X-Men 3 Fricken Rocked!!

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Donegal: The Dark Phoenix storyline was done as well as can be expected, yes...with the time allowed to make it and the fact that it isn't the central focus of the film.

It could have been a lot better, but then it would have been a different film.

...on second thought, that's not a bad idea...

[OzzyKP]

Donegeal

[Donegeal]

Looking for a role are you?

[Q Classic]

Donegeal, I must dissent.

Spoiler:

While you're right about Alkali Lake, the editing and the scriptwriting wasn't of the calibre to suitably explain Scott/Cyclops's reaction--particularly because there were no hints to how much time had elapsed between the events of X2 and X3, as well as the fact that his character had very little screen time outside of expressing grief and then being scrubbed from the film.

In terms of the story, Cyclops is a cardboard cutout, to be disposed of as quickly as possible; hardly any emotional impact there.

An aside: granted, nobody likes Cyclops, but I find it amusing that nobody cares when he dies; it's only after X gets torn apart do the characters react, "OMGWTFBBBQ!"

As far as Mystique goes, she's always been treated as one of Magneto's right hands; her shapeshifting ability coupled with her espionage expertise begs for screen time. As far as Magneto's discarding her... well, I can't say his motivations and behaviors made complete sense in the movie--indeed, it seemed as if they were trying to shoehorn two different story arcs into one movie, when just one would have provided more than enough material.

As far as the moral angle--yes, there's some in there. Alas, it's never more than an afterthought, tossed in now and then. While the Xavier and Wolverine discussion was decent, it was never developed--it was a single scene that was easily tossed aside, since the focus of the movie wasn't the characters (main characters and cameos, all of whom were just props to advance the plot), but the pyrotechnics and special effects (the plot was there merely to string together those scenes semi-coherently.) They could have gone further with that discussion; the basis was right there, with the cure as a control--the question of what control is good and what is bad was merely hinted at once, but never actually approached.

For other moral arguments, they could have gotten enormous mileage out of Rogue's dilemma, now that she finally has a compelling story--except they didn't. Instead, she was given no screen time, again, a prop to advance the story, cast aside when convenient.

So, all told, I'll have to vehemently disagree with your notion that there was great writing and characterization in this movie, or even compelling moral discussions.

Worth the cost? Sure, but only as a popcorny movie. It's hardly "good" or "great"; at best, I can only say that it's dumb summer fun, all hollywood glamour and soulless glitz.

[Geronimo]

It was disappointing. But they could have made a good movie out of it by simply making it longer and writing better dialog. The biggest problem was trying to cram two main plots into one movie less than 2 hours long. Compared to that problem the poor dialog was a minor annoyance.

[Q Classic]

Here's the thing. There's nothing wrong with multi-threaded plots, so long as you have adequate space to develop them both.

With a run time of 105 minutes, there wasn't time to develop either satisfactorily. They could have picked one and done a good job of it; and while that doesn't ever really happen, and multi-threading tends to be more "realistic"--(when it rains, it pours)--frankly, the scriptwriters and the director failed to make either of the stories truly compelling.

It's like watching a Braves season. You get your hopes up, and then they fizzle because there's never a successful delivery.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
frankly, the scriptwriters and the director failed to make either of the stories truly compelling.

Ok... I can agree with you on this, to a point (as one of those youthful 80's X-men fans, I already knew the background for all the plot lines and am obviously biased), but it WAS entertaining. Isn't that what a movie is susposed to be? Was it worth your $7 (only $5.50 for me!!!) and 1 3/4 hours (BTW... that was WAY to short)?

Besides, all these complaints come down to two things:
1) Every movie could have been made better...
2) You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

[Q Classic]

Donegeal, don't trivialize my beef with the movie. If you want to simplify arguments that much, then yes, all my complaints are can be boiled down to #1; in your case, the rebuttal is as simple and un-nuanced as, "I liked it."

I'll disagree with you as to what a movie is for--it's not necessarily intended to be entertaining. In this case, perhaps that was the goal--however, I can't say I was truly entertained. Distracted by the CG pretties, yes, but entertained? Not wholly.

It's not just that the dialogue wasn't that grand, and quite weak in some places. It's that the stories weren't compelling, that while flashes of brilliance were seen, they were buried under the flashier special effects.

Characters weren't there to be fascinating, to be empathized with. They were props. The plot wasn't there to be riveting, to be followed and ruminated on. It was an anorexic skeleton to put shiny baubles and glittering lights on, about as deep and interesting as a model on Paris's fashion runways.

In short, the soul that the first two had, this one lost. Instead of being an interesting, comic book-pop culture-social/character study wrapped in hollywood glitz that the other ones were, this was just a hollywood glitz, big on flash, flimsy on substance.

I'm not complaining at having paid for it and seen it. I'm just pointing out that these glowing reviews are, in my humble opinion, not quite the whole picture.

Well, it could be worse. It could have been Stealth.

[Donegeal]

Just a difference of opinion, Q. I agree that the sub-plot lines could have been more developed, but, as I said, I'm biased because I already knew them. Scene after scene I got the feeling of great anticipation to see how such and such would be resolved because I knew the background. I can't get away from bias, but I can explain it to you in detail if you want (er... I mean the finer points of the plot lines, not my bias. That's easy to explain. I'm a geek. Always have been, always will be.).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Donegeal

Besides, all these complaints come down to two things:
1) Every movie could have been made better...
2) You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

I disagree. The complaint that the movie was too short to flesh out the two main plots could not possibly be directed at most movies. Certainly I wouldn't have levelled that criticism at the first two movies. Those two may have been too short but given that they didn't have two main plots it can be assumed that they didn't manage to aggravate the problem in either of them

Secondly the complaint that dialog was poor is a relative judgement. It's not a suggestion that the dialog wasn't perfect it's a complaint that it was well below average. If it was simply not perfect nobody would even bother mentioning it. In fact I think the dialog was honestly about as bad as star wars dialog which brings it far down into the level of being distracting.

The movie had some glaring flaws. I'll agree that it's probably worth seeing for fans of the first two movies but they should go to see it with the understanding that it *does* have these flaws so they can avoid some level of disappointment. I generally always enjoy movies more if I don't have unrealistic expectations beforehand.

[Q Classic]

Just a difference of opinion, Q. I agree that the sub-plot lines could have been more developed, but, as I said, I'm biased because I already knew them.

Donegeal, I'm quite familiar with the plotlines myself. I'm a geek too.

Scene after scene I got the feeling of great anticipation to see how such and such would be resolved because I knew the background.

Yeah, see, that wasn't my experience. Scene after scene, I was wondering why the lines and the characters lacked spirit, energy; I wondered why the Coke I was drinking tasted flat. I wondered why they made some questionable choices in the adaptation; I wondered how those who didn't know the backstory would make of the abbreviated, visual version.

I can't get away from bias, but I can explain it to you in detail if you want (er... I mean the finer points of the plot lines, not my bias. That's easy to explain. I'm a geek. Always have been, always will be.).

That's not the problem. The problem is that the movie just isn't good as a movie. It's good as a popcorny flick, nothing more.

[chequita guevara]

I think that could have been done better in two movies. It's kind of ironic. In the comics, Magneto started out as cartoony evil and gradually became more and more complex and human. In the movies, it's the opposite. I really hated the way the director disposed of characters left and right, with no regard for fans feelings on the matter. Star Wars can **** all over its fans and have them begging for more, but ever other pre-existing "property" where directors have messed with the fans (including Enterprise) was hated and hasn't done well.

It remains to be seen how X3 will do next weekend, but it had a ganbusters opening based on expectations.

[MarkG]

i skipped 4 pages of the thread to ask: do the comic books follow the same story. is this the way the story in the comic books end?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Markos,

The comic books and movie plots differ significantly.

[MarkG]

ah, that's great to know

Spoiler:

killing a main character every 10 mins felt a bit strange you know
(not to talk about the scene with all the graves....