It's the end of the world as we know it.........

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

What the heck is the obsession with her?! She is a MORON!!!! *sigh*
*I hope they deliver on The Rock this time, as beast...it was rumored he was gonna be in #2 - I was so disappointed...
 
the rock as hank "the beast" pym?

i dont know.... the beast was alot shorter, but then again, so was wolverine :)

who will jessica simpson be? dazzler? only thing that makes sense.
 
They arleady had Hank in X2, pre-beast. He was in a news interview on the tv. Go watch it again. :)
 
The Rock is just as bad as Jessica Simpson. But you know what, X-MEN, imo, sucked from the start. Nothing was accurate, the characters' personas werent all right on, i dunno..that crack from wolvie in 1 about the yellow spandex made me yell "YES!" as soon as I heard it. X-MEN2 was better for one reason, Nightcrawler. X-MEN2 is also the only movie in history to climax at the end of the first 5 minutes and "build down", lol. Alan Cummins was a great Nightcrawler and was pretty accurate to the comic char. I dunno what will be X-MEN3's saving grace. I mean, wtf? Phoenix magically poofs in from nowhere when Jean is thought to have died? What about all the junk that happened in space? are they gonna do away with that? Magneto played a part in the events that took place while they were in space as well. Dunno...just dont know. Lets talk about a great comicbook movie...SPIDERMAN! hehe...=p. They need a GhostRider movie, be nice.
 
I loved the X-Men movies im a big X-Men fan. But the thing you have to realize is that there is just no way in hell they can put all of the story that has been throughout the comicbook legacy into a movie adaptation. Books to movies rarely come out well. X-Men has so much content in it that there just is no way for them to cover everything nessicary in 1 1/2-2 hours. They can only really focus on the more prominent and well known characters where as in the comic books theres a crud load of characters and they all have their own stories. There is no way they can possibly put all that in there and expect a theater audience to sit through it all.. were talking a movie that would take like a few months (if not longer) to watch..

The X-Men movies, and really any movie based of a popular series (book/comicbook/cartoon, etc.) can only give you so much info on certain characters and drop those characters into a new plot that would most likely take place in thier world. Rarely do we see a movie adaptation that does as well as LoTR did that is nearly as close to the original content as it can be.

Spiderman's a little easier to do, since its one man, one superhero. Once you get into the multiple hero/character aspects its much harder to maintain a story without focusing on just one character. First X-men movie, they failed to do that, it was all about Wolverine & Rouge pretty much. Second movie was great, as it used the first movie and built on it, introduced new characters. Nightcrawler wasnt the focus of the movie, but since he was a new addition they had him in a good deal of it. It really was more about the team rather than focusing on one. Great movie, and there was actually good voilence, ahh.. why the first one lacked it.. who knows. Guess they didnt want to scare the kiddies the first time around.

Also, you have to take in the fact that there will be many people who havent even heard of X-Men, or maybe they've 'heard' of it but dont really know anything about it. It's a movie, and it has to appeal to more than just fans of X-Men. Otherwise thats all who's going to see it, and the movie isnt going to make quite as much as it would if 'everyone' went to see it.

Heh.. guess i kinda went off on a rant. Oh wells. :D
 
i noticed the tv spot with dr.pym, but movies are famous for messing up like that, batman did it with harvey dent :(
i also wonder how they are going to span the time when professor x is gone
to the shi'ar empire. unless they plan on making 100 movies. l
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top