X-Men 4: To be or not to be?

Bass said:
Ah yes - but I think they actually used the characters in the third film, rather than promising they would in the previous two.
Click to expand...

Used briefly and dumped. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the build up of Pyro, Iceman, Rogue, or Cyclops in the trilogy that Singer had planned. Iceman and Pyro made it in the 3rd but everyone else got dumped cheaply or showcased for a few good scenes.
 
TheManWithoutFear said:
Used briefly and dumped. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the build up of Pyro, Iceman, Rogue, or Cyclops in the trilogy that Singer had planned. Iceman and Pyro made it in the 3rd but everyone else got dumped cheaply or showcased for a few good scenes.
Click to expand...

"Used briefly and dumped" is worse than being talked about briefly and dumped? The other two films had characters, people introduced themselves, showcased their powers, and then nothing happened to them. In X3, they got introduced, showcased, and in most cases, killed off or otherwise thrown offstage. This is a good thing. It means stuff is happening.

I'm not saying anything was wrong with the build up, but that build up, without pay off, has no value because it has no context. It must have value and context (thus a pay off) with in the story to have value. Good writing is using pay offs to build up.

Compare the X-Men films to Alien. Or Aliens. Both have large group protagonists. And in both, each character is introduced, showcased, and paid off (granted, in most cases, they die). The same is true for heist films like Ocean's Eleven or Resevoir Dogs. They all have large ensemble casts, and each member of that cast is introduced, showcased, and paid off. If a sequel is made, they're brought back and used again if applicable. Being a franchise doesn't absolve the X-Men films for having very little substance in any of its incarnations, save the third, which has the most substance (though some of it is tacky and stupid).

My problem with the first two films is not that what we got was awful, it was okay - inoffensive. My problem is that the first two films have so little in them, whereas the third had a lot going on with a lot of characters and suffered primarily due to a lack of cohesion and an idiotic climax.

See, the first two films had cohesion and pace, but had idiotic climaxes and very little substance. The third had terrific substance, but its composition was off, it's too piece-meal, and it's climax is idiotic. However, my tastes lean me to say its better primarily because of increased substance.

Am I making sense?
 
Can I assume you're talking about Colossus showing up with nothing happening with him?

What about the mismatching of characters (i.e. Brotherhood)??? That's an insult to fans there and if they feel the need to push forward with a 4th, I'd rather not see that happen again.
 
Y'know - I honestly can't remember much of Colossus at all. A lot of the film is a blur. You're probably right on that one.

But I don't get your mismatching brotherhood comment thing. :?
 
Yeah, it was ridiculous. The stupid thing about it was that all those powers already had characters for them, there was no reason to assign them to random people. Plus, how is someone being named Kid Omega better than being named Quill? Is Kid Omega suddenly a "cool" name and I missed it?

They didn't even say his name anyway as far as I could remember.
 
the asian dude was called KID omega? that dude is easily late 20`s.
lame
 
Okay, I missed a lot of this fanboy geekery in the film. I didn't realise he was called Kid Omega, and never heard of Quill. I thought he was just a cool idea. I didn't realise Psylocke was in it. As for Callisto, I was surprised at her name, but didn't care. I think my opinion of the X films was so low, it didn't bother me. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top