• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Will Bryan Singer's Days of Futures Past be a retcon doing away with Last Stand?

Started by comicalgems,

132 posts in this topic

Thawk

Thawk

Posted
Posted

I'm not an X-Men fanboy by any stretch - (I own 1 single X-Men comic and it was a prize that I won) - and I still thought Last Stand was bad. The characterization of a weird goth-faced Jean being Phoenix along with her becoming a Magneto henchmen, followed by her defeat at the hands of an unvaporizable Wolverine was awful to behold.

 

Last Stand was the Michael Bay version of a comic film - lots of things blowing up with a focus on "cool camera shots" at the expense of thought out plot/characters.

 

Singer's first two films were a big step for the new breed of comic movie that opened the doors for the DK triology and the other Avengers films (among others) - more than just campy niche focused efforts. Last Stand was a step back from that and really wrecked what Singer had done in terms of purposefully building his characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
X-Men Last Stand is a far better action movie than the story-less X2, but all the changes made seem to really butthurt the fanboys.

 

It seems that studios are allowed to make mediocre movies like X2 as long as they stick to the established continuity, but if they make an action-packed flick like X3 and all over continuity, they are hammered by the fanboys.

 

I personally liked X3 because it's the only movie that actually showed that mutants were powerful and could actually fight. Magneto had some great scenes and Wolverine wasn't just a fool swinging his claws around aimlessly like in X2. Singer has absolutely no clue on how to stage or shoot an action scene and this is shown clearly in Superman.

 

You guys need to step back from the funny books a bit, as this was nowhere near the same as turning Gwen into a 'ho, and I'm just about the biggest Dark Phoenix fan alive. But I can still separate the movies from the comics.

 

Why should you have to?

You don't have to do anything but in many peoples opinions, movies work better being based on cmic books rather than copying comic books. Sometimes they work well and sometimes they don't but the X Men trilogy was very successful as was Avengers which shows that not everyone is hung up on how closely the films follow the comic storylines. You're entitled to your point of view but so is everyone else.

 

The majority of people who saw those movies have no clue how close they were or were not to the comics, so why would they be hung up on anything? (shrug)

 

..... and film makers have to appeal to the majority so why would they worry about a few collectors who are interested in the film closely following the comics? Even among comic collectors, it seems that most enjoyed the first two films at least so we're talking about the minority of the minority who are actually hung up on the films following the comics.

 

Why on Earth would film makers then be worried about it? (shrug)

 

They obviously don't care...the majority of people seeing the movies don't know any better. It's up to the so called comic book fans to give a rat's arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
The majority of people who saw those movies have no clue how close they were or were not to the comics, so why would they be hung up on anything? (shrug)

 

Exactly, and I wonder why the fanboys who just love to talk box office always forget to mention that X3 is the largest of the trilogy when it comes to $$$. And that's a rarity in a trilogy, where the third movie usually rakes in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davedawgbg

davedawgbg

Posted
Posted
Oh man I hope so!

 

I have always said that when Singer saw last stand for the first time, he must have gone on a 72 hour cussing spree given the abomination they created using his foundation.

 

I wonder if Stan Lee, Roy Thomas, Neal Adams, Chris Claremont and John Byrne had the same reaction after seeing the first one hm

 

hm That's a great question.

 

If they did I guess Stan and Chris must have gotten over it when the time came for their cameos in the third one. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz973

gaz973

Posted
Posted
X-Men Last Stand is a far better action movie than the story-less X2, but all the changes made seem to really butthurt the fanboys.

 

It seems that studios are allowed to make mediocre movies like X2 as long as they stick to the established continuity, but if they make an action-packed flick like X3 and all over continuity, they are hammered by the fanboys.

 

I personally liked X3 because it's the only movie that actually showed that mutants were powerful and could actually fight. Magneto had some great scenes and Wolverine wasn't just a fool swinging his claws around aimlessly like in X2. Singer has absolutely no clue on how to stage or shoot an action scene and this is shown clearly in Superman.

 

You guys need to step back from the funny books a bit, as this was nowhere near the same as turning Gwen into a 'ho, and I'm just about the biggest Dark Phoenix fan alive. But I can still separate the movies from the comics.

 

Why should you have to?

You don't have to do anything but in many peoples opinions, movies work better being based on cmic books rather than copying comic books. Sometimes they work well and sometimes they don't but the X Men trilogy was very successful as was Avengers which shows that not everyone is hung up on how closely the films follow the comic storylines. You're entitled to your point of view but so is everyone else.

 

The majority of people who saw those movies have no clue how close they were or were not to the comics, so why would they be hung up on anything? (shrug)

 

..... and film makers have to appeal to the majority so why would they worry about a few collectors who are interested in the film closely following the comics? Even among comic collectors, it seems that most enjoyed the first two films at least so we're talking about the minority of the minority who are actually hung up on the films following the comics.

 

Why on Earth would film makers then be worried about it? (shrug)

 

They obviously don't care...the majority of people seeing the movies don't know any better. It's up to the so called comic book fans to give a rat's arse.

It's not that comic book fans don't give a rat's arse, it's that not all comic book fans agree with your point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
X-Men Last Stand is a far better action movie than the story-less X2, but all the changes made seem to really butthurt the fanboys.

 

It seems that studios are allowed to make mediocre movies like X2 as long as they stick to the established continuity, but if they make an action-packed flick like X3 and all over continuity, they are hammered by the fanboys.

 

I personally liked X3 because it's the only movie that actually showed that mutants were powerful and could actually fight. Magneto had some great scenes and Wolverine wasn't just a fool swinging his claws around aimlessly like in X2. Singer has absolutely no clue on how to stage or shoot an action scene and this is shown clearly in Superman.

 

You guys need to step back from the funny books a bit, as this was nowhere near the same as turning Gwen into a 'ho, and I'm just about the biggest Dark Phoenix fan alive. But I can still separate the movies from the comics.

I agree with a lot of your points, JC and I didn't hate X3 but personally I greatly enjoyed X2, the best one out of them IMHO. 2c

 

I concur with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
X-Men Last Stand is a far better action movie than the story-less X2, but all the changes made seem to really butthurt the fanboys.

 

It seems that studios are allowed to make mediocre movies like X2 as long as they stick to the established continuity, but if they make an action-packed flick like X3 and all over continuity, they are hammered by the fanboys.

 

I personally liked X3 because it's the only movie that actually showed that mutants were powerful and could actually fight. Magneto had some great scenes and Wolverine wasn't just a fool swinging his claws around aimlessly like in X2. Singer has absolutely no clue on how to stage or shoot an action scene and this is shown clearly in Superman.

 

You guys need to step back from the funny books a bit, as this was nowhere near the same as turning Gwen into a 'ho, and I'm just about the biggest Dark Phoenix fan alive. But I can still separate the movies from the comics.

 

Why should you have to?

You don't have to do anything but in many peoples opinions, movies work better being based on cmic books rather than copying comic books. Sometimes they work well and sometimes they don't but the X Men trilogy was very successful as was Avengers which shows that not everyone is hung up on how closely the films follow the comic storylines. You're entitled to your point of view but so is everyone else.

 

You're on a roll tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
X-Men Last Stand is a far better action movie than the story-less X2, but all the changes made seem to really butthurt the fanboys.

 

It seems that studios are allowed to make mediocre movies like X2 as long as they stick to the established continuity, but if they make an action-packed flick like X3 and all over continuity, they are hammered by the fanboys.

 

I personally liked X3 because it's the only movie that actually showed that mutants were powerful and could actually fight. Magneto had some great scenes and Wolverine wasn't just a fool swinging his claws around aimlessly like in X2. Singer has absolutely no clue on how to stage or shoot an action scene and this is shown clearly in Superman.

 

You guys need to step back from the funny books a bit, as this was nowhere near the same as turning Gwen into a 'ho, and I'm just about the biggest Dark Phoenix fan alive. But I can still separate the movies from the comics.

 

Why should you have to?

You don't have to do anything but in many peoples opinions, movies work better being based on cmic books rather than copying comic books. Sometimes they work well and sometimes they don't but the X Men trilogy was very successful as was Avengers which shows that not everyone is hung up on how closely the films follow the comic storylines. You're entitled to your point of view but so is everyone else.

 

The majority of people who saw those movies have no clue how close they were or were not to the comics, so why would they be hung up on anything? (shrug)

 

..... and film makers have to appeal to the majority so why would they worry about a few collectors who are interested in the film closely following the comics? Even among comic collectors, it seems that most enjoyed the first two films at least so we're talking about the minority of the minority who are actually hung up on the films following the comics.

 

Why on Earth would film makers then be worried about it? (shrug)

 

They obviously don't care...the majority of people seeing the movies don't know any better. It's up to the so called comic book fans to give a rat's arse.

It's not that comic book fans don't give a rat's arse, it's that not all comic book fans agree with your point of view.

 

If you're an alleged comic book fan, why wouldn't you want to see at least a decent attempt made to be faithful to the source material?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marvelfangirl

Marvelfangirl

Posted
Posted
X-Men Last Stand is a far better action movie than the story-less X2, but all the changes made seem to really butthurt the fanboys.

 

It seems that studios are allowed to make mediocre movies like X2 as long as they stick to the established continuity, but if they make an action-packed flick like X3 and all over continuity, they are hammered by the fanboys.

 

I personally liked X3 because it's the only movie that actually showed that mutants were powerful and could actually fight. Magneto had some great scenes and Wolverine wasn't just a fool swinging his claws around aimlessly like in X2. Singer has absolutely no clue on how to stage or shoot an action scene and this is shown clearly in Superman.

 

You guys need to step back from the funny books a bit, as this was nowhere near the same as turning Gwen into a 'ho, and I'm just about the biggest Dark Phoenix fan alive. But I can still separate the movies from the comics.

 

Why should you have to?

You don't have to do anything but in many peoples opinions, movies work better being based on cmic books rather than copying comic books. Sometimes they work well and sometimes they don't but the X Men trilogy was very successful as was Avengers which shows that not everyone is hung up on how closely the films follow the comic storylines. You're entitled to your point of view but so is everyone else.

 

The majority of people who saw those movies have no clue how close they were or were not to the comics, so why would they be hung up on anything? (shrug)

 

..... and film makers have to appeal to the majority so why would they worry about a few collectors who are interested in the film closely following the comics? Even among comic collectors, it seems that most enjoyed the first two films at least so we're talking about the minority of the minority who are actually hung up on the films following the comics.

 

Why on Earth would film makers then be worried about it? (shrug)

 

They obviously don't care...the majority of people seeing the movies don't know any better. It's up to the so called comic book fans to give a rat's arse.

It's not that comic book fans don't give a rat's arse, it's that not all comic book fans agree with your point of view.

 

If you're an alleged comic book fan, why wouldn't you want to see at least a decent attempt made to be faithful to the source material?

Because the general audience will think it looks stupid 2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz973

gaz973

Posted
Posted
X-Men Last Stand is a far better action movie than the story-less X2, but all the changes made seem to really butthurt the fanboys.

 

It seems that studios are allowed to make mediocre movies like X2 as long as they stick to the established continuity, but if they make an action-packed flick like X3 and all over continuity, they are hammered by the fanboys.

 

I personally liked X3 because it's the only movie that actually showed that mutants were powerful and could actually fight. Magneto had some great scenes and Wolverine wasn't just a fool swinging his claws around aimlessly like in X2. Singer has absolutely no clue on how to stage or shoot an action scene and this is shown clearly in Superman.

 

You guys need to step back from the funny books a bit, as this was nowhere near the same as turning Gwen into a 'ho, and I'm just about the biggest Dark Phoenix fan alive. But I can still separate the movies from the comics.

 

Why should you have to?

You don't have to do anything but in many peoples opinions, movies work better being based on cmic books rather than copying comic books. Sometimes they work well and sometimes they don't but the X Men trilogy was very successful as was Avengers which shows that not everyone is hung up on how closely the films follow the comic storylines. You're entitled to your point of view but so is everyone else.

 

The majority of people who saw those movies have no clue how close they were or were not to the comics, so why would they be hung up on anything? (shrug)

 

..... and film makers have to appeal to the majority so why would they worry about a few collectors who are interested in the film closely following the comics? Even among comic collectors, it seems that most enjoyed the first two films at least so we're talking about the minority of the minority who are actually hung up on the films following the comics.

 

Why on Earth would film makers then be worried about it? (shrug)

 

They obviously don't care...the majority of people seeing the movies don't know any better. It's up to the so called comic book fans to give a rat's arse.

It's not that comic book fans don't give a rat's arse, it's that not all comic book fans agree with your point of view.

 

If you're an alleged comic book fan, why wouldn't you want to see at least a decent attempt made to be faithful to the source material?

There's nothing alleged about my being a comic book fan, pretty much anyone who knows me will vouch for that.

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that quite a few comic stories wouldn't translate well to the big screen if they faithfully follow the comics. I think that attempts to do that would often lead to disappointment for those who wanted to see faithful recreations and complete lack of interest from the general public.

 

Also, I like seeing a fresh perspective on the characters when taken to the big screen rather than knowing what will happen and being underwhelmed as it just hasn't translated well between the mediums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
X-Men Last Stand is a far better action movie than the story-less X2, but all the changes made seem to really butthurt the fanboys.

 

It seems that studios are allowed to make mediocre movies like X2 as long as they stick to the established continuity, but if they make an action-packed flick like X3 and all over continuity, they are hammered by the fanboys.

 

I personally liked X3 because it's the only movie that actually showed that mutants were powerful and could actually fight. Magneto had some great scenes and Wolverine wasn't just a fool swinging his claws around aimlessly like in X2. Singer has absolutely no clue on how to stage or shoot an action scene and this is shown clearly in Superman.

 

You guys need to step back from the funny books a bit, as this was nowhere near the same as turning Gwen into a 'ho, and I'm just about the biggest Dark Phoenix fan alive. But I can still separate the movies from the comics.

 

Why should you have to?

You don't have to do anything but in many peoples opinions, movies work better being based on cmic books rather than copying comic books. Sometimes they work well and sometimes they don't but the X Men trilogy was very successful as was Avengers which shows that not everyone is hung up on how closely the films follow the comic storylines. You're entitled to your point of view but so is everyone else.

 

The majority of people who saw those movies have no clue how close they were or were not to the comics, so why would they be hung up on anything? (shrug)

 

..... and film makers have to appeal to the majority so why would they worry about a few collectors who are interested in the film closely following the comics? Even among comic collectors, it seems that most enjoyed the first two films at least so we're talking about the minority of the minority who are actually hung up on the films following the comics.

 

Why on Earth would film makers then be worried about it? (shrug)

 

They obviously don't care...the majority of people seeing the movies don't know any better. It's up to the so called comic book fans to give a rat's arse.

It's not that comic book fans don't give a rat's arse, it's that not all comic book fans agree with your point of view.

 

If you're an alleged comic book fan, why wouldn't you want to see at least a decent attempt made to be faithful to the source material?

Because the general audience will think it looks stupid 2c

 

Really? I don't recall the general audiences thinking that Superman: The Movie looked stupid or that Batman Begins looked stupid (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comicopolis

Comicopolis

Posted
Posted
X-Men Last Stand is a far better action movie than the story-less X2, but all the changes made seem to really butthurt the fanboys.

 

It seems that studios are allowed to make mediocre movies like X2 as long as they stick to the established continuity, but if they make an action-packed flick like X3 and all over continuity, they are hammered by the fanboys.

 

I personally liked X3 because it's the only movie that actually showed that mutants were powerful and could actually fight. Magneto had some great scenes and Wolverine wasn't just a fool swinging his claws around aimlessly like in X2. Singer has absolutely no clue on how to stage or shoot an action scene and this is shown clearly in Superman.

 

You guys need to step back from the funny books a bit, as this was nowhere near the same as turning Gwen into a 'ho, and I'm just about the biggest Dark Phoenix fan alive. But I can still separate the movies from the comics.

 

Why should you have to?

You don't have to do anything but in many peoples opinions, movies work better being based on cmic books rather than copying comic books. Sometimes they work well and sometimes they don't but the X Men trilogy was very successful as was Avengers which shows that not everyone is hung up on how closely the films follow the comic storylines. You're entitled to your point of view but so is everyone else.

 

The majority of people who saw those movies have no clue how close they were or were not to the comics, so why would they be hung up on anything? (shrug)

 

..... and film makers have to appeal to the majority so why would they worry about a few collectors who are interested in the film closely following the comics? Even among comic collectors, it seems that most enjoyed the first two films at least so we're talking about the minority of the minority who are actually hung up on the films following the comics.

 

Why on Earth would film makers then be worried about it? (shrug)

 

They obviously don't care...the majority of people seeing the movies don't know any better. It's up to the so called comic book fans to give a rat's arse.

It's not that comic book fans don't give a rat's arse, it's that not all comic book fans agree with your point of view.

 

If you're an alleged comic book fan, why wouldn't you want to see at least a decent attempt made to be faithful to the source material?

There's nothing alleged about my being a comic book fan, pretty much anyone who knows me will vouch for that.

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that quite a few comic stories wouldn't translate well to the big screen if they faithfully follow the comics. I think that attempts to do that would often lead to disappointment for those who wanted to see faithful recreations and complete lack of interest from the general public.

 

Also, I like seeing a fresh perspective on the characters when taken to the big screen rather than knowing what will happen and being underwhelmed as it just hasn't translated well between the mediums.

 

Wolverine should always look like this.

 

Wolverine_(comics).PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
Plus, why should one be hung up on the source material? I think an original, well written story with loads of special effects would be fantastic.

 

It appears that's mostly what they're trying to do anyway, since most ( not all ) of those movies barely resemble anything close to the source material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing