Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on May 25, 2006, 01:33:04 PM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1407
I just wnat to point out that it's impossible to not under-utilize Cyclops. He's a chump character from the get go with an uninteresting power or personality.
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1407
I just wnat to point out that it's impossible to not under-utilize Cyclops. He's a chump character from the get go with an uninteresting power or personality.
Yeah, you're only saying that because he attacks your beliefs as a person with two eyes, reflecting the bias of everyone on this site.
I don't think it's impossible to not-underuse him - there characters in these movies are whatever the choose them to be (look at Rogue. She's totally different from in the comics.). Cyclops are Marsden are both likable - the franchise just never lets them do enough. The dynamic between Cyclops and Wolverine has always been a godd one, and they have a chance to really build on that in this one, but unfortuantely they dont.
Just my opinion, of course.
-
you've discovered my secret. Now I must have you killed.
Actually, I think most people just don't like Cyclops. He's never been a particularly interesting character in the comic books either. I've never expected much from him on screen.
-
you've discovered my secret. Now I must have you killed.
Actually, I think most people just don't like Cyclops. He's never been a particularly interesting character in the comic books either. I've never expected much from him on screen.
To some extent, you're right. He isn't the majority favorite - but I think everyone has their one characters that they either favor or don't care for in the series, and they tend to assume that everyone else feels the same way (which I suppose I am doing by assuming that everyone wants to see more of Cyclops). I will never get my sister to understand that I like Storm and Halle Berry, but Colossus with his shirt of off has never really been a big selling point of the films.
-
what? You don't like naked man-flesh?
I've been wanting Gambit this whole time.
-
I think this comic explains Cyclops
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=167
-
IMO, Cyclops is a good character concept that has been poorly executed over-over again. So, yes, I agree that Cyclops cannot be under-utilized enough.
Unless he were to be reworked to be less whiny, less narcissistic, more powerful power (can't he at least see in the dark or something), and (dare I suggest it) more insecure. Can't he just accidentally kill a few people from time to time? He needs to have at least one momentous fight with Jean (when she's not evil, all-powerful, or dead).
Heck, I almost wish there was a "Make Cyclops" cool contest out there somewhere since we seem to be stuck with him.
On another note, Cyclop's brother (Havok) is much, much cooler. Why couldn't he be in the movies.
Also, lacking Gambit is a crime.
-
more powerful power (can't he at least see in the dark or something)
Night Vision googles don't cost nearly as much as half the gear they carry around.
Besides, how is the ability to shoot a beam of death-lasery goodness not powerful? I'd take an inbuilt phaser over night-vision anyday.
-
Unfortunately, in the Marvel world, being able to shoot a beam of death just isn't that impressive (and rather common).
I also have a theory that the really cool comic characters have multiple powers. Look Spiderman, Wolverine, Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman for examples.
-
Okay, someone explain Gambit to me . Everyone also says they want to see him in the movie, but as far as I can tell by my miniscule knowledge, his power is that he carries a stick (which, admittedly, makes him the one the play in the arcade game, the same reason Donatello is the best Ninja Turtle - weapon with the furthest reach.).
I like Cyclops, I will always like Cyclops.
-
so you've missed his power entirely. Have you ever seen him throw exploding cards? That's his real schtick. He can kinetically charge any object. They blow up after he does this. He throws cards because they're light and easy to carry, but he can do the same to cars, rocks, whatever.
The main reason we like Remy el Beau, though, is even though he drops french into his dialogue, he has a personality. And he looks cool. And, most importantly, he's good with the leadies.
Scott just kinda goes... "I'm the leader. I'm the captain of the football team! You must love me!"
-
Night Vision googles don't cost nearly as much as half the gear they carry around.
Besides, how is the ability to shoot a beam of death-lasery goodness not powerful? I'd take an inbuilt phaser over night-vision anyday.
Name one Marvel hero or villain that can't either dodge, or, more frequently, simply shrug off Cyclops' "beam of death-lasery goodness."
-
Name one Marvel hero or villain that can't either dodge, or, more frequently, simply shrug off Cyclops' "beam of death-lasery goodness."
This is due to what is known as "G.I. Joe Parachute Syndrome", and is not really Cyclops' fault. Though I concede it's an inherent problem with his power.
Two additional points:
First, all multi-powered superheros pale to Superman. The advantage to a single power is you have do ONE thing better than Superman (i.e. The Flash is faster).
Second, there is more to a character than powers. The cinematic Cyclops is a strong leader, and his interaction with Wolverine is the heart and soul of the first film (come on: the way they they establish which is the real Wolverine is one of the best movie moments of the decade). Even though "X2" is the best film of the series, both sequels have been missing something by underusing the Cyclops/Wolverine dynamic. Powers, schmowers. It's about drama, and the drama of the cinematic X-Men needs Cyclops. I mean, Batman has no powers at all, anfd if anyone bad mouths Batman . . .
Plus, Cyclops got Famke Janssen, which inherently makes him cool.
-
http://plastic.herbertlives.com/view.php?comicID=61
and
http://plastic.herbertlives.com/view.php?comicID=45
-
I've always wanted more of Cyclops, but I don't really know what I wanted him to do more of. Maybe he could come up with some cool tactics to show leadership, or something like that.
I'm mostly just glad that they didn't use Jubilee (or if you're going to be a stickler, that they cut her scene from X2).
-
Who would win in a fight between Cyclops, Gambit, Wolverine and Mary Magdelene?
-
I'm thinking Wolverine. Then Mary Magdalene.
-
Who would win in a battle between Jubilee, Aquaman, Dan Brown, and any of the dead Robins?
-
Which Aquaman? If it's Dancing Aquaman from Adult Swim then there's no contest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1EzhEbMVLU&search=dancing%20aquaman
-
Who would win in a battle between Jubilee, Aquaman, Dan Brown, and any of the dead Robins?
Tim Robins is my my favorite of dead Robins - his zombie alter ego, Dead Man Walking, could kill any one them.
-
I also have a theory that the really cool comic characters have multiple powers. Look Spiderman, Wolverine, Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman for examples.
Batman? Not that I dislike Batman, as a matter fact, he is definitely one of my favorite heroes, but what multiple powers? Batman doesn't really have any powers, per se.
-
Batman? Not that I dislike Batman, as a matter fact, he is definitely one of my favorite heroes, but what multiple powers? Batman doesn't really have any powers, per se.
Batman doesn't have any inherent powers, except his fighting prowess and keen intellect. He does have access to a lot of cool gadgets with effectively give him a multitude of powers.
-
The fact that Batman doesn't have any superhuman powers is what makes him so great. We can effectively see him as more human, like us, and this causes us to relate to him more.
As Seinfeld would say, "When men grow up reading about super heros, these aren't fantasies.. they're options" ha ha ;)
-
Batman DOES have super powers. 1): He's a shapeshifter - he can look like whatever actor they cast in the part, and 2:) he has the ability to change the environment around him from dark and brooding to campy and flamboyantly gay.
-
LMAO! Bwah-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa! Your killing me :)
-
Who would win in a battle between Jubilee, Aquaman, Dan Brown, and any of the dead Robins?
The correct answer, of course, is who cares? As long as most of them are wiped from continuity.
-
The correct answer, of course, is who cares? As long as most of them are wiped from continuity.
Particularly Dan Brown.
-
So, I just saw the film. It was fun.
Hint: there is another scene after the credits.
Not that anyone here would be so callace as to leave the theater before the credits finished rolling, but if you have to miss it, I wouldn't panic.
-
I left before the credits are done. Well, now I'l have to go see it again. Shucks.
-
Having just seen this a second time, I'm debating whether we should have knocked another half star off our rating. it's fun, I love "X-Men" movies . . . But this just isn't up there with the first two. Those make my list of best superhero films of all time. The best value of this one is nostalgia for the first two.
I'm conflicted on this. It's so much fun to see these characters again that I'm inclined to go easy on it. But it could have been so much more . . . Definitely worth seeing, though. But I'll be watching the first two on DVD next week to enjoy "X-Men" at it's best. Some films are very hard to rate, and this is a tough one for me.
-
I dono, I think I like this one more then X-men 2, 3 is more comic booky and I think it fits the X-men better then the other movies. The first two were a little too self important for my taste.
-
This movie is more like the comic books.
Course, the comic books don't delve into themes and metaphors as deeply as they should either.
-
I was about to leave the same post that Paul did. The first two are great movies, and this one, despite having a bigger budget than the first, doesn't hold a candle to it - there's nowhere near the level of skill or polish. It's a really sloppy peice of filmmaking.
I appreciate the fact that there are comic fans out there who had things they wanted to see, but to me, a great series of movies that stood on it's own was set up, and the goal should have been to make an ending to that series, and this doesn't do it. Avi Arad, Fox and Company were so preoccupied with getting Beast and Angel on screen that they shafted the characters from the first film.
I'm really annoyed at Halle Berry over this movie - her stupid tantrums were indulged, and they let her take too much focus, and they make Storm a more generic Super Hero that is assigned way too much importance but isn't nearly as good a character as she was in the second film.
I can sort of see the point about the first two being self important - they get awfully far into political issues that aren't real - but they are much more compelling than normal comic book films for doing so.
-
The thing I don't like about the first two X-men is they don't feel like comic book movies, like spiderman does, they feel like art house movies.
-
The thing I don't like about the first two X-men is they don't feel like comic book movies, like spiderman does, they feel like art house movies.
To me, the first two films were a brillaint mix of comic book and art house, which is exactly why I loved them.
"Spider-Man" is probably the most perfect realization of the comic book feel on screen, I will admit. And, with only a couple of exceptions ("It's you who is out, Gobby. Out of your mind!"), this is a good thing. But Singer's "X-Men" films are something different, and quite special. The raised the bar for the genre, and demonstrated superhero stories need not just be stories for 12-year olds about guys hitting each other. I can't agree that they're "self-important." There is a difference between self-importance and having something to say. I understand the common argument people have "I go to movies to escape", but for me, every day life is mind numbing that a movie that's actually about something IS an escape. If "X-men: The Last Stand" is more like the comics than Singer's films are, then, in my opinion, Singer's films are better than the comic books. And really, there is just as much pontificating in the third film. It's just not backed up with the thoughtfulness or or emotion of the first two.
I disagree with the idea that there is, or should be, a specific "feel" that inherently goes with all comic book films.
But that is really just one opinion, and while I don't agree with Spriggan, I do see the validity of his point. There is something to be said for goofy fun in comic book movies. This is why I will always have a fondness for "Batman Forever". Hokey as it was, it was the Batman I grew up on, the Batman movie I imagined when I was a kid ("Batman & Robin" was not).
That is why I feel it's best when there is variety in the types of comic book films. I would be miserable if they were all as vacuous and lightweight as "Fantastic Four" (which is actually mildly fun it's own dumb way), but they don't all have to be dark and brooding, either.
-
Avi Arad, Fox and Company were so preoccupied with getting Beast and Angel on screen that they shafted the characters from the first film.
Not that they even NAMED Angel... or if they did I completely missed it... he was barely on screen 10 minutes together....
-
They said his name like 5 times, they just never called him Angel.
And the reason I think they're self important doesn't have to do with the topics they cover but how it feels like whenever someone says something they turn and stare into the camera until moving on.
-
Hint: there is another scene after the credits.
I'd been avoiding this thread so I could go make my own decision on the movie, and so I missed this, dang it. We left in the middle of the credits. It was a late night and we were both tired. I'll have to see it again sometime--though I don't really think I'll go back to see it in the theater, though. I dunno. I enjoyed the movie, but it felt so rushed, without any development or face time for the characters we already knew or the ones we met for the first time.
-
Oh, and where was Nightcrawler?
And Rogue, (Anna Paquin), one of the most important characters in the first film, just disappears for far too much of this movie.
I agree. I was thinking as they set off for Alcatraz and noted that there was only six of them, that duh, they were missing a good 2 or 3 that should have been there but weren't, and it felt more an oversight than an actual plot point. The other characters were just ... lost.
-
In the movies Nightcrawler wasn't an X-man so there's no reason for him to still be hanging around at the mansion. As for Rouge, I agree it would have been nice to see her more but when they were leaving for the final fight both Iceman and Wolverine new she was gone and it's not like they were going to go look for her, or anyone else, while Magneto was marching around California.
-
No, I understand that. It just felt so set-up, rather than as something that should have happened.
I had a good time--I think they did a pretty good job of it. It just felt a let-down, character-wise, after the last two.
-
I'm not disagreeing on the character development part, though there wasn't as much need for it on the main characters since the first two movies developed them quite well, especially for the new people (like Beast). But I don't miss Singer when it comes to the action scenes, man he couldn't direct a fight scene worth a darn.
Edit: Also, just for fun, Boxofficemojo has this movie allready making over 100 million for 3 days (the sunday is a perdiction but without today it's at like 80 million) so it could very well make 150 million in 4 days. I hope Superman does this well.
-
I knew it was going to be a monster opening, as the lines outside the theater I went to were across the quad 45 minutes before showtime. The parking lot was fuller than I've ever seen it, except possibly for Revenge of the Sith.
Anyway, the after-credits scene is not worth going to see the movie again just to see--it's what, 10 seconds long? (And the guys sitting behind us, during the ending credits, predicted what would happen in it, though they were thinking it would be left for the sequel. I didn't guess it myself, even though I'd been told by friends as I was walking to the theater that there was a scene after the credits we had to stay for, but Karen did guess it.) Better to just check spoilers.
-
Funny story about how Ratner and Singer both snuk into the same theater to see the movie with real people then ran into each other afterwords.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197369,00.html#2
"He kept saying, It's unbelievable, it's unbelievable" says a source who was present at the accidental meeting. Singer, of course, must be kicking himself that he abandoned X-Men. (And who does that, by the way? What was he thinking?)
I guess we'll have to leave what "unbelievable" here means, but I have a feeling Singer wouldn't badmouth Ratner on the movie (if he didn't like it that is). And just a little background the columnists, Roger Friedman, has talked about how much trouble WB and Singer have had with Superman which is not to say it's a bad movie but was a lot harder to get going and finished then X3 was.
-
Bryan Singer did not ABANDON " X Men." He merely signed on to direct "Superman." It was his plan to make "X3" his next movie, but Fox and especially MArvel threw a coniption, fasttracked the project, and then they hired Ratner (which hardly seems like a coincidence. Why would you just happen to pick the guy that just got fired from the same A-list franchise that your first choice just left to do? Because you want to stick it to your first choice, that's why. Considering how awful the buzz was on at the time concerning Ratner, and how upset people were at the idea of him directing "Superman" (which he was fired from shortly before Singer signed on), I have come to the conclusion that Marvel chose Ratner to make the statement that Singer was not a hot property, but that X MEN was the hot property, and that they could make it successful even with a director that no one had any enthusiasm about.
Marvel brought the comic book movie back from the dead by beign savvy enough to hire interesting directors such as Singer, Sam Raimi and even Ang Lee to make their movies more than just schlock. I think that Lee's "Hulk," a film which I happen to love, and which got mostly favorable reviews, scared them away from lettign directors have control of their properties, and as such, they have gone in the other direction, hiring hacks who aren't burdened with issues like "atristic vision," who are willing to just do exactly what they tell them to. That, combined with their obsessive need to have a new Marvel movie out every six months or so, is going to kill the genre every bit as much as the increasingly bad "Batman" films and all of their imitators did in the '90's.
The only thing that can save the future of comic book movies at this point is the fact that "Superman" and "Batman" are still in such good hands, with Singer and Chris Nolan.
Now, if we can just ensure that no one EVER casts Halle Berry in one of these again (or if they do, that they keep her on a short leash), than there might still be a chance. At least Marvel still has "Siper-Man 3," but I live in fear of what they will do to the franchise when Raimi and company movie on and they start making them with a new director and new actors.
-
Ooooh, that article made me furious. For one thing, "M:I-III" was so much better than X3, though I can't argue the point that Cruise scared people off is true.
But what really upsets me is the remore possibilty of GANDALF winning his overdue Oscar for a campy performance in a bad film (meaning "Da Vinci," not "X3," though I do think Howard did a much better job directing than Ratner did.)
And two other points: 1:) there can not be a thinknig man's Michael Bay and 2:) Ratner is not a thinking man's anything. Not that that he's awful - Ratner actually did a better job with Hannibal Lecter than a great director like Ridely Scott, and better than a not so great director like Jonathan Demme. But he's not particuarly talented.
-
wow, take your medication lately? that was a freaking book you typed based off of 2 lines, on top of that they're just movies so they're nothing to get worked up about.
-
I think our poor movie reviewer has been under a lot of presure lately. Maybe he should consider taking a vacation. Five or ten minutes should be enough.
-
I thought his arguments were credible. I wouldn't call Ratner untalented, but he certainly doesn't bring the depth to a film that Singer did. And that's what I miss, because though Rush Hour was fun, it simply didn't do what X-Men did for me, which was really get into the characters with a depth few movies of that genre do.
-
So to get off the review for a moment, I am looking into the comic book world, and Id like to start reading the XMen comics... where would you suggest I start... There are so many different ones... and I have no idea whats what!
-
this about says it all
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/89DQQXAY5RI1/002-1931825-8710439
-
thanks that clears it up for me ;D
-
actually there's a DVD with every issue from the first up till 2005 on it, 42 has got it.
edit Here it ius (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&tag=theofficitime-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&path=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2FB000E28UT2%2Fqid%3D1149041636%2Fsr%3D8-2%2Fref%3Dpd_bbs_2%3F%255Fencoding%3DUTF8%26v%3Dglance%26n%3D229534)
-
or you could watch this... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YveSHqhOkdo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog%2Ewired%2Ecom%2Ftableofmalcontents%2F
ok
there arent a lot of X-men... but dang its funny, and there is a wolverine.
-
ok wow thats special... haha
And Im surprised by how relatively inexpensive that dvd is....
-
marvel isnt evil, or cruel just absurd. So Its not a shock to me that its affordable.
-
nothing in this world seems affordable to me anymore... I suppose that is the curse of the college student however, all the money that doesnt go to classes, food, and housing now goes to insanely expensive gas...
-
I will just warn you that the DVD has a gazillion issues on it. Hence, it is a great time-wasting tool, but not so good to have around when you should be doing homework.
-
or you could watch this... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YveSHqhOkdo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog%2Ewired%2Ecom%2Ftableofmalcontents%2F
The "crisis" group at the end was awesome. Esp. with the cross-dressed Supergirl.
-
Even though I've never been really exposed to comics (so I have no idea what e is talking about) I think this is great.
-
Crisis on Infinite Earths was when DC Comics decided that it shouldn't have 50 continuities anymore. Several characters, including the second Flash and Supergirl, died. One of the famous covers had a picture of Superman holding the body of Supergirl and screaming in mourning. Hence the bit at the end of the video where they have a guy dressed as suped holding a blond. Who had facial hair. Watch the video again and you'll see it.
-
ummm spolier thread?
-
Ummm. Whoopsies. I thought I *was* on the spoiler thread. :-[ Doh! I'm moving it
-
I loved that video. And 42, I'd love to borrow that CD sometime.
-
you might be waiting a while, he reads one or two comics a day and is only about 50 in (out of about 500).
-
I win.
because comics are on my side:
night out (http://www.poppycockcircus.com/index.php?page=907)
ex-girlfriend (http://www.poppycockcircus.com/index.php?page=923) <-- spoiler
-
Spoiler warning?
-
woops
-
:'( You bastard.
-
yeah, but I retroactively marked it.
-
Sad but good movie. Poor Wolverine is all I have left to say. :(
-
Lehea, this thread is 6 months old. If you have something to say, please start a new thread rather than resurrect a conversation that ended half a year ago.