X2 (2003) (1 Viewer)

Does anyone know if Storm will actually fly in the movie or are they saving that for the next sequel as well?

[Alex Spindler]

Perhaps the question can be phrased as:
Would you rather have Superman I or Superman II. Superman I had a larger emotional core and had Superman fighting a human. Superman II had less drama and emotion in favor of more spectacular battles with equivalent enemies.

Of course, the worst example of large scale battles had to be Superman IV, but that movie is far to crappy to be made available as an option. But Superman II was not a bad film, but I don't know of many that prefer it to S1.

 

[John Doran]

I didn't see him windmilling his arms or doing other unskilled maneuvers.

i did. and i was watching specifically for it, too, because it bothered me so much in the first movie.

but whatever you think about wolverine's fighting skill in X2, it's not martial arts skill, you know? a fight between two individuals who are trained martial artists would look totally different than the fights wolverine has had with mystique and deathstrike; depending on the style of martial arts, it would look like the fighting in the Matrix, or it would look like the fighting in Blade II.

and i agree that he dispatched the soldiers handily - it just didn't require any martial skill to do what he did. balls, perhaps, and big knives and no fear of breaking a bone or getting cut, but no real skill.

and i hate kicking martial arts choreography (with a few rare exceptions). i think fight-choreography looks best when it's done exactly the way it was done in blade II.

- jd

 

[David Rogers]

The last several pages of this thread, I believe, are why comic books have such a horrid reputation in modern American society.

It's bordered on rude, some of the back and forth, in my opinion.

Comics are an evolving storyline medium. Characters are created by one or a few folks, and created visually by the same collaboration. Then they start passing from one set of hands to another, one mind to the next, one guy or girl with ideas and visions for these characters to the next.

Things change. Things cloud. They're rewritten, modified, reinvinted, revisited, updated, rnhanced, corrected, or flat out changed just because.

There is no "definitive" character for any comic character unless the character appeared in a short series then was retired, by the original creator. Each writer will modify the voice, the thoughts, the passions, the intentions, the words, of each character they take over from a prior writer.

That's before we even get into costume changes, which are often quite frequent for some characters. Even characters with iconic images still see that same iconic image fiddled with from time to time (Superman and Spider-man have both seen costume modifications over the years, even if small, still changed).

So, frankly, pitching a fit about how the (movie/book/comic book/tvseries/etc...) doesn't fit with your personal favorite 'flavor' of a particular character seems quite silly to me.

Because each character is like ice cream; they've been made into dozens upon dozens of flavors by now. And will continue to be so. The "movie X men" are simply one more flavor, same as each writer on each X Men comic title made flavors, as each special series or major character change did.

 

[Jeff_S]

Alex,

I believe "windmilling his arms" is one of Wolverine's trademarked moves in the Capcom fighting games... it's called Berserker Barrage (as I'm sure anyone who's played it has heard 800 billion times)!

Matt,

If memory serves me right (I sound like Chairman Kaga on the Iron Chef), in classic X-Men lore, Nightcrawler just had to deal with how he looked and how people reacted to him. He pretty much hung out at the mansion to avoid having to deal with the public. Besides, having image inducer technology kind of trivializes Mystique's mutant shape-changing powers or Mastermind's mutant illusion powers (much as the Legion of Superheroes' standard-issue flight rings trivializes the power of flight as a superpower).

John/Alex,

I agree with John that the Hulk is probably going to suffer from the same problems that plagues many superhero stories-- compelling villains who have a reasonable chance of defeating the hero. I would love to see a full-on battle between the X-Men and the Brotherhood (as in the classic battle to prevent the Brotherhood from killing Senator Kelly). I think X2 delved more into this territory than the first one and was a better, more exciting movie for it. Strange as it sounds, I don't believe that emotional poignancy and spectacular battles are mutually exclusive (for me, Fellowship of the Ring was a great combination of both).

 

[Dan Paolozza]

The first quote I agree with, although using the adjective 'very' may be difficult to defend. I am/was a huge fan of the comics, right up until around the issue where Storm died, so I can't address anything from that point onward.

And I love these movies, especially X2. Yes, many of the characters are different from the books - all them are pared down, across the board. I might even agree that some are very different (Rogue in particular). However, saying that any one of them is fundamentally different from the comic book characters is just short of indefensible.

Is there a recorded list somewhere stating which attributes of each character is fundamental to that character? To me, anyone could defend any given attribute as fundamental to the character. Judgement on this sort of thing is totally dependant on the reader/viewer/beholder. What I might consider fundamental to a character another person might consider superfluous.

Looking at Wolverine, I might feel/think: He looks pretty much the same, has his healing factor, claws, adamantium skeleton, and super senses. For me, that's every important superficial attribute. So he's not in spandex with huge eye plates or whatever they're called, and he isn't a ninja anymore. Never really felt these things were important in the first place.

They kept the mysterious past which haunts him, kept the human-experiment part of it, kept his generally cynical and anti-social demeanor, and the conflict he faces as he learns the value of friendship, teamwork, and 'the greater good.' So he isn't fluent in Japanese, and no berserker rage...what do I care? Their absense isn't affecting the feel of the character for me.

So, I feel like movie-Wolverine is damn-near identical to the feel I got out of the comic book Wolverine. Take in to account that the entire world or universe of them movie is pared down as well, and relatively speaking, there's been very few sacrifices at all, let alone anything fundamental.

John, despite all this reasoning, it's not going to change the fact that your argument is solid. When you read the comics, Wolverine's "Bruce Lee" fighting ability is paramount to his character. Maybe his much more extreme berserkerness is as well. Maybe when you imagine what "makes" Wolverine, his penchant for excess violence is inseparable to the image and impression.

However, those things are only "fundamental" if you feel they are; therefore, arguing that Wolverine or any given character is similar to the ones in the comics is certainly not "silly," (whoever it was that asserted as much).

The analogies of "turning Gandalf into a troll" or "Aragorn into a fat inkeeper" are ridiculous. First, I'd like one example of any of the X-Men portrayed that is truly analagous to that sort of physical alteration.

On the content side of the coin, you may have a case with Rogue. Although I feel the fundamental aspects of Rogue were held faithful in the movie, she's greatly changed from the Rogue of the comics. Personally, I think every change made was for the better, but regardless, there's some serious contrast. However, I can't say with any integrity that even Rogue's adaptation is analagous to turning Aragorn in to a fat inkeeper.

 

[John Doran]

Would you rather have Superman I or Superman II. Superman I had a larger emotional core and had Superman fighting a human. Superman II had less drama and emotion in favor of more spectacular battles with equivalent enemies.

i don't really agree with the dichotomy you make: i believe that you can have a movie of incredible emotional depth and power that also has apocalyptic battles in it.

thinking that you can't seems to me to imply that you can't really care about superheroes precisely as super, but only as heroic - that the depth of the emotional core of superman I could only have been due to the engagement of superman's humanity rather than his super-powers.

personally, i think what matters about battles in movies is just caring about the participants, whatever the means with which the war is waged - be it with swords in braveheart, guns in saving private ryan, laser-powered space-cruisers in return of the jedi, or heat-vision and flight and super-strength in a superhero movie. what matters is the characters, and what makes superheroes the characters they are is, at least in part, their super-powers.

what's more, i think simple visual presentation can be a fantastic source of emotional power. take the bullet-time of the matrix-movies: the raw emotional impact of watching neo dodge the bullets in the first movie, and trinity going out of the window in the second, is amplified tenfold simply by the way both were filmed (for me, anyway). in the same way, i reacted powerfully to the filming of cyclops blasting jean gray in X2, just as i did to watching spiderman swing around the city at the very end of his movie.

these are the things i have waited my whole life to see convincingly portrayed on film. and i want to see them. as much as i can.

- jd

 

[John Doran]

i am at a loss to understand how you can say this:

The analogies of "turning Gandalf into a troll" or "Aragorn into a fat inkeeper" are ridiculous. First, I'd like one example of any of the X-Men portrayed that is truly analagous to that sort of physical alteration.

presumably, if i feel that gandalf-as-a-troll and a non-martial-artist-wolverine are equally fundamental differences, then they are.

- jd

 

[JonZ]

"Besides Jonz, your opinion is biased. I know why you love these movies"

Whatever do u mean? Thats not true man, I havent liked most of the films shes been in.Ive watched Finding Forrester, but Ive never seen it. I couldnt tell u what its really about

A few thoughts.....

Ive said this twice before and Ill say it again. All of those who are talking about Wolverines uncomparible fighting skills is thinking of the "popular" Wolverine.
As I said earlier, Cyclops was able to handle the guy in full beserker rage and I have numerous issues of him being knocked out of a fight pretty easily.A blast from Cyclops visor and ONE punch from Colossus was enough to knock the runt unconscious.

Again your thinking of the Wolverine of the comics-after years and years of experience. The Wolverine in the movies has never faced the Brood or Proteus or Dr Doom or Sentinels and so on. Before Sabertooth he was fighting guys in bars for gas money.

Again I cant (really)complain about the characters and the way theyve been handled. Sure I have some problems with this and that but its not enough to make it unenjoyable to me.I feel that Logans backstory was handled well enough. You found out how he got the adamantium skeleton and claws.Do we really need to know what led up to him volunteering for the procedure? He wasnt a nice person and and did alot of bad things.Ok,he decided to move foward and so should we.

I actually think Singer deserves alot of credit for the characters weve been shown so far - Nightcrawler,Colossus(Both signed for X3)and Iceman instead of the "cool" Gambit,Cable and the like.And Singer has already said Beast is overdo.Now if they decided to make Beast brown or black so they didnt have another blue Mutant running around would people complain becuase it isnt faithful to the comics? Then peopel will say he should be human with the oversized hands and feet becuase he didn turn blue until years later. Theres so much history in these characters that youll never make everyone happy.Which is why you should stick to the basics.

Rogues first appearance was in Avengers annual #10 (a excellent issue by the way). Rogue is a newcomer and already she going toe to toe with 2 of the most of the most powerful people in Marvel - Thor and Wonderman. Not to mention Iron Man and the rest of the Avengers.Come on!You want inconsistancy-look at the way Rogue looks in that issue and compare it to the way she was drawn a few years later - BIG difference.When she first appeared she looked like Steve Martins insane carnival girlfriend from The Jerk,now she looks like a Pentouse pinup.

These are comic books - were people become very adapt at their powers in a ridiculously short amount of time. Ill use this example again.While recently going through back issues of Alpha Flight when Aurora steps off a roof in a moment of dispair,realizes she can fly and IMMEDIATELY is a expert at flight.

Im sorry but that just wont work in a movie that is based in reality.If u think the film shouldnt be, then you should remember that the comic book version WAS created as a result of what was going on in the world at the time.What is the basics of the X-men? Read God Loves Man Kills and other issues that really showed how special X-Men were when it was well written.

No one thought X-Men would work on film - I think the movies have done a good job so far - the basics of what made the team special are there. These are the characters we loved - theyre just alittle different.

The nitpicking only takes awayfrom the enjoyment. If you want the comic book versions, then read the comic books.

 

[John Doran]

There is no "definitive" character for any comic character unless the character appeared in a short series then was retired, by the original creator. Each writer will modify the voice, the thoughts, the passions, the intentions, the words, of each character they take over from a prior writer.

as i have stated, i think this is just false. whether or not a new writer tried, she could not, for instance, make it so that superman was rally born in sub-saharan africa and had no super-powers at all. that just wouldn't be superman.

and i use hyperbole just to illustrate that if it's possible that some changes actually result in a change of character rather than a change to character, then it's a further matter to determine just which changes do so.

also remember that it's one thing to take a character as he is and then modify him as a plot-point, and entirely another to rewrite that character in a (fundamentally) different way.

for example, while writing a storyline involving cyclops losing his optic blasts (perhaps after a run-in with some powerful enemy) obviously doesn't mean that he stops being cyclops, that's just not the same thing as writing a version of the x-men where cyclops never had optic blasts.

- jd

 

[John Doran]

Aurora steps off a roof in a moment of dispair,realizes she can fly and IMMEDIATELY is a expert at flight.

if you don't want the comic versions, then don't read them.

- jd

 

[Dan Paolozza]

All too true

Looks like I baited myself into asserting that there wasn't any difference between the comic and movie adaptations that was as extreme as the analogies presented. My first point you quoted I stand by. The second, (the ridiculousness of the analogies) I readily admit I strayed into personal opinion on the matter. A shift in gears mid-post, and I didn't state as much.

So although I am surprised that someone might hold these comparisons tantamount to each other: if you feel Wolverine's martial arts skills (vs a lack thereof) are as important as Aragorn being a ripped warrior vs a fat innkeeper, (or Gandalf vs troll-Gandalf), then I can see how you'd be disappointed in movie-Wolverine.

Man, you must really love and value Wolverine's martial arts skills!

 

[John Doran]

Man, you must really love and value Wolverine's martial arts skills!

well, it's not so much that i love them, it's just that i grew up reading comics and forming an idea of wolverine to the point where, when i watch the wolverine fight in the movie, it's genuinely unrecognizable to me as wolverine. i mean, it looks like wolverine, etc., but he just doesn't act like wolverine.

it would be like watching a movie about superman where he's not super-strong - he may have everything else that superman has, and the movie may be in all other respects a great movie; i would bet, though, that a great many people would just be puzzled and confused every time superman couldn't lift something.

that's all.

- jd

 

[Luis S]

You know because of this thread Ive discovered Im a mutant. Born with the ability to endlessly debate until my opponent succumbs to my opinions! But seriously it looks like I stirred some stuff up with that last post so let me try to clarify...

Andy Sheets,



Ok thats it bub, now its personal! *pops claws again*

Jeff_S

You misunderstood me.(man I got to work on that) While I agree season one stunk. Later episodes showed that multiple characters could be handled well if you don't try to do it all at once. Changes made in the cartoon made sense. Colossus was with magneto. Why? His sister was held as blackmail(I think,I don't really remember) Not necessarily cause Colossus was a bad guy. Now explain why Sabretooth was an incoherent growling moron compared to the professional and deadly assassin in the comic? How is a loser like toad able to best Storm? Or why is Wolverine such a wimp in the movies?

Rogue is put to much better use in the cartoon. She doesn't run around looking sad all the time like the movie. She uses her powers dynamically,in the movie? Useless. Night crawler has always used an image inducer. And if that bothers you where does his make up disappear to in the movie? I guess its not teleporting proof. It a different take yes. But it still stays true to the characters. Unlike the films...

Alex,

Wolvie can just stand there and still kick a normal guys ass. I agree that seeing Wolvie do wire-fu would be ridiculous though. He just needed a more believable threat. And Deathstrike and Mystique don't cut it. Just the same his fights could have been made more interesting...

I shall return with more...

Later,

Luis S

 

[JonZ]

Jordan I was trying to say (not very well)these films are based in reality while reading comics u tend to "accept"that someone becomes a expert at their abilities with relative ease.I wasnt nitpicking,just using those as examples to show my point. I had NO problem at all with those examples when I was reading those issues.BUT I dont think those examples would work well in a movie.

I can seperate the comic books from the movies. I dont campare the two. And I enjoy both for what they are - different.

 

[Luis S]

Let me put it this way. Super hero movies should be just that, SUPER. Any director that feels its "silly" or to "far fetched" Has no buisness making comic book movies more "realistic".

It what makes the comics fun. If I want to see slightly better that average people fight Ill go see Bad Boys II. If I want sci-fi heros with gifts that give them a slight edge over normal beings Ill go watch Star Wars. But when I sit down to see a superhero movie I want to be blown away! People throwing cars, spinning the earth backwards to alter time, and so on. Dont put limits on characters that I know have very few,its just disapointing.

And if you are going to make changes,make sense out of them! Do it with purpose, not cause you can. Overall it was a nice try but it could have been a whole lot more. I cant wait to see the lame direction their sure to take with Phoenix and the sentinels. Ill take bets on that one.

Later,

Luis S

 

[Chris James]

Deathstrike? dont even get me started.

Now, I've stayed out of this little tiff you guys are having, but this is BLASPHEMY! Just a reminder (in case you forget my earlier post), NO NEGATIVE TALK ABOUT MY GIRL!

Oh, and Luis, it's a shame you can't just enjoy the movie for what it is. Even if it does have its faults (in your mind), it's better than most crap that comes out.

And don't forget, leave Lady Dee be! Or else....

 

[Luis S]

Oh oh,you want some of this to Chris? *pops claws* though I agree She is a super hottie. Totaly would let her kick my ass any day. Maybe thats why Logan fought so shitty?

I dont hate the movie. To me like I said its ok,but it didnt blow me away like I had hoped. Ill still probably pick up the DVD though. The wife enjoyed it more than I. Though I started her reading my old comics,so dont be surprised if I get her to back me up eventually!

Luis S

 

[Alex Spindler]

Well, I took a breaking dam being held back by a burning phoenix to be large in scale, as I did with the battle on Liberty Island. But your mileage may vary. Again, my personal preference moves away from Superman and Zod's team punching each other through buildings and blowing people down the street in favor of Deathstrike pulling herself off of Wolverine's claws and then rapidly striking him over and over. It may be small in scale, but it was impressive to me and felt just right for the world they were in.

 

[TheLongshot]

John, Luis,

I can understand the desire for huge battles, but there are a couple of problems with that:

1) Expensive (Why do you think France's Fantastic Four isn't getting made?)
2) Um... Where's the plot?

In the end, cool action scenes themselves leave me cold. You need plot to tie it all together. You get movies like "The Mummy Returns", which has lots of cool action, but is devoid of substance.

As for developing things slowly, you don't have that luxury in films. You are lucky if you are able to get it right the first time. The more money being spent, the more compromises that need to be made. I've been hearing that Ang Lee has had to make a few just to get his film made.

Yes, Luis, Daredevil is not a good film, but it does illistrate my points. It tries too hard to put cool action scenes and tributes to Frank Miller in the film to actually tell a decent story. My point is the movie you want probably wouldn't end up being a very good movie, and probably would only be accessable to people who have been fans for 20 years. (Which I am.)

I have a feeling the film you would enjoy would look like every other comic book film, and that is what the X-Men are not. They are about what Singer focused on: a band of outcasts trying to find a way to live with humanity, and to stop those on both sides who are trying to prevent that. How can you get any more core than that?

Jason

 

[Alex Spindler]

Good points Jason.