X-Men: Days of Future Past

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Holy cow this is a tough room!

When pictures from the original XMen movie leaked, I too was very skeptical about how the movie would turn out. I thought, "Great. They're blatantly copying the Matrix and Blade." I also hated "The Usual Suspects" (I know I'm probably the only one) so I wasn't very optimistic. The only thing that looked good was the shot of Logan in his civilian clothes with his claws out in the snow. I thought that looked pretty damn good.

But when I finally saw the movie, I was completely fine with the choice of clothes. It didn't matter since they got the characters so right. Even though they did some finagling with characters, I was happy that they got their essences right, and their group dynamics. Sure, there were some problems, but like I said, because the characters were well written I was more than willing to overlook those faults. I thought X-2 improved on everything from the first, especially making the action sequences better (which I thought the first one was lacking).

I also thought First Class was great, but mainly because of Charles's and Erik's characters and relationship with each other. I felt the worst part was the team that they assembled and I particularly hated the scene when all the kids are hanging out showing off their powers. But I'm willing to overlook that as well because of how great Charles and Erik were. And remember how ridiculous those original teaser posters were for the movie? Terrible. But the movie turned out great.

My point is that we can't know how the actual movie will be, how the story will unfold and how we will feel towards the characters. I truly believe that is the most important part of any movie, especially a comic book movie. It doesn't matter how cool the character designs are if we don't care for the characters themselves.

For example I didn't like Captain America: First Avenger. The story (even though I know his origin) just left me cold in the way Johnston directed it. I can't explain it. I see the scene where it's building a certain character and I'm supposed care. But I just don't feel a thing. Of course you can also criticize Johnston's inappropriate decision to make it all futuristic and sic-fy-y, but I can't deny that the characters "looked" cool. But ultimately the cool character designs did not make me enjoy the movie any better.

So yeah, we can all pick apart the look and design of all these characters, but I'm willing to wait and see how the movie will turn out before I start handing out such harsh criticism.

Also, someone mentioned that they thought it was a waste of money to construct a life-size sentinel instead of rendering it through CGI. I will always always always prefer practical effects over CGI. CGI has come a long way and it can look 100% flawless and convincing. But there is still something about the physical object in a scene and how it reacts (lighting, physics, etc) with its surroundings and how the actors react to the object that can never be beat.

I think the designs for the most part are vomit inducing, but I believe the film will still be solid. At least better than Last Stand.

It'll be interesting to see how they play that. We've already seen him take one out single-handed, so it'll be much less believable to see him get his *** handed to him by lame prototypes. :lol

He's the hero and now leader so him losing ain't happening. Even with wooden... I mean bone claws he'll still chop them down :lol

Easy way to dispatch the prototypes is to unplug them from the wall :rotfl

2vngxvd.jpg

2cru5bc.jpg
 
Yes.

Also, what you said about Superman Returns was spot on. He did manage to get everything wrong in that film.

Remember that deleted scene with Superman flying through his old house on the planet Krypton? How stupid was that? If you watch the Donner version (which this was was a "continuation" of), not only did the planet explode, but the sun did as well. The shot even lingered to show there was nothing left. So what was there to go back to? Nothing. so the whole reason for him leaving made absolutely no sense at all.

Even if there was something there, what was he hoping to find, 7 stranded castaways?

That sequence cost 10 million dollars, they couldn't even use it, and that was just the beginning of the damn movie.

Yeah, I mean in the comics it's well established, there is nothing left of Krypton but fragments. So why did Kal feel the need to go look in space for his home. He knows there is nothing there. And yeah, if it's a continuation, Jor-El tells him our planet blew up. Did he think his dad was lying?

I'm not saying this movie is going to be horrible, but just better than X3 is not good enough. First Class was a good film. The Wolverine(despite devolving with the boss battle at the end) was a good Wolverine film. It's flaws are not all glaring, and the ones that are, like Wolverine being in a bloodless film, is forgivable as they will never make that Wolverine movie. It showed an understanding of what makes Logan work.
 
Well, duh! You have blinders on in your avatar. :nana:

:lol :lol :rotfl:lol
blind.gif


Is that the same as being excited to see this rendition of QS onscreen? The outfit is non-sensical for a guy that runs at supersonic speed. Guy looks like a d-bag, even given the fashions at the time.

I remember QS being a douche in the comics all the time...so the image fits, IMO. :lol
 
Holy cow this is a tough room!

When pictures from the original XMen movie leaked, I too was very skeptical about how the movie would turn out. I thought, "Great. They're blatantly copying the Matrix and Blade." I also hated "The Usual Suspects" (I know I'm probably the only one) so I wasn't very optimistic. The only thing that looked good was the shot of Logan in his civilian clothes with his claws out in the snow. I thought that looked pretty damn good.

But when I finally saw the movie, I was completely fine with the choice of clothes. It didn't matter since they got the characters so right. Even though they did some finagling with characters, I was happy that they got their essences right, and their group dynamics. Sure, there were some problems, but like I said, because the characters were well written I was more than willing to overlook those faults. I thought X-2 improved on everything from the first, especially making the action sequences better (which I thought the first one was lacking).

I also thought First Class was great, but mainly because of Charles's and Erik's characters and relationship with each other. I felt the worst part was the team that they assembled and I particularly hated the scene when all the kids are hanging out showing off their powers. But I'm willing to overlook that as well because of how great Charles and Erik were. And remember how ridiculous those original teaser posters were for the movie? Terrible. But the movie turned out great.

My point is that we can't know how the actual movie will be, how the story will unfold and how we will feel towards the characters. I truly believe that is the most important part of any movie, especially a comic book movie. It doesn't matter how cool the character designs are if we don't care for the characters themselves.

For example I didn't like Captain America: First Avenger. The story (even though I know his origin) just left me cold in the way Johnston directed it. I can't explain it. I see the scene where it's building a certain character and I'm supposed care. But I just don't feel a thing. Of course you can also criticize Johnston's inappropriate decision to make it all futuristic and sic-fy-y, but I can't deny that the characters "looked" cool. But ultimately the cool character designs did not make me enjoy the movie any better.

So yeah, we can all pick apart the look and design of all these characters, but I'm willing to wait and see how the movie will turn out before I start handing out such harsh criticism.

Also, someone mentioned that they thought it was a waste of money to construct a life-size sentinel instead of rendering it through CGI. I will always always always prefer practical effects over CGI. CGI has come a long way and it can look 100% flawless and convincing. But there is still something about the physical object in a scene and how it reacts (lighting, physics, etc) with its surroundings and how the actors react to the object that can never be beat.


I'll be honest, I'm not really a fan of XM 1-2. But for me, it wasn't so much the costumes or the story, but the casting.

I remember when Star Trek:TNG first hit and everyone was saying that Patrick Stewart would make a great Prof. X (or Mr. Freeze), and all I thought was, "Why? Because he's bald? Anybody with a razor can be bald.", but the more I thought of it, it did seem like a good idea (he certainly dodged a bullet with Mr. Freeze), but when I finally saw it, to me it just played like Picard in a wheelchair. I didn't see the character at all. It just felt like it was stunt casting to appease the fanboys, and that's not always a good thing. Stan Lee always said, "Never give the fans what they think they want". I think here he was right.

Ian McKellan wasn't right for Magneto. Don't get me wrong, he's a good actor, just not Magneto. I remember Rutger Hauer being in talks for the part. He probably would have been awesome. He was good in Batman Begins as the corporate ****, but really anyone could have played that role.

Halle Berry as Storm I don't think worked either. I mean, she's hot and all, and she won an Oscar, but I always thought Angela Basset would have killed in that part (too bad she was wasted in Green Lantern, she wasn't lucky enough to dodge that bullet).

Famke Janssen looked too old for Jean Grey, or James Marsden seemed too young. Either way it didn't work. She seemed more like his Mom, or at the very least, a couger.

Anna Paquin (at the time) for Rogue was just the opposite; she was too young. It's funny, now that she's the right age, they're not going to use her.

All of the rest seemed too young too. When I first saw it, it was like watching a photo shoot for Tiger Beat magazine.

I saved Wolverine for last because I know he has a fan base, so I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but (IMO)he's never been right for Logan. Too tall, too good looking and too nice. If you really think about it, he only looks like Wolverine because of the wig and the mutton chops.
Not to mention, no one has ever played Logan but him, so who is there to compare to? Put the hair and mc's on another actor's face and he'll look like Wolverine too.
He had that great line in First Class, but I'd like to see something different. He cant play him forever, and as an actor, why would he want to?


That's my take on it anyway, and only in comics can you change the past. Your mileage may vary.



I liked First Class too. Not everything about it, mind you, but I felt it was a good beginning. I certainly don't think it needed Bryan Singer to come in and save it by any stretch.

Also, I'm the poster who thought they should CGI the Sents. I also prefer practical effects, but if you're making something that should be 5 stories tall, you really don't have too much of a choice. I mean, the life size Sent they built will probably look cool for a few scenes in the back ground, I just don't think it was nessessary expense. CGI for the long shots, life size head and shoulders for the close-ups. That's pretty much how Jurassic Park was done and that still looks good (although they did make the T-rex life size, the Sents are much bigger).

I guess it is what it is at this point, we'll know soon enough if it works like the film makers hope.
 
I'll be honest, I'm not really a fan of XM 1-2. But for me, it wasn't so much the costumes or the story, but the casting.

I remember when Star Trek:TNG first hit and everyone was saying that Patrick Stewart would make a great Prof. X (or Mr. Freeze), and all I thought was, "Why? Because he's bald? Anybody with a razor can be bald.", but the more I thought of it, it did seem like a good idea (he certainly dodged a bullet with Mr. Freeze), but when I finally saw it, to me it just played like Picard in a wheelchair. I didn't see the character at all. It just felt like it was stunt casting to appease the fanboys, and that's not always a good thing. Stan Lee always said, "Never give the fans what they think they want". I think here he was right.

Ian McKellan wasn't right for Magneto. Don't get me wrong, he's a good actor, just not Magneto. I remember Rutger Hauer being in talks for the part. He probably would have been awesome. He was good in Batman Begins as the corporate ****, but really anyone could have played that role.

Halle Berry as Storm I don't think worked either. I mean, she's hot and all, and she won an Oscar, but I always thought Angela Basset would have killed in that part (too bad she was wasted in Green Lantern. She wasn't lucky enough to dodge that bullet).

Famke Janssen looked too old for Jean Grey, or James Marsden seemed too young. Either way it didn't work. She seemed more like his Mom, or at the very least, a couger.

Anna Paquin (at the time) for Rouge was just the opposite; she was too young. It's funny, now that she's the right age, they're not going to use her.

All of the rest seemed too young too. Looking at it now, it looks like a photo shoot for Tiger Beat magazine.

I saved Wolverine for last because I know he has a fan base. So I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but (IMO)he's never been right for Logan. Too tall, too good looking and too nice. If you really think about it, he only looks like Wolverine because of the wig and the mutton chops.
Not to mention, no one has ever played Logan but him, so who is there to compare to? Put the hair and mc's on another actor's face and he'll look like Wolverine too.
He had that great line in First Class, but I'd like to see something different. He cant play him forever, and as an actor, why would he want to?


That's my take on it anyway, and only in comics can you change the past. Your mileage may vary.



I liked First Class too. Not everything about it, mind you, but I felt it was a good beginning. I certainly don't think it needed Bryan Singer to come in and save it by any stretch.

Also, I'm the poster who thought they should CGI the Sents. I also prefer practical effects, but if you're making something that should be 5 stories tall, you really don't have too much of a choice. I mean, the life size Sent they built will probably look cool for a few scenes in the back ground, I just don't think it was nessessary expense. CGI for the long shots, life size head and shoulders for the close-ups. That's pretty much how Jurassic Park was done and that still looks good (although they did make the T-rex life size, the Sents are much bigger).

I guess it is what it is at this point, we'll know soon enough if it works like the film makers hope.

I agree with you on the Ian McKellan and Patrick Stuart casting. I seriously think knighted actors get some crazy amount of love from American fans for reason, I don’t know. Those 2 aren’t bad in their parts, but they aren’t that great either. Mcavoy and Fassbender totally blew them away.

Hugh as Wolverine is awesome though. In this case, it’s the opposite of what you said about Patrick Stuart as Prof X casting, he might not look the part, but he is great at playing Wolverine. He isn’t tall, and does’t have the compact physique, but the essence of he character he nails, from his smarts answers, to his animal rage. This being a money maker for Fox, they have to tone it down with his violence a bit, but I think Singer understands Wolverine more than any director that has used him so far. Him murdering all of Stryker’s men in the mansion, yelling and spit flying out, as if he was dying to kill someone, was single handily the best Wolverine sequence we have had on film. Hugh gets praise also, because he is playing a character totally unlike himself, and does an incredible job. It isn’t like Robert Downey, taking the character of Iron Man, making him Robert Downey and he is somehow is getting all this praise. Also I don’t believe he wears a wig to play Wolverine.
 
I agree with you on the Ian McKellan and Patrick Stuart casting. I seriously think knighted actors get some crazy amount of love from American fans for reason, I don’t know. Those 2 aren’t bad in their parts, but they aren’t that great either. Mcavoy and Fassbender totally blew them away.

Hugh as Wolverine is awesome though. In this case, it’s the opposite of what you said about Patrick Stuart as Prof X casting, he might not look the part, but he is great at playing Wolverine. He isn’t tall, and does’t have the compact physique, but the essence of he character he nails, from his smarts answers, to his animal rage. This being a money maker for Fox, they have to tone it down with his violence a bit, but I think Singer understands Wolverine more than any director that has used him so far. Him murdering all of Stryker’s men in the mansion, yelling and spit flying out, as if he was dying to kill someone, was single handily the best Wolverine sequence we have had on film. Hugh gets praise also, because he is playing a character totally unlike himself, and does an incredible job. It isn’t like Robert Downey, taking the character of Iron Man, making him Robert Downey and he is somehow is getting all this praise. Also I don’t believe he wears a wig to play Wolverine.

Finally something we agree on to a point .
 
Ian and Patrick get respect because they are, by far, the best actors in the franchise. :dunno

Jackman comes close, especially after his Broadway and Le Mis cred, but he's still not there yet.
 
Ian and Patrick get respect because they are, by far, the best actors in the franchise. :dunno

Not at all, they are great stage actors, but they are extremely limited. I would love to know their filmography that proves they are so incredible? McKellan has LOTR, and Stewart has the Star Trek stuff, two franchises that didn’t really have the best acting. They are extremely overrated, and I guess it has something to do with them being knighted and being in big franchises.

Mcavoy, and Fassbender while still young, already have starred in great films, and have received several nominations. They aren’t doing voices in the Robot Chicken and such.
 
Not at all, they are great stage actors, but they are extremely limited. I would love to know their filmography that proves they are so incredible? McKellan has LOTR, and Stewart has the Star Trek stuff, two franchises that didn’t really have the best acting. They are extremely overrated, and I guess it has something to do with them being knighted and being in big franchises.

Mcavoy, and Fassbender while still young, already have starred in great films, and have received several nominations. They aren’t doing voices in the Robot Chicken and such.

They sort of made that franchise them and Jackman they seemed limited cause of the story they are old what you want them jumping around doing flips?
 
They sort of made that franchise them and Jackman they seemed limited cause of the story they are old what you want them jumping around doing flips?

How did they make X-Men their franchise, last I watched FC, they were both absent, and FC proved to be highly rated because of the breath of fresh air.

And I am talking about themselves as actors are limited, look beyond the X-Men franchise.
 
I agree with you on the Ian McKellan and Patrick Stuart casting. I seriously think knighted actors get some crazy amount of love from American fans for reason, I don’t know. Those 2 aren’t bad in their parts, but they aren’t that great either. Mcavoy and Fassbender totally blew them away.

Hugh as Wolverine is awesome though. In this case, it’s the opposite of what you said about Patrick Stuart as Prof X casting, he might not look the part, but he is great at playing Wolverine. He isn’t tall, and does’t have the compact physique, but the essence of he character he nails, from his smarts answers, to his animal rage. This being a money maker for Fox, they have to tone it down with his violence a bit, but I think Singer understands Wolverine more than any director that has used him so far. Him murdering all of Stryker’s men in the mansion, yelling and spit flying out, as if he was dying to kill someone, was single handily the best Wolverine sequence we have had on film. Hugh gets praise also, because he is playing a character totally unlike himself, and does an incredible job. It isn’t like Robert Downey, taking the character of Iron Man, making him Robert Downey and he is somehow is getting all this praise. Also I don’t believe he wears a wig to play Wolverine.

I agree with you on Jackman playing Wolverine, but I still say the only time the character was correct was in The Wolverine. Singer always has him talk about the animal rage, but we have never seen it. Singer's version of Logan is a lot like the current Marvel Comics version. Lots of talking about rage, anger, the animal within, but almost no showing. At least in the Wolverine they play with him trying to find something worth fighting for again, and his nobility. Had they not gone with Iron Monger as the final villain, but instead gone with an actual Samurai fight of Logan vs the newly young old guy(forget his name) it would have been great. A hand to hand fight would have allowed better character moments. Logan can't use the beast to win this fight. It has to be the man. But back ontopic, we have not seenthe "beast" yet. Wolverine is pretty neutered in the X-Men films.
 
How did they make X-Men their franchise, last I watched FC, they were both absent, and FC proved to be highly rated because of the breath of fresh air.

And I am talking about themselves as actors are limited, look beyond the X-Men franchise.

Last time I checked they came to play those character before first FC was even out. so they haven't had the best of careers they still play there parts well.
 
Back
Top