Batman-Online.com

It looks like that Bryan Singer has cast somebody to play Quicksilver, who is supposed to appear in The Avengers 2. But it looks like Quicksilver may appear in both movies since Fox and Marvel are contractually obligated to do so:

Source: http://www.slashfilm.com/quicksilver-to-appear-in-bryan-singers-x-men-days-of-future-past-and-joss-whedons-the-avengers-2/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/quicksilver-to-appear-in-bryan-singers-x-men-days-of-future-past-and-joss-whedons-the-avengers-2/)

Here is a screenshot of a tweet that Singer has now deleted.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fschmoesknow.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FScreen-shot-2013-05-23-at-12.01.47-PM1-480x304.png&hash=3848e8bcde1986d3f98947a3ac30a9821f8ba1dd)

Just how many characters is this film going to have exactly? At this rate, this film is going to be just another mess just like the last three films. I didn't care for First Class that much either, primarily because it nobody could make up their minds on whether or not if it was a prequel or a reboot; more confusion and contradiction in the franchise's continuity.

I gave up on the overrated X-Men movie series a long time ago but it seems like Fox want to flog as much money out of that franchise as they can.

Laughing Fish, maybe I'm wrong about this but do you share my suspicions about Fox's motivations for incorporating Quicksilver into this film? I get the impression that they're just using him to 'beat Marvel to the punch' seeing as Joss Whedon has been quite vocal about his desire to use the character in 'The Avengers 2'.  Maybe I'm being unfair but that strikes me as pretty low and yet far from out of character for the clueless, money-grubbing philistines at Fox.

Also, does anyone else feel like Singer is a bit of a hack these days?  'The Usual Suspects' is feeling like a very long time ago and in view of all the mediocre films he's foisted on us since I'm wondering whether 'Suspects' was ever that good to begin with in retrospect.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 25 May  2013, 07:27

Laughing Fish, maybe I'm wrong about this but do you share my suspicions about Fox's motivations for incorporating Quicksilver into this film? I get the impression that they're just using him to 'beat Marvel to the punch' seeing as Joss Whedon has been quite vocal about his desire to use the character in 'The Avengers 2'.  Maybe I'm being unfair but that strikes me as pretty low and yet far from out of character for the clueless, money-grubbing philistines at Fox.

As long as it doesn't change the script for Avengers 2, I couldn't give a damn what Fox or Bryan Singer does. As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me that the Quicksilver will probably go unnoticed like twenty other mutant characters went by throughout this franchise. For instance, I had no idea that Psylocke was in The Last Stand, and I saw that piece of crap.

I used to be a fan of the the first two movies Singer made, but they haven't really held up well at all. But I must confess my interest in X-Men in general has been going downhill for a while now. I getting fed up with the constant metaphors for civil rights, and the contrived love triangle between Wolverine, Jean Grey and Cyclops.  ::)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 25 May  2013, 07:58
As long as it doesn't change the script for Avengers 2, I couldn't give a damn what Fox or Bryan Singer does.

I totally agree but that was my fear; that Fox I trying to undermine the superior Avengers films, or may inadvertently undermine them, by getting this character out first.  In view of the first Avengers massive and deserved success I doubt Marvel Studios will have any qualms whatsoever about going with Joss Whedon's vision but there's always a possibility that the studio might now turn around and say 'well the "X-Men" films have already done Quicksilver and we don't want to risk being accused of repeating them so...' and thus cancel Quicksilver, and by extension Scarlett Witch's, introduction for commercial reasons.

I doubt it will happen like that but Fox have potentially made things more complicated and like you state, their version of Quicksilver is unlikely to shine much like many of the other X-Men characters that have been unceremoniously stuffed with little development in the previous instalments.

QuoteI used to be a fan of the the first two movies Singer made, but they haven't really held up well at all.

You won't agree with this statement but I don't consider Singer's 'X-Men' films to be much better that 'X-Men: Last Stand' and it's arguable that the various issues with that film stemmed from Singer's decision to leave the series, thereby leaving Fox in a bit of a squeeze as far as rush-releasing the third movie out in time (still mainly Fox's help but Singer's casual decision to ditch the series speaks volumes about his 'commitment' to the X-Men characters), and the fact that Jamie Marsden followed him to do a pointless throwaway role in 'Superman Returns' thus meaning that Cyclops had to be written out of the third X-Men film in the most undignified manner possible (personally, I don't have a problem in killing off major characters in franchises - I admire filmmakers' guts in doing so - however, Cyclops was already so marginalised in the first two Singer-directed 'X-Men' films that he should have at least gotten a decent send-off if nothing else).

QuoteYou won't agree with this statement but I don't consider Singer's 'X-Men' films to be much better that 'X-Men: Last Stand' and it's arguable that the various issues with that film stemmed from Singer's decision to leave the series, thereby leaving Fox in a bit of a squeeze as far as rush-releasing the third movie out in time (still mainly Fox's help but Singer's casual decision to ditch the series speaks volumes about his 'commitment' to the X-Men characters), and the fact that Jamie Marsden followed him to do a pointless throwaway role in 'Superman Returns' thus meaning that Cyclops had to be written out of the third X-Men film in the most undignified manner possible (personally, I don't have a problem in killing off major characters in franchises - I admire filmmakers' guts in doing so - however, Cyclops was already so marginalised in the first two Singer-directed 'X-Men' films that he should have at least gotten a decent send-off if nothing else).

And that is exactly why I consider The Last Stand to be a piece of crap. Key characters get killed off, but the emotional impact of their deaths came across as apathetic - kinda like the Gotham's reaction to Batman's return in The Dark Knight Rises.  ;)

The Last Stand felt like an ugly cash grab, from having too many characters than it ought to have and contributed nothing to the story, to important key moments being rushed and prematurely tossed aside i.e. Cyclops's and Xavier's death, to Wolverine killing Jean Grey in the end. And the action was just as bad as the shaky cam garbage shown in Batman Begins.

As far as never rating Singer's movies, fair enough. But at least those films were consistent in terms of the narrative within the continuity unlike the rest of the franchise has now. But I expect Days of Future Past to continue the trend. If Fox does end up undermining Avengers 2, then expect an angry boycott and hopefully a box office bomb (which might won't be happening unless the movie is a real stinker).

(Counting down to colors expressing his hatred of Singer and Superman Returns in 3...2...1... ;D

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 25 May  2013, 10:15
(Counting down to colors expressing his hatred of Singer and Superman Returns in 3...2...1... ;D

;D

You won't see me taking issue with colors over 'Superman Returns'.  I don't hate it anywhere near as much as he does but I entirely respect and sympathise with most of his issues with the film and that movie is certainly no favourite of mine.  However, my point is that Singer's 'X-Men' films are just as bad, if not worse.

The 'X-Men' films' biggest failing, and something Singer seems to have set up for the entire series, is its over-emphasis on Wolverine (ironically, my favourite Wolverine moment in the entire series is his fairly hilarious cameo in 'First Class' where he's on-screen for no more than twenty seconds).  If Wolverine had been introduced gradually into the series I wouldn't have minded but he dominates proceedings from the first film onwards and barely gives the other X-Men a chance to shine, apart from perhaps Professor X.  Hugh Jackman is fine in the role and has bundles of charisma (even though from a strict comic-book perspective Wolverine isn't really the handsome, witty, Han Solo-ish iconoclast he's portrayed as being in the film, which is more Gambit's thing - Wolverine is an aggressive, hot-headed, practically feral loner) but I would have preferred a more team-orientated dynamic as opposed to a slavish love-letter to a single character (it even took Magneto to remind the audience that there were other heroes in the film: "You?  My dear boy, who ever said I wanted you?" he says to Wolverine at one stage).

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 25 May  2013, 10:41

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 25 May  2013, 10:15
(Counting down to colors expressing his hatred of Singer and Superman Returns in 3...2...1... ;D

;D

You won't see me taking issue with colors over 'Superman Returns'.  I don't hate it anywhere near as much as he does but I entirely respect and sympathise with most of his issues with the film and that movie is certainly no favourite of mine.  However, my point is that Singer's 'X-Men' films are just as bad, if not worse.

The 'X-Men' films' biggest failing, and something Singer seems to have set up for the entire series, is its over-emphasis on Wolverine (ironically, my favourite Wolverine moment in the entire series is his fairly hilarious cameo in 'First Class' where he's on-screen for no more than twenty seconds).  If Wolverine had been introduced gradually into the series I wouldn't have minded but he dominates proceedings from the first film onwards and barely gives the other X-Men a chance to shine, apart from perhaps Professor X.  Hugh Jackman is fine in the role and has bundles of charisma (even though from a strict comic-book perspective Wolverine isn't really the handsome, witty, Han Solo-ish iconoclast he's portrayed as being in the film, which is more Gambit's thing - Wolverine is an aggressive, hot-headed, practically feral loner) but I would have preferred a more team-orientated dynamic as opposed to a slavish love-letter to a single character (it even took Magneto to remind the audience that there were other heroes in the film: "You?  My dear boy, who ever said I wanted you?" he says to Wolverine at one stage).

That's fair enough, I have no affinity towards those films anyway. I remember liking X2 a lot when I first saw it, but it pales after multiple viewings. It's a film that has a handful of good scenes rather than a good story.

I agree that Wolverine is overexposed. I would prefer that he would be introduced in a second film, where at first he is a member of the Brotherhood of Mutants until he converts to the X-Men to beat Magneto (which I've heard that's what happened in the Ultimate comics version, I believe). But the problem with X-Men is there are too many characters to choose from, and a lot of them can't fit into a two hour film anyway. The way Fox has handled the franchise makes it worse. I think whoever takes control of this franchise in the future should consider sticking to the same group of heroes, and then gradually change them in sequels.

So far, I find it sad that the the only X-Men adaptation that I liked about this franchise is the Uncaged Edition video game tie-in to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Gory game, even the story is better than the film itself, and Hugh Jackman sounds more menacing here than he does in this game than in any of the movies i.e. quips "Thanks darlin', I'll call you some time!" after decapitating a female mutant to pieces.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 25 May  2013, 11:05
I agree that Wolverine is overexposed. I would prefer that he would be introduced in a second film, where at first he is a member of the Brotherhood of Mutants until he converts to the X-Men to beat Magneto (which I've heard that's what happened in the Ultimate comics version, I believe). But the problem with X-Men is there are too many characters to choose from, and a lot of them can't fit into a two hour film anyway. The way Fox has handled the franchise makes it worse. I think whoever takes control of this franchise in the future should consider sticking to the same group of heroes, and then gradually change them in sequels.

I agree with you about the over-abundance of characters.  Too many of them amount to no more than brief ciphers anyway.  I appreciate that we are meant to understand this is a world full of various mutants of various abilities but so many great characters from the comic-books who were more than simply their mutant ability (hey, they actually had personalities and backstories like all the rest of us) seem short-changed on-screen.

If Fox, or whoever (preferably not Fox for that matter  ;)) were to ever reboot I'd like there to be an emphasis on the original X-Men team, preferably as youngsters (so Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, Angel and Ice-Man), which paid homage to the original 1960s comic-books, although I'm not necessarily suggesting I'd want the reboot to be set in the 60s.  I'd want the filmmakers to keep things simple to begin with.  The X-Men stories gradually become complicated enough without starting off on an overly-convoluted basis.  Also, cast some actors with a degree of charisma in the parts (Kelsey Grammer was great as an older Beast, but James Marsden, Famke Janssen, Ben Foster and Shawn Ashmore were dull and practically sleep-walked through their parts - no wonder Hugh Jackman completely outshone them all) and try to retain the characters' original personalities.  Angel was a dashing playboy in the comic-books not a weedy, scared emo kid.  Iceman was a witty, fun-loving practical joker in the comic-books not a somnolescent dullard).

I really, really hope they won't mess up this one, because Vaughn's First Class was great and deserves a good sequel.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 19 Jun  2013, 05:56
I really, really hope they won't mess up this one, because Vaughn's First Class was great and deserves a good sequel.

I gave up on the X-Men series a long while ago.  Although First Class was comparatively decent in relation to the earlier X-Men films I had hoped that it was going to be a reboot featuring the original X-Men team as youngsters (i.e. Cyclops, Jean Gray, The Beast, Angel and Ice-Man)rather than a prequel within the continuity established by Bryan Singer.  Sorry to say, Fox, IMHO, have no clue how to do comic-book movies (especially if the rumours concerning the Fantastic Four and Daredevil reboots are anything to go by).  In fact, I don't think they know how to do franchise films period these days; they've lost the rights to the 'Star Wars' films and it's a long time since the last decent 'Die Hard' and 'Aliens' movie.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 19 Jun  2013, 09:15

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 19 Jun  2013, 05:56
I really, really hope they won't mess up this one, because Vaughn's First Class was great and deserves a good sequel.

Sorry to say, Fox, IMHO, have no clue how to do comic-book movies (especially if the rumours concerning the Fantastic Four and Daredevil reboots are anything to go by). 

The Daredevil rights have gone back to Marvel Studios as of this April.
http://au.ign.com/articles/2013/04/23/marvel-studios-confirms-it-has-daredevil-rights-back (http://au.ign.com/articles/2013/04/23/marvel-studios-confirms-it-has-daredevil-rights-back)

[double post]

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 19 Jun  2013, 09:37

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Wed, 19 Jun  2013, 09:15

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 19 Jun  2013, 05:56
I really, really hope they won't mess up this one, because Vaughn's First Class was great and deserves a good sequel.

Sorry to say, Fox, IMHO, have no clue how to do comic-book movies (especially if the rumours concerning the Fantastic Four and Daredevil reboots are anything to go by). 

The Daredevil rights have gone back to Marvel Studios as of this April.
http://au.ign.com/articles/2013/04/23/marvel-studios-confirms-it-has-daredevil-rights-back (http://au.ign.com/articles/2013/04/23/marvel-studios-confirms-it-has-daredevil-rights-back)

Not to divert the thread but I kind of wish the rights stayed with Fox. That Joe Carnahan concept sounded really cool:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Watch-What-Joe-Carnahan-Daredevil-Would-Have-Looked-Like-32482.html

And it's not like Marvel's going to use the character anytime soon...

My biggest issue with the X-Verse is how virtually none of it lines up.  For my money, the 2 best of the series are X-Men, and X-Men:First Class.  I enjoyed X:FC in the theaters so much I attempted a double feature of XFC and X-Men some time in the past year, and even then the story presented in XFC is far different than the the backstory revealed in X-Men's exposition.  (X-Position?)

I'm not too excited about any of the new X-features at this point.  Unless they wipe the slate entirely clean (no 'vague backstory' thank you, just a reboot) and start over. 

Perhaps Singer's film will explain the continuity errors as being some sort of lapse in the time-space continuum?

Quote from: phantom stranger on Sat,  6 Jul  2013, 19:12
Perhaps Singer's film will explain the continuity errors as being some sort of lapse in the time-space continuum?

It has been suggested that Days of Future Past will erase some 'continuity errors' - which might mean pretending that The Last Stand and Origins may not have happened. Or like you said, happened in some kind of multiverse timeline.  :-\ I'm not fussed either way. It will have to take a lot of convincing for me to bother trying to see it.

Does anyone know what the thinking behind Peter Dinklage's casting as Bolivar Trask is?

I'm a massive Dinklage fan and I appreciate casting that is outside the box but ultimately in a comic-book movie that deals head-on with genetic differences one can't ignore the fact that Trask will be played by a dwarf.  On the face of it, it seems bizarre that someone who would have experienced discrimination throughout his entire life because of his own genetic 'abnormality' should be the man responsible for creating robots designed to root out and destroy the Mutants.  Perhaps Trask feels bitter towards the super-powered Mutants in view of his own disability but regardless of Trask's reasons for hating the Mutants, or at least inadvertently being the one potentially responsible for their destruction, I hope Dinklage's dwarfism is not treated as incidental to the story, as PC as that may seem, because I simply find it hard to believe that a dwarf would not make any parallels between his own experiences and those of the Mutants.

Since Bolivar Trask already appeared in The Last Stand, does this contradict the franchise's continuity further? Or will TLS be forgotten altogether? 

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 31 Jul  2013, 07:20
Since Bolivar Trask already appeared in The Last Stand, does this contradict the franchise's continuity further? Or will TLS be forgotten altogether?

Another reason why the current X-Man series annoys me.  What is it with Bryan Singer thinking he can make sequels which ask the audience to undergo collective amnesia with respect to the last few instalments? 

Is Cyclops in the new film?  If not then I assume that his death in The Last Stand is still 'canon'.

Singer doesn't have a clue about comic book films. I fear he'll ruin this one.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Wed, 31 Jul  2013, 12:46
Singer doesn't have a clue about comic book films. I fear he'll ruin this one.

That franchise is already tarnished for me.  However, to be fair there are the nuggets of some interesting ideas and concepts regarding discrimination and the ways in which the various mutants challenge that discrimination throughout the franchise to keep one's interest for at least one screening, but I won't encourage Fox by paying to see any of the X-Men films at the cinema.

I haven't paid to see any of them either. Singer robbed the movies of the fun and adventure that the cartoons and the comics had. He made everything so black-and-white and bland. Vaughn did a better job with First Class, but now that Singer is back at the helm I know this next one isn't going to be that good.

Checked out The Wolverine today, and TLS is definitely acknowledged. Can't see them completely ignoring it, especially since the film leads into Days of Future Past quite nicely, but given that time travel is a factor in the upcoming X-Men movie, there's ways of 'correcting' the issues with continuity if Singer and company want to put some focus on that.

Can't believe I'm about to defend Bryan Singer but here goes.

The first X-Men movie came out when comic book movies were less in vogue than they are now. For true or false and for better or worse, the assumption was that wide audiences wouldn't accept something that was too "comic booky" so X-Men had a very grounded feel to it. It's not lost on me that First Class must continue with the established tone but it's a lot more heightened and stylized than the first X-Men was.

Simply put, Singer has more leeway now to play with exactly how sci-fi he can make the X-Men. If the rumored fixes and tweaks do get made, the door is wide open for something much more comic book-oriented... and I think the time is right for that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  1 Aug  2013, 15:21
Can't believe I'm about to defend Bryan Singer but here goes.

The first X-Men movie came out when comic book movies were less in vogue than they are now. For true or false and for better or worse, the assumption was that wide audiences wouldn't accept something that was too "comic booky" so X-Men had a very grounded feel to it. It's not lost on me that First Class must continue with the established tone but it's a lot more heightened and stylized than the first X-Men was.

Simply put, Singer has more leeway now to play with exactly how sci-fi he can make the X-Men. If the rumored fixes and tweaks do get made, the door is wide open for something much more comic book-oriented... and I think the time is right for that.

Good point but my issues with the current X-Men franchise (and I say 'current' in the hope we will one day get a reboot) is not simply from a stylistic POV.  I think you're probably right about the mindset for making the first few X-Men films and the concern that they would be 'too comic-booky' possibly in the wake of the Schumacher Batman films, hence the no-frills black leather costumes instead of bright yellow and blue spandex.  As you suggest 'First Class' was visually more heightened which had a lot to do with its 60s setting and classic James Bond aping tone, and from what I've read and seen in terms of footage (i.e. the picture of Peter Dinklage sporting a porn-star 70s look as Bolivar Trask) 'Days of Future Past' may continue in this style particularly since part of the film is said to also be set in the past.

However, in terms of story, group dynamic, characterisations and the over-dominance of Wolverine, who is once again supposed to take centre-stage in the upcoming movie despite being the only X-Man so far with his own spin-off franchise, I really think Fox and Singer in particular dropped the ball.  Apparently Singer initially viewed the X-Men franchise as a springboard for getting the Superman gig, hence why he was so quick to ditch helming the third X-Men film in 2006, so his return to this comic-book franchise after the poorly received 'Superman Returns' strikes me as almost an act of desperation for a once highly-regarded director (remember 'The Usual Suspects'?) who has made little of any success within the last ten years beyond the X-Men series.

Irrespective of my misgivings this site inspires some hope in me: http://www.trask-industries.com/#/home (http://www.trask-industries.com/#/home)

It's a very well put-together piece of meta-marketing and suggests that Bolivar Trask could be one of the most complicated and interesting comic-book villains for some time.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  1 Aug  2013, 18:07Good point but my issues with the current X-Men franchise (and I say 'current' in the hope we will one day get a reboot) is not simply from a stylistic POV.  I think you're probably right about the mindset for making the first few X-Men films and the concern that they would be 'too comic-booky' possibly in the wake of the Schumacher Batman films, hence the no-frills black leather costumes instead of bright yellow and blue spandex.  As you suggest 'First Class' was visually more heightened which had a lot to do with its 60s setting and classic James Bond aping tone, and from what I've read and seen in terms of footage (i.e. the picture of Peter Dinklage sporting a porn-star 70s look as Bolivar Trask) 'Days of Future Past' may continue in this style particularly since part of the film is said to also be set in the past.

Not sure what to tell you here. I mostly could give a crap about the X-Men apart from Wolverine. I think that's the team's broad appeal... and could be a factor in why First Class maybe didn't knock 'em dead in theaters.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  1 Aug  2013, 18:07However, in terms of story, group dynamic, characterisations and the over-dominance of Wolverine, who is once again supposed to take centre-stage in the upcoming movie despite being the only X-Man so far with his own spin-off franchise, I really think Fox and Singer in particular dropped the ball.  Apparently Singer initially viewed the X-Men franchise as a springboard for getting the Superman gig, hence why he was so quick to ditch helming the third X-Men film in 2006, so his return to this comic-book franchise after the poorly received 'Superman Returns' strikes me as almost an act of desperation for a once highly-regarded director (remember 'The Usual Suspects'?) who has made little of any success within the last ten years beyond the X-Men series.

I think the guy's entire resume is pretty overrated when you really look at it. TUS is probably the best movie he's ever made... and I'd chalk most of that up to the cast. The script was shlock with a really good twist ending but I can't think of much else about the movie except the actors therein that really made it work.

Hadn't heard the bit about Singer using the X-Men movies as the gateway to Superman though. Interesting.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  2 Aug  2013, 23:45
Not sure what to tell you here. I mostly could give a crap about the X-Men apart from Wolverine. I think that's the team's broad appeal... and could be a factor in why First Class maybe didn't knock 'em dead in theaters.
ten years beyond the X-Men series.

You must be cock-a-hoop about the X-Men film series and the two spin-off Wolverine movies then.  I mean I don't know why they bother even calling them X-Men films.  They might as well market them as the 'Wolverine Chronicles' and package them as thus with 'First Class' as a mere spin-off.  ;)

My understanding is that the Wolverineless 'First Class' is one of the most highly-praised of the X-Men films, certainly more so than either of the Wolverine spin-off movies, although clearly the wider public keep clamouring to see the Wolverine movies.  But if the inexplicable success of the Transformers movies teach us anything it's that the great unwashed often have no taste or no clue what they're doing.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  2 Aug  2013, 23:45
I think the guy's entire resume is pretty overrated when you really look at it. TUS is probably the best movie he's ever made... and I'd chalk most of that up to the cast. The script was shlock with a really good twist ending but I can't think of much else about the movie except the actors therein that really made it work.

Hadn't heard the bit about Singer using the X-Men movies as the gateway to Superman though. Interesting.

I agree with you about Singer's resume being overrated.  But only in retrospect, in view of his subsequent career, does the 'Usual Suspects' seem like a case of the 'Emperor's New Clothes'.  When it was first released I was definitely a fan and considered it to be a great cult movie on par with the still-classic stuff being pumped out by Tarantino and the Coens Brothers during the period but like you say much of its entertainment value is attributable to a great cast on the top of their professional game (that goes especially for Stephen Baldwin  ;) ) and a memorable twist.  In terms of the direction there really isn't a lot there to get too excited about and even the twist seems like a bit of a cheap trick in retrospect, admittedly papered over by the brilliance of Kevin Spacey's performance (pity he couldn't repay the favour to Bryan Singer with 'Superman Returns' where he, like the rest of the film, put in an utterly mediocre performance).

I wish I could find the reference to Singer using the X-Man films as a 'gateway' to Superman but my understanding is that Singer wasn't even that big a comics-book guy so much as a huge fan of the Donner Superman films hence his over-egregious love-letter masquerading as a Superman movie.  Clearly Singer did identify with some of the themes regarding discrimination and alienation at the root of the X-Men comic-books, and to be fair these are the most successful and important aspects of his X-Men franchise, but from what I read he initially saw the first X-Men film, then one of the few comic-book properties in production (and in all fairness something of a trailblazer for the subsequent comic-book movie golden period we're currently enjoying), as a potential demo for reviving the Superman franchise (hence why he was so quick to ditch 'X-Men 3' for the 'Superman Returns' gig).

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54You must be cock-a-hoop about the X-Men film series and the two spin-off Wolverine movies then.

Only saw the first one. I don't see why everyone bags on it. Is it great? No. But based on the one time I saw it ages ago, it didn't seem like the crapfest people made it out to be.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54My understanding is that the Wolverineless 'First Class' is one of the most highly-praised of the X-Men films,

And yet it didn't turn a nickel's profit in the US. The $40'ish million it scraped up overseas is nothing to brag about either.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54But if the inexplicable success of the Transformers movies teach us anything it's that the great unwashed often have no taste or no clue what they're doing.

I really don't understand why those movies bother you so much. By way of analogy, I know nothing and care nothing about the Twilight films but I'm not offended on a personal level that they exist. They're probably not to my taste so I leave it to people who do care about them... of which there seem to be a lot because those movies are (were?) very successful. What's the problem exactly?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54When it was first released I was definitely a fan and considered it to be a great cult movie on par with the still-classic stuff being pumped out by Tarantino and the Coens Brothers during the period but like you say much of its entertainment value is attributable to a great cast on the top of their professional game (that goes especially for Stephen Baldwin  ;) )

He was okay, I guess, but I thought Spacey, Byrne and del Toro were the most memorable aspects of the film. The others were fine, I guess, but those three are really what pushed the movie over the top for me.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54(pity he couldn't repay the favour to Bryan Singer with 'Superman Returns' where he, like the rest of the film, put in an utterly mediocre performance).

If you ever have a chance to the documentary from the Singerman DVD, it's worth doing just to get an idea of how much Singer attempted to rescue Spacey's performance. A lot of people thought he did a lot of hammy acting in the movie but FFS he went even further over the top when they were in production. It's really an eye-opener at what editing can do to an actor's performance. As it is, Spacey's performance was pretty middle of the road... but it's an undeniable step up compared to what Spacey himself intended.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54I wish I could find the reference to Singer using the X-Man films as a 'gateway' to Superman but my understanding is that Singer wasn't even that big a comics-book guy so much as a huge fan of the Donner Superman films hence his over-egregious love-letter masquerading as a Superman movie.  Clearly Singer did identify with some of the themes regarding discrimination and alienation at the root of the X-Men comic-books, and to be fair these are the most successful and important aspects of his X-Men franchise, but from what I read he initially saw the first X-Men film, then one of the few comic-book properties in production (and in all fairness something of a trailblazer for the subsequent comic-book movie golden period we're currently enjoying), as a potential demo for reviving the Superman franchise (hence why he was so quick to ditch 'X-Men 3' for the 'Superman Returns' gig).

Somehow it just doesn't come as too big a surprise. The guy had no imagination for the character outside of Donner. A lot of non-fans swore on stacks of Bibles that Singer made the right decision in continuing the Donnerverse rather than doing a complete reboot before Singerman came out but were pretty quiet when the box office returns started coming in and it became obvious that it was going to be a real moneypit. Of course, there are Apologists out there to this day who swore that Singerman somehow turned a profit but I'll spare you that drama.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 22:15

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54You must be cock-a-hoop about the X-Men film series and the two spin-off Wolverine movies then.

Only saw the first one. I don't see why everyone bags on it. Is it great? No. But based on the one time I saw it ages ago, it didn't seem like the crapfest people made it out to be.

It's not unwatchable but it's still pretty mediocre and as per usual short-changes every other X-Men character, including Gambit, the Blob and Deadpool, in the service of telling Wolverine's story.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 22:15

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54But if the inexplicable success of the Transformers movies teach us anything it's that the great unwashed often have no taste or no clue what they're doing.

I really don't understand why those movies bother you so much. By way of analogy, I know nothing and care nothing about the Twilight films but I'm not offended on a personal level that they exist. They're probably not to my taste so I leave it to people who do care about them... of which there seem to be a lot because those movies are (were?) very successful. What's the problem exactly?

Maybe I'm coming across as an elitist tool.  If that's the case, I apologise.  But we all have films we dislike and would prefer to see the back of.  You seem to have some string opinions on stuff like 'Superman Returns' and Nolan's Batman films yourself, and I think they're all perfectly valid.  In my case I don't care for the Transformers movies, or for Michael Bay's directorial style in general ('The Rock' excepted) but I can understand why people flock to them in droves.  They are very commercial and I don't mean that in a condescending way.  There is plenty of 'commercial' stuff I do like, for instance 'The Avengers' films, but by contrast I consider those films to be pretty well-made and at the very least, coherent.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 22:15

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54When it was first released I was definitely a fan and considered it to be a great cult movie on par with the still-classic stuff being pumped out by Tarantino and the Coens Brothers during the period but like you say much of its entertainment value is attributable to a great cast on the top of their professional game (that goes especially for Stephen Baldwin  ;) )

He was okay, I guess, but I thought Spacey, Byrne and del Toro were the most memorable aspects of the film. The others were fine, I guess, but those three are really what pushed the movie over the top for me.

I probably didn't express myself very well but what I mean by 'that goes especially for Stephen Baldwin' was that it's pretty indisputable that 'The Usual Suspects' was in his case the peak of his career.  By contrast, Spacey, Bryne, del Toro, Postlethwaite and even Pollack have done great work elsewhere.  All the actors were at the top of their game on this film but sadly for Baldwin this was his one and only great performance.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 22:15

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 19:54(pity he couldn't repay the favour to Bryan Singer with 'Superman Returns' where he, like the rest of the film, put in an utterly mediocre performance).

If you ever have a chance to the documentary from the Singerman DVD, it's worth doing just to get an idea of how much Singer attempted to rescue Spacey's performance. A lot of people thought he did a lot of hammy acting in the movie but FFS he went even further over the top when they were in production. It's really an eye-opener at what editing can do to an actor's performance. As it is, Spacey's performance was pretty middle of the road... but it's an undeniable step up compared to what Spacey himself intended.

That's interesting because in some ways you're almost giving Singer some credit for having the sense to try and tone down Spacey's performance, albeit in post-production.  I don't know what happened to Spacey.  I've seen him on stage and he's still a great actor and he's getting some great notices for "House of Cards" but after a barnstorming set of late 90s hits with 'The Usual Suspects', 'Seven', 'L.A. Confidential' and 'American Beauty' and his earlier great work going toe-to-toe as a relative unknown against Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon and Ed Harris et al in the brilliant 'Glengarry Glen Ross' his film career seemed to have nose-dived and he ended up on auto-pilot doing dreck like 'K-PAX' and 'The Life of David Gale'.  Back in the late 90s I would have salivated at the prospect of Spacey as Lex Luthor but by 2006 it should have been inevitable that he was simply going to shamelessly ham it up.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15It's not unwatchable but it's still pretty mediocre and as per usual short-changes every other X-Men character, including Gambit, the Blob and Deadpool, in the service of telling Wolverine's story.

So... Wolverine gets more and better development than just about everybody in his own movie... and that's bad...

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15Maybe I'm coming across as an elitist tool.  If that's the case, I apologise.  But we all have films we dislike and would prefer to see the back of.  You seem to have some string opinions on stuff like 'Superman Returns' and Nolan's Batman films yourself, and I think they're all perfectly valid.  In my case I don't care for the Transformers movies, or for Michael Bay's directorial style in general ('The Rock' excepted) but I can understand why people flock to them in droves.  They are very commercial and I don't mean that in a condescending way.  There is plenty of 'commercial' stuff I do like, for instance 'The Avengers' films, but by contrast I consider those films to be pretty well-made and at the very least, coherent.

The difference is that I think Singerman pisses all over what Superman stands for (thus my refusal to use his name in reference to that abortion) while Chris Nolan singlehandedly sucked all the fun out of Batman in films that aren't the high art that his fans are desperate to believe they are. Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees but I don't resent them as unapologetic commercial ventures intended to put butts in seats so much as they have a funny way of offending my fandom for both characters.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15That's interesting because in some ways you're almost giving Singer some credit

Am I?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15for having the sense to try and tone down Spacey's performance, albeit in post-production.

Does that not beg the question of why he didn't direct Spacey properly during principal photography?

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15I don't know what happened to Spacey.  I've seen him on stage and he's still a great actor and he's getting some great notices for "House of Cards" but after a barnstorming set of late 90s hits with 'The Usual Suspects', 'Seven', 'L.A. Confidential' and 'American Beauty' and his earlier great work going toe-to-toe as a relative unknown against Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon and Ed Harris et al in the brilliant 'Glengarry Glen Ross' his film career seemed to have nose-dived and he ended up on auto-pilot doing dreck like 'K-PAX' and 'The Life of David Gale'.  Back in the late 90s I would have salivated at the prospect of Spacey as Lex Luthor but by 2006 it should have been inevitable that he was simply going to shamelessly ham it up.

I thought K-PAX was a preachy blahfest. I'd have forgiven it had the questions it raised (chiefly obvious perception vs. improbable reality) not been lapped by other, better films. Meanwhile, The Life of David Gale ended up being an unintentional argument in support of the death penalty (y'know, the very thing it went to pains to not be). Among other things, this tells us that Spacey just isn't a script actor. A lot of actors are known for vetting the hell out of any script before they accept a role... and that's something Spacey should probably do a little more of.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Aug  2013, 00:07

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15It's not unwatchable but it's still pretty mediocre and as per usual short-changes every other X-Men character, including Gambit, the Blob and Deadpool, in the service of telling Wolverine's story.

So... Wolverine gets more and better development than just about everybody in his own movie... and that's bad...

It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't get more and better development than everyone else in the team X-Men films too.  You shouldn't just make six or seven movies that revolve entirely around Wolverine and marginalise every other character, and if the filmmakers are not going to use a significant comic-book character like Gambit properly than he shouldn't be appearing in Wolverine's movie to begin with.  It's not about turning Wolverine into a supporting character in his own movie it's about giving adequate development to everyone else, including other fan-favourites from the comic-books, and not turning Wolverine into the main character in every X-film even those that aren't officially about him per se.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Aug  2013, 00:07

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15Maybe I'm coming across as an elitist tool.  If that's the case, I apologise.  But we all have films we dislike and would prefer to see the back of.  You seem to have some string opinions on stuff like 'Superman Returns' and Nolan's Batman films yourself, and I think they're all perfectly valid.  In my case I don't care for the Transformers movies, or for Michael Bay's directorial style in general ('The Rock' excepted) but I can understand why people flock to them in droves.  They are very commercial and I don't mean that in a condescending way.  There is plenty of 'commercial' stuff I do like, for instance 'The Avengers' films, but by contrast I consider those films to be pretty well-made and at the very least, coherent.

The difference is that I think Singerman pisses all over what Superman stands for (thus my refusal to use his name in reference to that abortion) while Chris Nolan singlehandedly sucked all the fun out of Batman in films that aren't the high art that his fans are desperate to believe they are. Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees but I don't resent them as unapologetic commercial ventures intended to put butts in seats so much as they have a funny way of offending my fandom for both characters.

I'm hopefully not offending anyone here.  I'm just expressing personal taste and whilst I felt that the first Transformers film was perfectly serviceable the first time I saw it, it didn't pass muster on a repeat screening and the less said about the execrable sequel the better.  Of course I don't have a problem when people enjoy these films but I'm not going to pretend that I'd rather something better was made in its place.  A decent Transformers film should be semi-coherent, feature distinctive characters, not be full of dim-witted pop-culture humour, feature a likeable lead one can root for (i.e. not Shia friggin LaBoeuf), and should try and at least respect its own logic instead of coming up with Transformers that can now transform into humans (where the heck did that come from?)

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Aug  2013, 00:07

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15That's interesting because in some ways you're almost giving Singer some credit

Am I?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Aug  2013, 00:07

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15for having the sense to try and tone down Spacey's performance, albeit in post-production.

Does that not beg the question of why he didn't direct Spacey properly during principal photography?

Of course.  Singer screwed up big-time but at the very least he had the good sense to see the performance wasn't working in post-production.  It's not much credit but it's at least some but don't worry, it still comes across that you're not a fan.  I wasn't suggesting otherwise.  :)

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Aug  2013, 00:07

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat,  3 Aug  2013, 23:15I don't know what happened to Spacey.  I've seen him on stage and he's still a great actor and he's getting some great notices for "House of Cards" but after a barnstorming set of late 90s hits with 'The Usual Suspects', 'Seven', 'L.A. Confidential' and 'American Beauty' and his earlier great work going toe-to-toe as a relative unknown against Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon and Ed Harris et al in the brilliant 'Glengarry Glen Ross' his film career seemed to have nose-dived and he ended up on auto-pilot doing dreck like 'K-PAX' and 'The Life of David Gale'.  Back in the late 90s I would have salivated at the prospect of Spacey as Lex Luthor but by 2006 it should have been inevitable that he was simply going to shamelessly ham it up.

I thought K-PAX was a preachy blahfest. I'd have forgiven it had the questions it raised (chiefly obvious perception vs. improbable reality) not been lapped by other, better films. Meanwhile, The Life of David Gale ended up being an unintentional argument in support of the death penalty (y'know, the very thing it went to pains to not be). Among other things, this tells us that Spacey just isn't a script actor. A lot of actors are known for vetting the hell out of any script before they accept a role... and that's something Spacey should probably do a little more of.

'K-PAX' was indeed a cop-out and terribly patronising to the mentally ill.  It would have been a far better film if it had committed itself to a specific outcome/genre from the get-go (i.e. either a genuine sci-fi 'fish-out-of-water' type flick or a drama regarding a genuinely mentally-ill man who was nevertheless possessed of an overpowering conviction) instead of trying to have it both ways.  'The Life of David Gale' was also a confused mess which apparently ended the career of the once in-favour director Alan Parker and like you say twisted itself in knots as far as its ostensible 'anti-death penalty' message.

I don't entirely agree with you that Spacey is not a script man though.  Maybe he isn't anymore but 'American Beauty', 'Seven' and 'L.A. Confidential' all possessed superb, award-winning screenplays.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun,  4 Aug  2013, 00:29I don't entirely agree with you that Spacey is not a script man though.  Maybe he isn't anymore but 'American Beauty', 'Seven' and 'L.A. Confidential' all possessed superb, award-winning screenplays.

Those could be attributed to luck of the draw. If you accept any role that comes your way, a certain portion of them are likely to be pretty decent films, particularly if they're ensemble pieces which utilize a talented cast led by a solid director... as each of those are. K-PAX and Gale both put Spacey at the top of the marquee among an otherwise so-so cast and... well, the outcomes speak for themselves.

Now, Gale hits on a very touchy subject for anybody (and poorly argues both sides of the debate too) and K-PAX doesn't know wtf it wants to be so... if you want to argue that the movies themselves are weak sauce to begin with, be my guest because I'll agree with you... but at the same time I can't quite escape the facts that (A) Spacey makes Michael Caine look good when it comes to selecting a decent script and (B) he's not an A-lister no matter how much anyone wants to argue that he is.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  4 Aug  2013, 02:27
Now, Gale hits on a very touchy subject for anybody (and poorly argues both sides of the debate too) and K-PAX doesn't know wtf it wants to be so... if you want to argue that the movies themselves are weak sauce to begin with, be my guest because I'll agree with you... but at the same time I can't quite escape the facts that (A) Spacey makes Michael Caine look good when it comes to selecting a decent script and (B) he's not an A-lister no matter how much anyone wants to argue that he is.

Well you know what Caine said about Jaws IV: "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."  ;D

For that piece of un-Hollywood like honesty and wit alone the man has my eternal respect.

There's a link to the leaked trailer from Comic-Con around the net, so if you're interested you better hurry up and watch it before it gets removed.

Link: http://www.inquisitr.com/900180/x-men-days-of-future-past-leaked-trailer-arrives-online-video/ (http://www.inquisitr.com/900180/x-men-days-of-future-past-leaked-trailer-arrives-online-video/)

Even from the awkward angle where the footage was taken, this trailer doesn't do wonders for me at all. Yes, it's unfair to judge before the final product is even finished but from what I've seen it looks even more melodramatic and duller than Singer's first two films. I didn't care for X-Men: First Class very much, but even that looks lively than what I've seen so far.

Love First Class. One of my favourite comic book movies. I've seen the leaked trailer for DoFP, and I liked what I saw. It should be an interesting, engaging story.

I'm very much looking forward to next years X-Men film. The last bunch have been fine but they've felt more like spinoff's to me almost. I just saw "The Wolverine" and was left underwhelmed by it. I'd rather he was back as part of the team than in his own series. To get most of the original cast back together will feel more like a genuine X-Men picture for the first time since "The Last Stand".

I've never read "Days of Future Past" and right now it's listed at the most ridiculous prices to buy on ebay. Not just original issues but trade paperbacks. However highly regarded you'd be mad for paying over £50 for a comic. I'm more familiar with the animated series retelling of the story featuring Bishop and Gambit. The fact that Bishop is included in the cast makes me wonder are the filmmakers going to blend both versions of the storyline together? I kinda wish there was more characters from the animated episodes included in the film such as Gambit and Cyclops.

I don't think the movie somehow will be a total translation of the books and we all should have learned that from "The Last Stand" adapting "Dark Phoenix". I think the core concept they have is to see the old and new X-Men casts come together in one film. Wolverine seems to travel back in time but it looks like he travels from the present to the 1960's period of "First Class". So where is all the devastated future Earth scenes with Sentinels ruling the planet? The inclusion of Bishop's character gives me some hope to still seeing all that. In the animated series it is he who travels back into the present. Who knows? I'm sure the movie will still be exciting and great regardless but I hope we'll see it because it'd be a shame not to show all the great post-apocalyptic scenes.

The trailer has now been released.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK2zYHWDZKo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK2zYHWDZKo)

Looks boring, melodramatic as hell to be honest.

-was blown away- My apologies...I'm an easy mark.

It turns out, Beast in this movie will be able to transform back to his human form, and become blue when he gets angry. Hulk-envy, anyone?  ::)

Quoten the final stretch of 'X-Men: First Class,' Nicholas Hoult's Hank McCoy ended up accelerating his powerful mutation, transforming him into the hairy blue monster known to comic book fans as Beast. That's why it was so odd when Hoult started popping up in set pictures and in trailers for 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' in his human form with nary a single blue fur to be found. If you're big ol' nerds like us and want to know why this is the case, know that the film does offer an explanation ... and it feels awfully familiar.

Speaking with JoBlo, the actor explained that, between films, McCoy developed a serum that allows him to maintain his human form as long as he remains calm. This means that we'll get to see both the human and hairy versions of Hoult in the finished film. Here's his full statement:

What's happened up to this point is between the time of the last movie and this movie my character has created a serum which basically controls his mutation so his appearance is normal as long as he doesn't get worked up. Any animal instinct or urges, that kind of brings him out. So yeah, he changes into Beast a few times throughout the story and they've done some great action sequences with him this time, particularly in the mansion flying around on these chandeliers and stuff.

A superhero who transforms into a rampaging creature when he gets angry is Hulk territory and it feels downright weird to see another established comic character try to wade into identical territory. If you want to get even geekier, it flies in the face of Beast's comic characterization. After all, the best part of Beast has always been that he's an intelligent intellectual in the body of a monster.

There are a number of potential reasons for this change. It could be because Hoult's agents wanted his actual face to be on screen. It could be because Hoult didn't want to endure that surely painful make-up every sing day. Heck, it could be the result of an attempt to shave a little money off the budget. We're not opposed to change, but this already feels like it could have been handled a little more elegantly. We already have a Hulk, guys.

Read More: 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' Turns Beast into a Hulk | http://screencrush.com/x-men-days-of-future-past-beast-hulk/?trackback=tsmclip

My enthusiasm for this X-Men has unfortunately dipped because I was under the impression they were mixing the two different casts together in one giant story. It merely seems all we'll have is Wolverine meeting the "First Class" boys. He can be a greatly overused character in the film series. The Animated series allowed things to "breathe" by taking him out sometimes. Halle Berry is reportedly only a small role due to her pregnancy. Anna Paquin as Rogue has been totally cut out already. E.c.t. Sounds very disappointing.

Quote from: Cobblepot4Mayor on Sat, 15 Mar  2014, 12:51
My enthusiasm for this X-Men has unfortunately dipped because I was under the impression they were mixing the two different casts together in one giant story. It merely seems all we'll have is Wolverine meeting the "First Class" boys. He can be a greatly overused character in the film series. The Animated series allowed things to "breathe" by taking him out sometimes. Halle Berry is reportedly only a small role due to her pregnancy. Anna Paquin as Rogue has been totally cut out already. E.c.t. Sounds very disappointing.

Wolverine's exposure has always been one of my central issues with the franchise too.  It's the 'X-Men' not 'Wolverine' (he already has his own movies).  In fact, my favourite Wolverine scene in the entire series is his 30 second cameo in 'First Class' where he tells Professor X and Magneto where to 'go f*** yourself'.  ;D

It's a shame that Bryan Singer is so overly-earnest and dour that he probably won't allow his 'X-Men' films any such moments of levity.

Second trailer has now been released.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6acRHWnfZAE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6acRHWnfZAE)

This trailer is a little better than the first one, but not as extraordinary like some people are making it out to be online. Notice how there's a rotating shot similar to the Avengers?

A third and film trailer has been released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsjtg7m1MMM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsjtg7m1MMM)

Why is Xavier walking? Does he have robotic prosthetics or something?

At least this trailer gives me an impression that the film won't take itself too seriously.

Oh crap, Bryan Singer is facing teen sexual abuse allegations. The details of these accusations are rather graphic, so beware.

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/x-men-director-bryan-singer-accused-sexually-abusing-15-year-old-boy-article-1.1759389 (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/x-men-director-bryan-singer-accused-sexually-abusing-15-year-old-boy-article-1.1759389)

My eye balls are stilling rolling around the keyboard. Could be just a scam for money, but Singer does have a rep for being fairly promiscuous, so it does make him an easy target. Honestly, I don't completely buy it.

I wouldn't be surprised, put it that way.

But, innocent until proven guilty.

I'm reading now that Egan's case, against Singer anyway, is taking blows. From what I'm reading, it seems the production schedule for the original X-Men, along with credit card receipts and '100 witnesses,' (production crew?) are being referenced as an alibi. Cue a shrug. Who knows?

It is my understanding that this case was filed before in 2000 against three others, but Singer wasn't named then. Cue another shrug.

I guess if nothing else it'll amount to some decent conspiracy theories.

Michael Singer's (Bryan Singer's Lawyer) statement: The minute I learned of Michael Egan's allegations I thought they were fabricated because I knew that Bryan was shooting a movie out of the country during the period of time alleged in the complaint," said attorney Martin Singer (no relation to the director) in a statement. "Then, over the next 48 hours, we received from Bryan's business manager documentary evidence in the form of credit card receipts, phone records and the production schedule confirming that Bryan was not in Hawaii as alleged. Now, based on concrete and indisputable evidence, we will prove that Egan's claims about Bryan are entirely made up."

Quote
X-Men Days Of Future Past: Bryan Singer Hopes Fans Will Forget About The Continuity Errors

The X-Men film franchise has generally been well received by fans, but has become more and more plagued with continuity errors since beginning to jump around the timeline. In X-Men, Xavier says that he and Magneto built Cerebro, but in X-Men: First Class Beast has built the machine before they ever show up. Emma Frost is introduced as a teenager in ­X-Men: Origins Wolverine, and then again as a young woman in X-Men: First Class. In X-Men: The Last Stand, Moira MacTaggert is a middle-aged medical scientist, but in First Class she's a young CIA agent.

Is there a solution for these inconsistencies? Director Bryan Singer is hoping people will just forget about them.

"Some things you let go," Singer tells SciFi Now. "In X-Men 3 Bolivar Trask was an African-American guy, in X-Men 1 I personally wrote the line that of course I now regret: 'When I was 17, I met a young man named Erik Lensherr' and then in X-Men: First Class I changed that! Some of these I hope the audience will forget about but for the bulk of it I pay attention to the universe."

While most of largest inconsistencies seem to come from the films that were handled by Brett Ratner after Singer left the franchise for a time, Singer does say that those films still count for something.

"Not just X-Men 1 and 2," he said, "but also X-Men 3 – I was thrilled to have [Kitty Pryde star] Ellen Page in the movie as character – and even The Wolverine, I try to look at all those."

Of course, with the time-travel shenanigans going on in X-Men: Days of Future Past, there's also the possibility of some retroactive continuity being added to iron certain things out.

In X-Men: Days of Future Past, the X-Men send Wolverine to the past in a desperate effort to change history and prevent an event that results in doom for both humans and mutants.

X-Men: Days of Future Past comes to theaters May 23.

Source: http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/05/15/x-men-days-of-future-past-bryan-singer-hopes-fans-will-forget-about-the-continuity-errors/ (http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/05/15/x-men-days-of-future-past-bryan-singer-hopes-fans-will-forget-about-the-continuity-errors/)

This goes to show that Singer doesn't give a damn about consistency or even plot cohesion in his movies. We might as well stop paying attention to the story altogether. If film directors like Singer don't care about the plot of their own movies, why should I be encouraged to go see them? "Let go of narrative inconsistencies"? Give me a break! ::)

REBOOT!!!!

So he just expects us to forget about these mistakes, which aren't just minor ones but things that make the movies contradict each other?  ::) I wasn't a huge fan of his X-Men movies before, but now I'm really starting to dislike this franchise.

I'm with johnnygobbs about the reboot.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 17 May  2014, 12:00
So he just expects us to forget about these mistakes, which aren't just minor ones but things that make the movies contradict each other?  ::) I wasn't a huge fan of his X-Men movies before, but now I'm really starting to dislike this franchise.

I'm with johnnygobbs about the reboot.

Along with the overly-dour grim Nolanesque tone (before Nolan 'originated' it), the lack of continuity is what rubs me the wrong way about these films.

In the UK, the 'X-Men' films are currently being screened back-to-back on TV in conjunction with marketing for 'Days of Future Past', so presumably someone does want the audience to make the link.

By contrast, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (and I apologise for harking back to them again in terms of how comic-book movies and show should be done) does a superb job of linking everything and coordinating all the films, and even the current TV show "Agents of SHIELD", which has got markedly better towards the end of its first season.  You don't have to watch one film to appreciate another but regular fans of the films and shows are frequently rewarded with cross-film references that enhance enjoyment, and it's far more satisfying when you're not constantly going over continuity issues in your head.

What kind of a reboot would you like to see? I'd love it if they did the original X-Men team from the comics and mantain the right amount of fantasy while still taking things seriously, and drop the Nolan-esque tone. I'd also like to see characters Rogue and Gambit and Beast done closer to the comics, and maybe Nightcrawler or Colossus too.

I also didn't really like the way Cyclops, Storm and Jean Grey were portrayed. I think Professor X is the only one they got right, and maybe Magneto as well, although I don't see Magneto as Ian McKellen, I see him more physically imposing.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 17 May  2014, 13:57
What kind of a reboot would you like to see? I'd love it if they did the original X-Men team from the comics and mantain the right amount of fantasy while still taking things seriously, and drop the Nolan-esque tone. I'd also like to see characters Rogue and Gambit and Beast done closer to the comics, and maybe Nightcrawler or Colossus too.

I also didn't really like the way Cyclops, Storm and Jean Grey were portrayed. I think Professor X is the only one they got right, and maybe Magneto as well, although I don't see Magneto as Ian McKellen, I see him more physically imposing.

Ideally I'd like to see a reboot featuring the original 1960s team, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, Angel and Iceman, although even that prospect has been undermined by 'X-Men: First Class'.  A TV series might be the best way to go. *shrugs shoulders*  There are so many characters and strands something along the lines of "GOT" might be the best direction for a reboot.

Of the characters I think have been done well I'd include Professor X, Magneto (I do like the less physically imposing/more intellectual version Ian McKellan provides), the Beast (either played by Kelsey Grammar or Nicholas Hoult) and Nightcrawler. 

The worst ones were Iceman and Rogue (who both lost their sense of humour and sass), Angel (who barely showed up for five minutes and was presented as a skinny emo kid rather than a hunky WASP), Cyclops and Jean Grey who have been marginalised, and Storm, as much as a like Halle Berry (unfortunately, she wasn't right for this comic-book role - a native African actress might have done better to exude the qualities of an African queen).  Sabretooth was also an early example of a character they got wrong (although Liev Schreiber in 'X-Men: Origins' did much better).

Basically, I think this series is a total mess, and I'm glad to see Bryan Singer effectively agrees.  ;D  The difference is, I don't think it's 'okay'.

I hope 'Days of Future Past' does worse than 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' (thankfully, that's pretty much guaranteed), and 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' (sadly, that is much less likely) because those films get their comic-book characters right to a much greater degree than the 'X-Men' films ever have, especially the Bryan Singer directed ones.

I agree about Nightcrawler and Beast, but as you said, the rest were done badly or marginalised.

I actually like Ian McKellen's Magneto as well, just that I prefer Magneto to be more physically imposing in contrast to Xavier.

They also weren't really sure what to do with Mystique, in the first movies she was a little more than a one-note henchman for Magneto, and in First Class they try to develop her as Xavier's "sister", only that in the first films we don't have the slightest hint that Xavier and Mistique even knew each other.  ::)

It is a mess, I thought they would start all over with First Class, but then it turned out it was supposed to be a prequel instead of a reboot and we got all the continuity problems.

An "X-Men" TV series with time to develop the characers while staying closer to the comics would be fantastic, but I'm not so sure about the chances for it to actually happen.

QuoteThey also weren't really sure what to do with Mystique, in the first movies she was a little more than a one-note henchman for Magneto, and in First Class they try to develop her as Xavier's "sister", only that in the first films we don't have the slightest hint that Xavier and Mistique even knew each other.

;D  Yes, this continuity error is symptomatic of the franchise's problems.  You can't retcon something like that and expect everyone else to forget.  It's like the first 'X-Men' that made no mention of Wolverine and Sabretooth being brothers, although I suppose one could argue in the case that Wolverine's memory had been tampered with to such an extent the issue was never going to come up, at least not from him.

QuoteIt is a mess, I thought they would start all over with First Class, but then it turned out it was supposed to be a prequel instead of a reboot and we got all the continuity problems.

That's what I was hoping when the film was announced.  Shame.  It's still the best of the series, but imagine what Matthew Vaughn could have done if he'd been allowed to start the franchise from scratch using Jean Grey, Cyclops, Angel, Iceman, and the Beast.

Starting from scratch with the original team at that point would've been ideal.


They say that "X-Men: Apocalypse" is going to be more of a sequel to First Class but still in the same franchise, so it's not what I'd really like to see.

Given that this movie is receiving surprising amount of praise, Jill Pantozzi has come out admitting having problems with it, despite enjoying it. WARNING though: contains spoilers.

Source: http://www.themarysue.com/xmen-days-of-future-past-review/ (http://www.themarysue.com/xmen-days-of-future-past-review/)

So despite the praise this movie is getting, there is still a strong amount of contradictory problems in terms of continuity and things not getting any explanations at all.

And from what I've heard of what happens to the majority of the X-Men: First Class characters, it reaffirms my thoughts that those characters in that were pointless and makes me dislike that movie even more.  ::)

Checked the movie out last night.

-Probably the best X-Men movie thus far.
-Future action was great. Blink really stood out to me.
-The focus was on the right characters.
-Trask was an interesting antagonist, much like Magneto
-Smaller "team" worked well.
-GI-Toad!
-Sentinels were depicted as nameless killing machines, as they should be. No problems.
-Eric having the guilt trip edge on Charles was interesting.
-Oh, and spoiler *JFK was a mutant!*

All in all I enjoyed the movie. It's a little flimsy to me as the impetus for a time travel story, but thankfully the film was very comic booky and executed well. Not sure if it trumps Cap 2 as far as the 2014 superhero genre goes, but it's miles ahead of ASM2 for sure.

Another thing to note; this film does demonstrate why you have to be really careful when you bring in speedsters to your superhero film. I mean, the way they depicted Quicksilver here, he could pretty much have solved any problem had, and no one could have done anything to stop him.  :o

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 17 May  2014, 12:39


By contrast, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (and I apologise for harking back to them again in terms of how comic-book movies and show should be done) does a superb job of linking everything and coordinating all the films, [...]

I've got to disagree with you on that. The Marvel movies are certainly fun and they've done a pretty good job on continuity. However,  the last three X-Men films have had a complexity that was lacking in most of the Marvel Studios output.

They gave us Magneto as a Nazi hunter and a Wolverine story that was predicated on something that happened in Hiroshima. I just can't see Marvel studios doing something like that.

So which is more important? Continuity (which has always been murky in the X-men comics) or a well-written, complex storyline?

I vote for the latter.

Quote from: phantom stranger on Sat, 31 May  2014, 17:43

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 17 May  2014, 12:39


By contrast, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (and I apologise for harking back to them again in terms of how comic-book movies and show should be done) does a superb job of linking everything and coordinating all the films, [...]

I've got to disagree with you on that. The Marvel movies are certainly fun and they've done a pretty good job on continuity. However,  the last three X-Men films have had a complexity that was lacking in most of the Marvel Studios output.

They gave us Magneto as a Nazi hunter and a Wolverine story that was predicated on something that happened in Hiroshima. I just can't see Marvel studios doing something like that.

So which is more important? Continuity (which has always been murky in the X-men comics) or a well-written, complex storyline?

I vote for the latter.

I don't particularly think any of the X-Men films have been well-written, especially since filmmakers have been unable to tie events to each film and maintain a consistent narrative.  That's poor writing in my opinion.  Also, the comic-book continuity may have been murky but we're talking about 50 years and multiple comic-book serieses here.  Not seven films (and only seven if you include the Wolverine movies).

Also, did you see 'The Winter Soldier'?  That dealt with a pretty heavy subject: government agency surveillance and a Nazi-conspiracy.  I'm sure if there is grounds for dealing with darker subject matter, like ethnic cleansing and the fall-out of atomic mass destruction, the Marvel Cinematic Universe films will deal with it, although personally, I'm pleased to see some comic-book movies that don't confuse darkness with quality.  I'm interested in heavy drama but occasionally I find it can be in bad taste when it's intertwined with fantasy.  I've got mixed feelings for instance about making Magneto, one of the comic-book world's most despicable villains, a Holocaust victim.  It's dramatically compelling but also strikes me as a little glib.

DOFP is good, but I like First Class more.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 31 May  2014, 19:10

Quote from: phantom stranger on Sat, 31 May  2014, 17:43

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 17 May  2014, 12:39


By contrast, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (and I apologise for harking back to them again in terms of how comic-book movies and show should be done) does a superb job of linking everything and coordinating all the films, [...]

I've got to disagree with you on that. The Marvel movies are certainly fun and they've done a pretty good job on continuity. However,  the last three X-Men films have had a complexity that was lacking in most of the Marvel Studios output.

They gave us Magneto as a Nazi hunter and a Wolverine story that was predicated on something that happened in Hiroshima. I just can't see Marvel studios doing something like that.

So which is more important? Continuity (which has always been murky in the X-men comics) or a well-written, complex storyline?

I vote for the latter.

I don't particularly think any of the X-Men films have been well-written, especially since filmmakers have been unable to tie events to each film and maintain a consistent narrative.  That's poor writing in my opinion.  Also, the comic-book continuity may have been murky but we're talking about 50 years and multiple comic-book serieses here.  Not seven films (and only seven if you include the Wolverine movies).

Also, did you see 'The Winter Soldier'?  That dealt with a pretty heavy subject: government agency surveillance and a Nazi-conspiracy.  I'm sure if there is grounds for dealing with darker subject matter, like ethnic cleansing and the fall-out of atomic mass destruction, the Marvel Cinematic Universe films will deal with it, although personally, I'm pleased to see some comic-book movies that don't confuse darkness with quality.  I'm interested in heavy drama but occasionally I find it can be in bad taste when it's intertwined with fantasy.  I've got mixed feelings for instance about making Magneto, one of the comic-book world's most despicable villains, a Holocaust victim.  It's dramatically compelling but also strikes me as a little glib.

I didn't mind how Magneto was introduced as a concentration camp survivor in the first Singer X-Men film; I thought it gave a good insight as to what further fueled his hatred for human beings. But I didn't like how First Class tried to twist it by making a mutant responsible for the death of Magneto's mother. And the more I think about the scene where Shaw kills Magneto's mother, the more I wonder why Magneto didn't try to kill Shaw together with the Nazi soldiers. And another thing I don't buy was Shaw's plan to destroy the human race with nuclear missiles. Wouldn't the missiles kill mutants too? I'm pretty sure that not all of them are immune to radiation. And wouldn't the missiles just destroy the planet's atmosphere too, leaving the mutants nothing left but a world in ruins? Apart from Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy to a lesser extent, I thought First Class was really average. Although I might have cut it a little bit of slack had it been a reboot, and NOT a forced attempt at a prequel.

I thought The Wolverine was utter garbage. The villain had a ridiculous and unnecessarily convoluted plot to steal Logan's healing factor, and the film came across gritty for the sake of being gritty. Remember that line where he said "Go f yourself" in First Class? Well, he said it once or twice seriously, and it got old really fast. There were only two scenes in that movie that I liked, and except for Jackman, the acting from everybody else was terrible.

And given now I heard that Days of Future Past suffers from loads of contradictions and yet it wants to have it both ways by wiping out the franchise's continuity almost altogether, I have zero interest in seeing this movie than ever before. I still consider The Last Stand the worst of the franchise, but the films after that have killed off my interest in the franchise completely. They are definitely not well-written films at all.

I've just watched the movie and, much to my surprise, it was good. Felt like an X-Men adventure rather than a "realistic" one. I agree with the Joker that the story was a little flimsy, but Xavier, Mystique, Magneto and Wolverine were played very well, even if the outcome was a bit predictable.

It wasn't afraid to be fun and comic-booky and that's very good. I wasn't much of a fan of these X-Men films until McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence came along and they were very good here.

This movie turned out really well. Rewatched it a few weeks ago and really enjoyed myself. There are certain things that don't make sense. If killing one military contractor was enough to cause a chain of events resulting in the sentinel war from the beginning of the movie, Magneto coming THIS close to (what the public believes will be) his second Presidential assassination should probably trigger something even worse, right?

Speaking of, what incentive does Magneto have to join Xavier's side? Every argument he ever made has been validated. If anything, the events of DOFP should make Magneto even more extreme.

Also, how long was Wolverine in 1973? Long enough to fly to Paris and then back to the US. So that's what, 48 hours at a minimum? Kitty Pryde was maintaining the psychic link that long without even needing a bathroom break?

But when you move away from that stuff, the movie really does a lot to develop the Xavier/Lensherr dynamic. First Class was undeniably Magneto's story. But this one is Xavier's. He's lost everything and everyone but somehow he has to become everything he's supposed to be... at the moment when he's least capable of doing it.

If I had to be everything I am now at the end of 2010, it would break 2010-era me. I was already dealing with a huge amount of trouble. I wouldn't have been able to do it. I like what it says about Xavier that he was able to rise above his own frailties... and, in fact, that doing so meant embracing his own physical infirmity as well as his mutant powers, both of which place him far outside the realm of experience of most people. It's one less tether he has to the civilian world.

Anyway. Overall this is a good one. Definitely worth a rewatch. Just make sure to turn your brain off a little bit first.