main character in a drama or other literary work.
- 2. In ancient Greek drama, the first actor to engage in dialogue with the chorus, in later dramas playing the main character and some minor characters as well.
- 3. A leading or principal figure.
- 4. The leader of a cause; a champion.
According to your logic, at least one definition should say: The hero...
As we see this is not the case, so the two words are not completely interchangable.
Now, I've also checked out with a couple of other people to see about the whole common usage thing. As of this date, I have yet to find someone who agrees with your usage of hero and protagonist being the same. So that places the whole common usage thing in doubt.
-
SE: I see that we're coming down on opposite sides of an old literary debate: Proscriptivists vs descriptivists. Descriptivists, in linguistics, believe something is correct when it is commonly used. Proscriptivists say no, there is a correct way it should be done, regardless of how it is mis-used.
I do not agree in the proscriptive approach, but I will concede that men smarter than myself believe strongly in it. And, as a writer in our society, one must adhere to the proscriptive mandates (at least, outside of dialogue.) Therefore, I believe we will simply have to understand one another's opinions, and let it be that. You made a good argument. What of the core of my discussion, rather than the tangent? Are you disturbed by people presented as 'heroes' who act other than heroic?
p.s. Let me clarify something in regards to your last statement. On my part, at least, this discussion is occurring not because I believe the matter needs explanation, but because I like to argue.
42: Actually, I'm using a=c, b=c, therefore a=b mathematics.
"Hero" = the main character in a work.
"Protagonist" = the main character in a work.
Therefore hero=protagonist.
You argue that there is no definition of 'hero' in that of protagonist. I say, kindly look at definition number one again.
As for your checking with others, I have no way to judge the biased or unbiased nature of your questioning, so I cannot respond to it. I can, however, offer an appeal to authority. Scott Card defines the hero of a story as: "The character we're rooting for." He uses it interchangeably with protagonist. (Though he does make allowances for non-hero main/viewpoint characters in the form of an anti-hero.)
I believe if you look through the writings of most established authors, you will find that they use the terms interchangeably. This has little bearing on logical arguments, but it is something to keep in mind--especially since you called into question the validity of my majority plea.
-
OK, ok, I'll answer it. It just weakens my statement that the characters of Ocean's 11 are not heroes.
Yes, it bothers me. My wife loves the movie (and yes, I think it's a fun flick and fairly well made). She once asked me "Doesn't that make you feel good?" My response was "Why? Because the bad guys win?" Which isn't necessarily a fair assessment of the characters or the movie but gets at the crux of your point. They're presented sympathetically, but they're breaking laws all over the place and they're not terribly trustworthy. I wouldn't really care to have them as neighbors. Most of the characters would have done this heist whether or not there was "love" involved. They were only in it for the money. The only two who are remotely redeemable are Clooney and ...er... forgot the actor's name, But his buddy. Who both esstentially do it to show Roberts that her boyfriend is a dork, but also to show that Clooney's love for Roberts is more important than his social misanthropy (she never doubts he loved her, her complaints are that he's a thief and a liar, which he is). Oh, and also that he's loyal.
Which in the end, are the values of the film. Loyalty and romantic love. If you like those, you've got the heroic values. Which, if I may wax moral, is the problem with society. We're pretty much dupped into believing it. As a culture, we get much more literature from film and TV than we do books, and these media tend to present these similar values as over-riding anything else. And while I think they're good, they aren't enough alone. In fact, to look at it logically, you can't have a healthy relationship involving loyalty and/or romantic love without some other essential values, notably honesty and caring.
To wax more abstract, it's a problem I see in society in general. The most important thing is beign in love. Your other commitments and responsibilities don't matter. Honesty and fidelity are nice, but unimportant. Ehn, yeah, it bothers me, largely because I think the massive amounts of it decays the core values of the society by altering and reducing those values. That's what presenting them as heroes does, it says "these guys represent the values we should believe in as a culture." and then presenting them sympathetically reinforces our desire to believe it.
-
I think what bothers me most about such things is not that I don't like the films, but that I do. Whenever I see a 'bandit' movie--including such greats as Butch Cassidy, and not-so-greats such as Entrapment--I'm left feeling a little sick. I want my heroes to be, well, heroic. Or, in the context of this discussion, I want my protagonists to be heroic. At least, if they aren't, I want them to pay the consequences for their actions.
I think you hit it on the head there. We are encouraged, at the end of Ocean's 11, to think "yeah, Clooney was a 'bad' guy, but he was really good in the end, because he did it for love." Sure, and the millions of dollars didn't matter. And, exactly how powerful is that love of his? If you can't trust him to be honest to other men, how can you expect him to be honest to you? Isn't love about honesty?
Not that every hero needs to be Dudly Doright. Spike, from Bebop, is a wonderful hero because you can see the struggle. The show doesn't present his bad actions as good, but it does show him trying to do something better. In the end, when he reaches his character climax, it may not be a happy ending--but it is contiguous with the whole of his actions, and doesn't pretend to present me with a false morality, just a complex character.
Clooney's character, however, presents a false complexity. We are supposed to think 'oo, how complex. He's a good guy, and a criminal.' Instead, we are given a character who doesn't learn from his mistakes, succeeds where he shouldn't, and generally remains static.
This all leads to another quesiton. Does anyone else see Neo and the bunch as rather un-heroic? (Note--I'm speaking only of the first movie, as I haven't seen the second.)
-
I'm going to agree. I'll also posit Han Solo as a more generally known complex hero. K, he's not that complex, but he's rogueish. But he is definitely heroic. He *wants* to be selfish, and money goes a long way to interesting him, but he always ends up doing the right thing simply because his conscience will bother him if he doesn't. Compare his attempt to free Leia ("She's rich!" "How rich?") to his volunteer commanding the Endor squad. He develops.
And I'm not sure I agree with the opinion on Neo. I think it's more a writing problem than a character problem. He's essentially unmotivated, but he does end up going to save Morpheus because he doesn't think he's the "one" and Morpheus is supposed to find this hero. The biggest problem that I remember you have with it is blowing people away who aren't involved. Which is addressed philosophically in the film, but only briefly, mostly so the writers can say "yeah, we know that's an issue, but it's not what we wanted to talk about." Freedom is definitely a value I can get behind, free will and self determinism and such. So I think I disagree with you on that, but not vehemantly, mostly cuz I don't think there's that much "literature" to the film anymore.
Oh, and a post script, I enjoy the movie too. When I say a film is "fun" that's usually my short way of saying "I enjoyed it, but I didn't care much for the Aristotelian thought or lack thereof"
-
I know you said that you weren't talking about the second movie, but I'm going to mention it anyway because it pertains to this discussion: in the second movie, the heroes almost never use guns. When they have to take somebody out they use kung fu to render him unconscious, instead of using drugs to render them dead. So they, like Han Solo, develop. (Though not completely, I admit.)
In other news, I'd like to point out that the characters in Blacker Darkness (my book) are unquestionably immoral. They're thieves and graverobbers and have little respect for anything. But I love that kind of character--the "Noble Thief" (or "Unackowledged Thief") is a strong archetype.
It also like to say hooray for descriptivism. Hooray!
-
Just wanted to add that all heroes are, by their nature, protagonists. Not all protagonists are heroes. Does that feel better? Cheers, andy
-
This leads, however, to an interesting question. What exactly is the definition of 'heroic?' What makes someone a hero (using the more specific application of the word?) Many have argued here that simply being the empathetic, viewpoint character of a story does not make the character a hero. Conscience has been mentioned, and that does have some relevance. But, is a man heroic when he follows his conscience if the actions he takes are contrary to what we believe he probably should have done?
-
Andy, thanks for reiterating what I was saying.
EUOL, one of my problems is that you seem to connect empathetic characters with being the protagonists. Their are a lot of movies that I've watched where I didn't empathize or sympathize with the main character and I still enjoyed the movie. Ocean's Eleven being one (particularly the orginal version), Chicago, 32 Short Films About Glen Gould, Crouching Tiger..., Legend and the new Star Wars movies being others.
In the original Ocean's Eleven I'm delighted when the protagonist gets screwed over in the end. Chicago left me angry at the protagonists. I wasn't feeling any empathy for these characters.
As I see it their is a unspoken canon that dictates a character as a hero, seperating him or her from just being a protagonist.
-
Ah. so now you want to DEFINE heroes. *cracks knuckles* You know i wrote my senior thesis on this, right?
I'll give you the short form. Essentially, literature about heroes is literature about cultural values. Which is why a hero in Ancient Greece is going to be different than a hero from Medieval England, and from Feudal Japan. (It's also what frustrates people about the Achilles/Odysseus differences, and why Homer's works get held up as signalling a major change in culture). Typically they are expected to (although once you get into the last 2-400 years of Western Lit they start to fail quite frequently at this job -- see Eliot's "The Wasteland" and the Quixote just for starters) cure some ill the society has or at least alleviate it. Therefore, a hero is capable and emulate-able. He can both get the job done and stand as an example we'll let our kids admire.
That's the short form
And no, I don't think the hero HAS to be the protagonist, though there are few examples of a story with a hero where he is not a protagonist. Marvel did a mini series on that, Code of Honor or soemthing like that. Kingdom Come likewise hints at it. But otherwise I agree with andy.
Note, in this whole post I have used "hero" exclusively in the sense I defined earlier.
-
This is off the hero subject but I was thinking...what if Gambit charged Wolverin's adamantim? Would he blow up?
-
I think you have to answer several questions first. How big an item can Gambit charge? Does Wolvie's skeleton count as one big object? Can Gambit charge an item that is sticking through his body (about the only way I can think of he could touch any part of wolverine's adamantium to charge it)? Then, if he DOES blowup, would Wolverine heal?
-
I guess it depends on the storyteller. I saw Gambit in the new X-men cartoon charge a bus, it just took a few seconds. I would assume that the charge would spread throughout the adamantium since it's one solid object. And I doubt wolverine could heal if parts of his body were blown off (regenerate is probaly better). The main question is if adamantium is indestructable would it blow up?
-
So he could do it. But it basically is an argument along the lines of whether Logan's claws could pierce Stever Roger's shield? Sure, I'm not aware of any restriction on what sort of material will blow up. The only question is whether Remy can focus well enough to charge an object when he's dying, since, like I said, the only way he'll be touching Logan's adamantium is if said adamantium is being used to disembowel him.
-
I would argue, 42, that you're in the minority for not empathizing with those characters. We are placed in their shoes, and if the filmmakers did not do that for you, then they weren't skillful enough. I would therefore argue that they aren't 'protagonists' for you, since you don't really care if they succeed or not. More anti-heroes.
The definition of protagonist, however, has even more problems than that of hero, since it derived from a very specific term meaning 'the main character in a Greek drama.' By that definition, then, there can be only one protagonist (and non-plays can't have one.)
-
This is a tangent...Oceans 11 was mentioned earlier. It looks like The Italian Job is kind of the same thing. Anyone seen it?
In a review of the aforemtnioned movie on NPR, the reviewer called mini coopers "hobbitmobiles."