Official X-Men: The Last Stand Review Thread [SPOILERS!]

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

With 10 being the best and 1 being the worst, how would you rate X-Men: The Last Stand?

10
4
3%
9
4
3%
8
20
17%
7
27
23%
6
18
16%
5
12
10%
4
9
8%
3
7
6%
2
3
3%
1
5
4%
I will not be seeing this/I am waiting for DVD
6
5%
 
Total votes : 115

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 9:01 am

I think Chili is right really, it's a bad script, Ratner is a bad director, I don't know what else I should do with that information, the teaser was bad the trailer about the same, the 7 minute clip looked good but was disjointed so it was hard to judge, the Leno clip was really poor and the TV spots do just make it look like spectacle and no character, which is what I'm worried about. With Singer I know we would have got nice character beats and some really great mutant powers used innovatively (Magneto's prison breakout from 2 for example). With Ratner I worry that judging on past form and the clips he's going to make a visually boring film with a bad script.
Sorry if this is annoying to people, but saying you shouldn't take into account Ratner''s other stuff is silly. Would you do it with Uwe Boll or Paul Wank Shaft Anderson?
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun May 14, 2006 9:02 am

TonyWilson wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.



Kirk, when I see the film I'm going to watch it fairly, yes people are bitching cus it's Ratner, cus Ratner is fucking shit.


People have a right to bitch if it's crap 'cos of Ratner, but it just feels that they're already slagging/gonna slag it off more than it might deserve, simply 'cos they saw his name, (wonder if they'd be more forgiving if the exact same looking film had Singer's name on it) and a lot of the things they're already/gonna criticize it for might not be responsible by Ratner.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 9:07 am

Fuck off people, Ratner isn't that shit. He fucking outdid Ridley Scott's Hannibal with Red Dragon, for heavens sake.

edit - wow, I'm sounding angry today. Er... hugs all round!
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Seppuku on Sun May 14, 2006 9:09 am

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.



Kirk, when I see the film I'm going to watch it fairly, yes people are bitching cus it's Ratner, cus Ratner is fucking shit.


People have a right to bitch if it's crap 'cos of Ratner, but it just feels that they're already slagging/gonna slag it off more than it might deserve, simply 'cos they saw his name, (wonder if they'd be more forgiving if the exact same looking film had Singer's name on it) and a lot of the things they're already/gonna criticize it for might not be responsible by Ratner.


If Uwe Boll were directing this movie then you'd be quaking in your boots right now, because Directors are important to a movie- they're often the difference between it being good or bad.

I'm sure if the film turns out good we'll all have to eat our boxers, but all we have to go on are a bunch of TV Spots, trailers, negative reviews, plants etc. And they all add up to what looks like a poor film. Plus there's LordoftheRatsner. Yes, he might just affect the movie that he's DIRECTING.


Just saying, keep an open mind, give the guy a chance. If you genuinely don't like what you've seen so far, then fair enough. It just FEELS like some are overreacting because of a certain name directing this. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.


You've definitely got a point, I mean all those asswipes giving him cutesy names like "LordoftheRatsner" are just so far up their own arses it's unbelievable. I mean, every director needs to be given a shot at making their bones don't they? Need a chance to prove themselves?

Then again, LordoftheRatsner's the guy who said, "It's great to be using unknown actors like Ralph Fiennes because the audience have never heard of them so they can just dig the character". Seriously, he said that! Ralph Fiennes is an unknown except for being in Schindler's List which, you know, made over 300 million dollars in the U.S.

This is the director you're defending?
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 9:09 am

AtomicHyperbole wrote:Fuck off people, Ratner isn't that shit. He fucking outdid Ridley Scott's Hannibal with Red Dragon, for heavens sake.

edit - wow, I'm sounding angry today. Er... hugs all round!


Is... is that saying a lot?

Cause Red Dragon was, to me, rather bland... but folk seem to feel Hannibal's absolutely pathetic.

Anyway - as I said in the TB - Ratner is responsible for Prison Break, and so I think he has a degree of talent, but its a fucking big leap from directing a killer Pilot of a TV show to following in the footsteps of a guy who has one classic (The Usual Suspects) and two great comic-book films.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Seppuku on Sun May 14, 2006 9:13 am

seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.



Kirk, when I see the film I'm going to watch it fairly, yes people are bitching cus it's Ratner, cus Ratner is fucking shit.


People have a right to bitch if it's crap 'cos of Ratner, but it just feels that they're already slagging/gonna slag it off more than it might deserve, simply 'cos they saw his name, (wonder if they'd be more forgiving if the exact same looking film had Singer's name on it) and a lot of the things they're already/gonna criticize it for might not be responsible by Ratner.


If Uwe Boll were directing this movie then you'd be quaking in your boots right now, because Directors are important to a movie- they're often the difference between it being good or bad.

I'm sure if the film turns out good we'll all have to eat our boxers, but all we have to go on are a bunch of TV Spots, trailers, negative reviews, plants etc. And they all add up to what looks like a poor film. Plus there's LordoftheRatsner. Yes, he might just affect the movie that he's DIRECTING.


Just saying, keep an open mind, give the guy a chance. If you genuinely don't like what you've seen so far, then fair enough. It just FEELS like some are overreacting because of a certain name directing this. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.


You've definitely got a point, I mean all those asswipes giving him cutesy names like "LordoftheRatsner" are just so far up their own arses it's unbelievable. I mean, every director needs to be given a shot at making their bones don't they? Need a chance to prove themselves?

Then again, LordoftheRatsner's the guy who said, "It's great to be using unknown actors like Ralph Fiennes because the audience have never heard of them so they can just dig the character". Seriously, he said that! Ralph Fiennes is an unknown except for being in Schindler's List which, you know, made over 300 million dollars in the U.S.

This is the director you're defending?


This fucking post-jumping is insane. Especially seeing as how it's my posts that jump the furthest!!!
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 9:13 am

oh and Hannibal was a shite book made into a shite film, Red Dragon was a fantastic book made into one 80's classic and one boooooooring film.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun May 14, 2006 9:14 am

seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.



Kirk, when I see the film I'm going to watch it fairly, yes people are bitching cus it's Ratner, cus Ratner is fucking shit.


People have a right to bitch if it's crap 'cos of Ratner, but it just feels that they're already slagging/gonna slag it off more than it might deserve, simply 'cos they saw his name, (wonder if they'd be more forgiving if the exact same looking film had Singer's name on it) and a lot of the things they're already/gonna criticize it for might not be responsible by Ratner.


If Uwe Boll were directing this movie then you'd be quaking in your boots right now, because Directors are important to a movie- they're often the difference between it being good or bad.

I'm sure if the film turns out good we'll all have to eat our boxers, but all we have to go on are a bunch of TV Spots, trailers, negative reviews, plants etc. And they all add up to what looks like a poor film. Plus there's LordoftheRatsner. Yes, he might just affect the movie that he's DIRECTING.


Just saying, keep an open mind, give the guy a chance. If you genuinely don't like what you've seen so far, then fair enough. It just FEELS like some are overreacting because of a certain name directing this, regardless of what they simply see. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.

Personally, even though I think the guy is mediocre at best, I'm hoping that he might actually do good on this, and make a terrific film.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun May 14, 2006 9:19 am

Chilli wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Fuck off people, Ratner isn't that shit. He fucking outdid Ridley Scott's Hannibal with Red Dragon, for heavens sake.

edit - wow, I'm sounding angry today. Er... hugs all round!


Is... is that saying a lot?

Cause Red Dragon was, to me, rather bland... but folk seem to feel Hannibal's absolutely pathetic.


Red Dragon, brilliant story, underwhelmingly directed.

Hannibal, crap story, well directed.

One outweighs the other. I've seen Hannibal more than once, Red Dragon just the once, so it's hard for me to say. I do think that Hannibal reaches it's target and 'potential' a lot more than Red Dragon's underachievment though.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 9:22 am

TonyWilson wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.



Kirk, when I see the film I'm going to watch it fairly, yes people are bitching cus it's Ratner, cus Ratner is fucking shit.


People have a right to bitch if it's crap 'cos of Ratner, but it just feels that they're already slagging/gonna slag it off more than it might deserve, simply 'cos they saw his name, (wonder if they'd be more forgiving if the exact same looking film had Singer's name on it) and a lot of the things they're already/gonna criticize it for might not be responsible by Ratner.


If Uwe Boll were directing this movie then you'd be quaking in your boots right now, because Directors are important to a movie- they're often the difference between it being good or bad.

I'm sure if the film turns out good we'll all have to eat our boxers, but all we have to go on are a bunch of TV Spots, trailers, negative reviews, plants etc. And they all add up to what looks like a poor film. Plus there's LordoftheRatsner. Yes, he might just affect the movie that he's DIRECTING.


Just saying, keep an open mind, give the guy a chance. If you genuinely don't like what you've seen so far, then fair enough. It just FEELS like some are overreacting because of a certain name directing this. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.


You've definitely got a point, I mean all those asswipes giving him cutesy names like "LordoftheRatsner" are just so far up their own arses it's unbelievable. I mean, every director needs to be given a shot at making their bones don't they? Need a chance to prove themselves?

Then again, LordoftheRatsner's the guy who said, "It's great to be using unknown actors like Ralph Fiennes because the audience have never heard of them so they can just dig the character". Seriously, he said that! Ralph Fiennes is an unknown except for being in Schindler's List which, you know, made over 300 million dollars in the U.S.

This is the director you're defending?


This fucking post-jumping is insane. Especially seeing as how it's my posts that jump the furthest!!!


Ah, Sepp, thanks for reminding of that infamous Ratner quote about Fiennes. Does anyone really believe in Ratner? I don't mean do you think this film is going t be passable or entertaining. I mean do you have faith in Ratner artistic vision, in his craft, honestly?


I'm hoping there's a Behind the Scenes Documentary out there where Ratner tries to direct Anthony Hopkins and he just laughs... then Norton tells Ratner to fuck off.

On-topic... that definitely hurts any minute faith.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 9:28 am

seppukudkurosawa wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Again I think people are slagging/gonna slag the film off more than they should simply 'cos it says 'Directed by Brett Ratner', wether he does a good job or not. I bet if you replaced 'Directed by Brett Ratner', with 'Directed by Someone Else', whilst changing nothing from the film, their reactions would be different, wether it's slight or not. Give over on this Ratner slagging off guys, it's like you're not giving him a chance it feels.



Kirk, when I see the film I'm going to watch it fairly, yes people are bitching cus it's Ratner, cus Ratner is fucking shit.


People have a right to bitch if it's crap 'cos of Ratner, but it just feels that they're already slagging/gonna slag it off more than it might deserve, simply 'cos they saw his name, (wonder if they'd be more forgiving if the exact same looking film had Singer's name on it) and a lot of the things they're already/gonna criticize it for might not be responsible by Ratner.


If Uwe Boll were directing this movie then you'd be quaking in your boots right now, because Directors are important to a movie- they're often the difference between it being good or bad.

I'm sure if the film turns out good we'll all have to eat our boxers, but all we have to go on are a bunch of TV Spots, trailers, negative reviews, plants etc. And they all add up to what looks like a poor film. Plus there's LordoftheRatsner. Yes, he might just affect the movie that he's DIRECTING.


Just saying, keep an open mind, give the guy a chance. If you genuinely don't like what you've seen so far, then fair enough. It just FEELS like some are overreacting because of a certain name directing this. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.


You've definitely got a point, I mean all those asswipes giving him cutesy names like "LordoftheRatsner" are just so far up their own arses it's unbelievable. I mean, every director needs to be given a shot at making their bones don't they? Need a chance to prove themselves?

Then again, LordoftheRatsner's the guy who said, "It's great to be using unknown actors like Ralph Fiennes because the audience have never heard of them so they can just dig the character". Seriously, he said that! Ralph Fiennes is an unknown except for being in Schindler's List which, you know, made over 300 million dollars in the U.S.

This is the director you're defending?


This fucking post-jumping is insane. Especially seeing as how it's my posts that jump the furthest!!!


Ah, Sepp, thanks for reminding of that infamous Ratner quote about Fiennes. Does anyone really believe in Ratner? I don't mean do you think this film is going t be passable or entertaining. I mean do you have faith in Ratner artistic vision, in his craft, honestly?
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby ZombieZoneSolutions on Sun May 14, 2006 9:45 am

I enjoyed the book HANNIBAL, was horrified at the awfulness
of the film, was more or less indifferent to RED DRAGON, though
I loved (am sort of in love with) Emily Watson, and thought Ralph
Fiennes did a fine job.

As far as Ratner and X3, I really feel like it could go either way.
Neither X1 or X2 were high art; they were merely entertaining
adventure flicks with a delicious and seemingly always poingant
theme/subtext/backbone of the disenfranchised battling for
acceptance in a world that hates and fears them. I think the
biggest difference we may see between the two directors is that
clearly Bryan Singer, being g@y, knows what its like to be hated
for no reason whatsoever, and therefore brings to the theme
a deeper empathic resonance that a 'hack' like Ratner not be
capable of. Not that one needs to be an opressed minority to
understand what it feels like to be an opressed minority (and all
outsider / independent people feel that way all the time anyway
being surrounded by idiots on all sides), but I don't know if Ratner
has the chops to pull it off.

I guess we'll all find out next week.

Oh, and Ellen Page gets my vote for the cutest little thing
I've seen on the screen in a long, long time. I think she will
be perfect as Shadowcat / Kitty Pryde. She also happens
to be a fantastic little actress. Go see HARD CANDY and tell me
what you think. A four star performance from Page in a 3 star
film...
ZombieZoneSolutions
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:28 pm

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 9:46 am

Chilli wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Fuck off people, Ratner isn't that shit. He fucking outdid Ridley Scott's Hannibal with Red Dragon, for heavens sake.

edit - wow, I'm sounding angry today. Er... hugs all round!


Is... is that saying a lot?

Cause Red Dragon was, to me, rather bland... but folk seem to feel Hannibal's absolutely pathetic.

Anyway - as I said in the TB - Ratner is responsible for Prison Break, and so I think he has a degree of talent, but its a fucking big leap from directing a killer Pilot of a TV show to following in the footsteps of a guy who has one classic (The Usual Suspects) and two great comic-book films.


One great comic book film.

I swear, X-Men is utterly average.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 9:53 am

As for Ratner, his movies are ENTERTAINING. The guy's a for-hire, but he at least commits some passion to it, can actually direct and fake other styles plus makes watchable, if not incredible, movies. Hell, we wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for Singer's X2. People would be "yeah, Ratner, he makes entertaining films". Not every director in Hollywood is a Singer, but not everyone is a Ratner either, someone who can shift chameleon-like to the material he's creating rather than change the vision to something entirely different because of an overblown ego.

You know what I like about him? He loves Singer's vision and wants to respect that himself. He is quite happy to mould his style to suit the franchise. Look at Batman - each movie is entirely different as each ego takes a grip on the franchise and that in turn either suffers or benefits from it.

Say what you want about Ratner, but have some respect that he's quite prepared to bow down to another directors setup and attempt to follow it through. We don't know how much control he was given over the script, if it's anything like animation it'd have been locked down by the time he came in. But he saw what Singer had done and replicated it, at least visually. That, as a creative, is an incredibly difficult thing to do - and on that alone I at least tip my hat to him.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 10:46 am

Good for you fella, I respect your opinion.

Even if it's wrong. :P
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 10:48 am

I have never ever been even remotely entertained watching a Ratner film. So I can't agree with what you say Atomic, as for him trying to match Singer's vision well I think that's just foolish to try. It may look like it i.e the same colour palette for that I tip my hat to the cinematographer not Ratner though, the direction and editing is sub-par from what i've seen. Yeh he may not have had any control over the script, but if it's a bad script he's only doing it for the payday, again that doesn't inspire confidence.
And I don't know how you can say he respects Singers vision when he's directing a movie that

HUGE FUCKING SPOILERS






Kills Cyclops and Xavier and permanently cures Magneto.














End Spoilers






And personally I LOVE it when a franchise a different Directors, Alien benefitted from it for 3 films and the Mission Impossible series did well on 2 movies.
With X-Men though there is definite through line as it features all the same characters and I think to do that you need the same director not just someone trying to copy it, because it could come off as poor imitation.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 10:57 am

AtomicHyperbole wrote:Good for you fella, I respect your opinion.

Even if it's wrong. :P



Ditto :D
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 10:57 am

Anyhway... I think you deserve a better argument... :D

From all his interviews, his fan asides, I don't think he's doing it for the payday PURELY. Not at all. I think they took the only risk they could and it was a smart decision under the circumstances. Sure, the fans would remember the X-men franchise after a while, but the general public - if it waited any longer - would greet a third film with apathy if they waited for Singer any longer than they have. At least by taking on a chameleon director they, and Ratner, are following through on the respect of the look and feel of the film and not tipping the balance beyond whatever plotting has been pre-worked out by the writers. Blame the writers and the producers. Why Ratner? For taking on the job?

You don't expect Ratner not to take on the job and do the best he can with it even if he may realise some aspects of the finalised script don't, possibly, even jar with him? Be realistic.

He's respecting the feel for the franchise, and most of the world outside the X-fans who followed the comics (who already bitched and moaned about the last two) going against lore doesn't really make a fucking difference. Just look over the bitching about minor deviations when the last two came out, let alone major ones.

Do we know what Singer would've done with this one? Maybe the direction is inspired by Singer. Maybe this was the direction it was going all along. People should quit pretending its some deep art-house franchise to be respected and held aloft. It's not. Its enjoyable fluff and at best is full of cod philosophising as it is.

And Alien most certainly didn't benefit entirely from different directors styles either, don't discount the others to bolster your argument! That's like pretending they don't exist or the franchises weren't damaged! Shame on you... ;)

But I s'pose none of this matters. A lot of you seem to think Ratner is one of the worst directors in Hollywood and Singer is infallible. Some of us, however, have longer memories and are prepared to give benefit. I'm not expecting the best picture ever. But then, the others weren't either.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun May 14, 2006 11:17 am

Just realised that all of us are wrng in what we've just been saying today.

This all should be in the X Men DISCUSSION thread, not the REVIEW thread, seeing as none of this has to do with anyone's actual 'review'. It's not like we're talking about CHUD or anyone else's review of the film.


We've all been 'O'ned.

Now I'm splitting this thread.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 11:20 am

AtomicHyperbole wrote: Anyhway... I think you deserve a better argument... :D

From all his interviews, his fan asides, I don't think he's doing it for the payday PURELY. Not at all. I think they took the only risk they could and it was a smart decision under the circumstances. Sure, the fans would remember the X-men franchise after a while, but the general public - if it waited any longer - would greet a third film with apathy if they waited for Singer any longer than they have.


So they rushed it through to squeeze all the cash from it, that's terribly disappointing but not suprising. However, a rushed film is a liability in terms of quality, of course Fox don't care about this, but I do. I understand why they rushed it and I think it was a bad idea.

AtomicHyperbole wrote: At least by taking on a chameleon director they, and Ratner, are following through on the respect of the look and feel of the film and not tipping the balance beyond whatever plotting has been pre-worked out by the writers. Blame the writers and the producers. Why Ratner? For taking on the job?



Imprinting none of your personality on a movie doesn't make you a chameleon it makes you woefully inept or just a hired hand. And I do blame the studios AND the writers AND Ratner.

AtomicHyperbole wrote:You don't expect Ratner not to take on the job and do the best he can with it even if he may realise some aspects of the finalised script don't, possibly, even jar with him? Be realistic.


Of course not, I just think his best is shit.

AtomicHyperbole wrote:He's respecting the feel for the franchise, and most of the world outside the X-fans who followed the comics (who already bitched and moaned about the last two) going against lore doesn't really make a fucking difference. Just look over the bitching about minor deviations when the last two came out, let alone major ones.


But he's not respecting the 2 films which came before it. By having what hapens to certain characters happen it's practically spitting in the face of x1 and x2 fans. Sure the average cinemagoer might not mind, but I'm not the average cinemagoer and I don't really care about what they like or don't.

AtomicHyperbole wrote:Do we know what Singer would've done with this one? Maybe the direction is inspired by Singer. Maybe this was the direction it was going all along.


Well seeing as Singer or the former writers had zero creative input I'd be rather shocked if the new guys just read their minds and went in that direction

AtomicHyperbole wrote:People should quit pretending its some deep art-house franchise to be respected and held aloft. It's not. Its enjoyable fluff and at best is full of cod philosophising as it is.


I really don't know who's pretending it's art house fair, I just know that the characters were believable for mutants with superpowers, that I cared about them and the Malcolm X/Martin Luther King dealio found in the comics was pulled through to the screen really really well. All this was partially down to Singers subtlety of approach and I appreciated how well it worked.
Ratner don't do subtelty.

AtomicHyperbole wrote:And Alien most certainly didn't benefit entirely from different directors styles either, don't discount the others to bolster your argument! That's like pretending they don't exist or the franchises weren't damaged! Shame on you... ;)


Well I think Alien is a classic horror film, Aliens is a classic action film and Alien 3 is flawed but fantastic sci-fi horror. I even mentioned that it didn't always work, but you shouldn't discount the good ones just to argue with my original point.

AtomicHyperbole wrote:But I s'pose none of this matters. A lot of you seem to think Ratner is one of the worst directors in Hollywood and Singer is infallible. Some of us, however, have longer memories and are prepared to give benefit. I'm not expecting the best picture ever. But then, the others weren't either.


Wow, who said Singer was infallible? He's made one absolute classic ,one mediocre debut, one so so comic book movie, one of the very best comic book movies and a entertaining if slight psychological thriller. Ratner has made turds - not even Ed Wood style bad movies, just hyper bland, tension free crap.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 11:23 am

I can't wait for you to see it and like it. :D I bet you can't wait for me to see it and hate it! There's no point arguing anymore, as I don't think Ratner is a bad director. Just middling. But then, I only think Singer's done one truly fantastic film.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 11:25 am

AtomicHyperbole wrote:I can't wait for you to see it and like it. :D I bet you can't wait for me to see it and hate it!



LOL, please don't get me wrong, I may be pessimistic, but I want to go in and be really suprised and happy. I just think that's doubtful, but I'm prepared to call this films an absolute genre classic if it works.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 11:28 am

Chilli wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:I can't wait for you to see it and like it. :D I bet you can't wait for me to see it and hate it! There's no point arguing anymore, as I don't think Ratner is a bad director. Just middling. But then, I only think Singer's done one truly fantastic film.


I wonder if Stan Lee sees it and gets so angry he declares open fucking war on Ratner for ruining his creation.

We need a Stan Lee review.


I think Stan Lee's reaction to any of his comic book films is: MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNEEEEEY!!!!!!!!! WAHOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 11:28 am

Dunno, but its not his creation once it hits the movie screen. That's one thing about adaptations. It's as much the director and screenwriter's baby as it is the originator. I'm sure he knows that.

Guy wasn't that loud about his creations being raped in the past, was he?
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 11:35 am

AtomicHyperbole wrote:I can't wait for you to see it and like it. :D I bet you can't wait for me to see it and hate it! There's no point arguing anymore, as I don't think Ratner is a bad director. Just middling. But then, I only think Singer's done one truly fantastic film.


I wonder if Stan Lee sees it and gets so angry he declares open fucking war on Ratner for ruining his creation.

We need a Stan Lee review.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby raasnio on Sun May 14, 2006 1:04 pm

I can't wait to see the film for myself. I just don't get the people who think Singer (or even Mann for that matter) are great directors. Sure, Ridley Scott is a great one and that's because he's made many great movies.

Ratner, to me, has never made standout films, but I have been entertained and that's what I pay money to go see. Entertainment.

Growing up I was an X-Men fan. I always hoped the movies would deliver, though nowadays the only film based on any classic superheros comic that I think is brilliant is Batman Begins. Nolan has been solid with every film thus far.
User avatar
raasnio
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 1:08 pm

raasnio wrote:I can't wait to see the film for myself. I just don't get the people who think Singer (or even Mann for that matter) are great directors. Sure, Ridley Scott is a great one and that's because he's made many great movies.

Ratner, to me, has never made standout films, but I have been entertained and that's what I pay money to go see. Entertainment.

Growing up I was an X-Men fan. I always hoped the movies would deliver, though nowadays the only film based on any classic superheros comic that I think is brilliant is Batman Begins. Nolan has been solid with every film thus far.


I don't know, Ridley has Alien, Blade Runner as classics.
Mann has Heat and Last Of The Mohican. After that I might still give Mann the edge, with The Insider and Ali over Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of Heaven.

I don't think Singer is a cinematic genius but I reckon he's on a par with Nolan, Usual Suspects/Memento Insomnia/Apt Pupil X2/Batman Begins.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby raasnio on Sun May 14, 2006 1:46 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
I don't think Singer is a cinematic genius but I reckon he's on a par with Nolan, Usual Suspects/Memento Insomnia/Apt Pupil X2/Batman Begins.


I've already posted my dislike for Usual Suspects, but I don't know of anyone who left the theater after Batman Begins that thought X2 held a candle to it. It's all about making use of the strengths of the characters, imo. I'm not so sure we got that with X-Men so far.

I think X-Men was so well received because the bar that was set before the first film was low indeed. Now people are invested in the characters and actors and that, in turn, is leading them to mistrust the 3rd fillm because it switched hands. Singer can't be a X-Men fan if he left it for Superman. He's basically thrown it to the wind without a care.
User avatar
raasnio
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 1:48 pm

raasnio wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
I don't think Singer is a cinematic genius but I reckon he's on a par with Nolan, Usual Suspects/Memento Insomnia/Apt Pupil X2/Batman Begins.


I've already posted my dislike for Usual Suspects, but I don't know of anyone who left the theater after Batman Begins that thought X2 held a candle to it. It's all about making use of the strengths of the characters, imo. I'm not so sure we got that with X-Men so far.

I think X-Men was so well received because the bar that was set before the first film was low indeed. Now people are invested in the characters and actors and that, in turn, is leading them to mistrust the 3rd fillm because it switched hands. Singer can't be a X-Men fan if he left it for Superman. He's basically thrown it to the wind without a care.


Well you could argue that Fox treated him like crap and gave him less support than Nolan got for Batman: Begins. Maybe he felt he'd get more respect with a DC property, and by all accounts he has.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 1:54 pm

raasnio wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
I don't think Singer is a cinematic genius but I reckon he's on a par with Nolan, Usual Suspects/Memento Insomnia/Apt Pupil X2/Batman Begins.


I've already posted my dislike for Usual Suspects, but I don't know of anyone who left the theater after Batman Begins that thought X2 held a candle to it. It's all about making use of the strengths of the characters, imo. I'm not so sure we got that with X-Men so far.

I think X-Men was so well received because the bar that was set before the first film was low indeed. Now people are invested in the characters and actors and that, in turn, is leading them to mistrust the 3rd fillm because it switched hands. Singer can't be a X-Men fan if he left it for Superman. He's basically thrown it to the wind without a care.


yeh I'm in a minority regarding X2/BB but what can I say? I preferred the feel of the X-Men films and I have misgvings about Bale as Batman, he's a great Bruce Wayne and that but he looks weird in the mask and his voice seems over the top.

And yeh, fox treated Singer badly, we know about the whole Rothman thing so if he's offered something he's dreamed about doing his whole life then I can see why he went. He didn't want to give people a rushed X3 but that's what Fox wanted, I think that makes him more of a fan not less of one.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby raasnio on Sun May 14, 2006 1:56 pm

Chilli wrote:Well you could argue that Fox treated him like crap and gave him less support than Nolan got for Batman: Begins. Maybe he felt he'd get more respect with a DC property, and by all accounts he has.


I can see your point, It's just that they treated him better with X2, certainly not X1, and if you truly care about a film series you are working on at least finish the trilogy. X2 was leading us up to this big moment with Phoenix and I don't see how one would want to leave it to do a film that looks like Superman 1.5. Lex Luthor, again?? I'm sure Spacey will do a great job, but how about another villain?

*shrugs*
User avatar
raasnio
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 1:58 pm

raasnio wrote:
Chilli wrote:Well you could argue that Fox treated him like crap and gave him less support than Nolan got for Batman: Begins. Maybe he felt he'd get more respect with a DC property, and by all accounts he has.


I can see your point, It's just that they treated him better with X2, certainly not X1, and if you truly care about a film series you are working on at least finish the trilogy. X2 was leading us up to this big moment with Phoenix and I don't see how one would want to leave it to do a film that looks like Superman 1.5. Lex Luthor, again?? I'm sure Spacey will do a great job, but how about another villain?

*shrugs*

re' the lex lutohor thing, it's a studio thing I'm almost sure, the general populace know ONLY about Lex Luthor. Braniac, Doomsday all that is comic book fans only really.
I don't mind the fact that it's based partly around Donner's movie, the writers and Singer clearly adore it so something done with that much love gives me confidence that they nail that particular incarnation of the character. Yes a different Supes would have been great to see, but that doesn't mean Singers version is going to be bad.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 2:05 pm

raasnio wrote:
Chilli wrote:Well you could argue that Fox treated him like crap and gave him less support than Nolan got for Batman: Begins. Maybe he felt he'd get more respect with a DC property, and by all accounts he has.


I can see your point, It's just that they treated him better with X2, certainly not X1, and if you truly care about a film series you are working on at least finish the trilogy. X2 was leading us up to this big moment with Phoenix and I don't see how one would want to leave it to do a film that looks like Superman 1.5. Lex Luthor, again?? I'm sure Spacey will do a great job, but how about another villain?

*shrugs*


Singer loves Superman, and felt he could do it justice. So he went off to go and make it. But there were strong negotiations for X-Men III... and I think he likely wanted time to do it justice, but Fox demanded it be done by a certain date.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 2:11 pm

raasnio wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:re' the lex lutohor thing, it's a studio thing I'm almost sure, the general populace know ONLY about Lex Luthor. Braniac, Doomsday all that is comic book fans only really.
I don't mind the fact that it's based partly around Donner's movie, the writers and Singer clearly adore it so something done with that much love gives me confidence that they nail that particular incarnation of the character. Yes a different Supes would have been great to see, but that doesn't mean Singers version is going to be bad.


Ok, then. This is either the last Superman film (we know that isn't true) or every film will be Supes vs Luthor.

Let's be realistic. I think if you put another villain in there it makes all the more sense for Superman to return. An audience doesn't need to know the villain to either:

1. Love him/her
2. Fear him/her

Or, most importantly:

3. Want to see what happens

This is what trailers are for.

If you ask me, I think it's because any of these other villains would change the tone of the film from Superman vs. evil human to Superman vs. Monster. There goes the film's credibility. :roll:


Well I wouldn't say credibility, it would change the tone though which is why Singer wants Luthor too, as he's following up the Donner films. Plus seeing as, in the public view, Lex is his greatest enemy, his nemesis it makes sense for it t be him.
I'm sure if there's a sequel they'll being out more sci-fi villains just like Superman 2 did.
But really the choice to have Lex back is not going to ruin the movie.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby raasnio on Sun May 14, 2006 2:14 pm

TonyWilson wrote:re' the lex lutohor thing, it's a studio thing I'm almost sure, the general populace know ONLY about Lex Luthor. Braniac, Doomsday all that is comic book fans only really.
I don't mind the fact that it's based partly around Donner's movie, the writers and Singer clearly adore it so something done with that much love gives me confidence that they nail that particular incarnation of the character. Yes a different Supes would have been great to see, but that doesn't mean Singers version is going to be bad.


Ok, then. This is either the last Superman film (we know that isn't true) or every film will be Supes vs Luthor.

Let's be realistic. I think if you put another villain in there it makes all the more sense for Superman to return. An audience doesn't need to know the villain to either:

1. Love him/her
2. Fear him/her

Or, most importantly:

3. Want to see what happens

This is what trailers are for.

If you ask me, I think it's because any of these other villains would change the tone of the film from Superman vs. evil human to Superman vs. Monster. There goes the film's credibility. :roll:
User avatar
raasnio
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Postby Peven on Sun May 14, 2006 2:35 pm

"The Usual Suspects" has to be one of the most over-rated movies of the last 20 yrs, and it is so annoying when people keep propping up Singer by referring to it as a "classic". just why is it a "classic"? because of the gee-whiz twist at the end? because of a gimmick that had no set up, no evidence at all for the audience to pick up on, no tie in to anything shown or or evenly vaguely hinted at in the first 99% of the movie? and lets not forget the first 99% of the movie was a slow moving snoozefest with characters you couldn't give a shit about, and was much more like a network-produced "movie of the week" than any cinematic classic.

but, like most myths, the more time goes by the more it gets falsely built up and up, and those who buy into it are less and less willing to take an honest look at what they are glorifying. i guarantee you there are people who don't think it is anything special, but are too unsure of their own opinion to say it and instead just go along with the crowd who declare with such surity and matter-of-factness that everyone KNOWS "The Usual Suspects" is a great film, as sure as they KNOW their own name.


NO ONE is declaring Ratner a master filmmaker, but then, no one credible can declare Singer a master filmmaker either, and can objectively pick apart parts of both X1 and X2 as much as they would pick apart Red Dragon or Rush Hour. both guys have made passable movies, but movies that could have been better in the hands of true A-list directors.

i see one poster here who is ripping on Ratner because Ratner has said he is trying to follow the tone of Singer's first two X-Men films, and this poster uses that as evidence of Ratner's lack of skill, not being able to bring his own style and vision to the table. this SAME poster is a huge supporter of "Superman Returns", even though Singer has openly talked about using Donner's Superman films as inspiration, not only in tone, but anyone who has any knowledge of the story knows Singer is lifting many elements of Donner's Superman I & II plots as well. so, when Ratner pays homage to Singer's work it shows how he sucks, but when Singer does the SAME thing in regard to Donner's work it is commendable? seems like a double standard, a hypocritical judgement, does it not? what it IS, is the definition of HATER.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 2:53 pm

Peven wrote:"The Usual Suspects" has to be one of the most over-rated movies of the last 20 yrs, and it is so annoying when people keep propping up Singer by referring to it as a "classic". just why is it a "classic"? because of the gee-whiz twist at the end? because of a gimmick that had no set up, no evidence at all for the audience to pick up on, no tie in to anything shown or or evenly vaguely hinted at in the first 99% of the movie? and lets not forget the first 99% of the movie was a slow moving snoozefest with characters you couldn't give a shit about, and was much more like a network-produced "movie of the week" than any cinematic classic.

but, like most myths, the more time goes by the more it gets falsely built up and up, and those who buy into it are less and less willing to take an honest look at what they are glorifying. i guarantee you there are people who don't think it is anything special, but are too unsure of their own opinion to say it and instead just go along with the crowd who declare with such surity and matter-of-factness that everyone KNOWS "The Usual Suspects" is a great film, as sure as they KNOW their own name.


NO ONE is declaring Ratner a master filmmaker, but then, no one credible can declare Singer a master filmmaker either, and can objectively pick apart parts of both X1 and X2 as much as they would pick apart Red Dragon or Rush Hour. both guys have made passable movies, but movies that could have been better in the hands of true A-list directors.

i see one poster here who is ripping on Ratner because Ratner has said he is trying to follow the tone of Singer's first two X-Men films, and this poster uses that as evidence of Ratner's lack of skill, not being able to bring his own style and vision to the table. this SAME poster is a huge supporter of "Superman Returns", even though Singer has openly talked about using Donner's Superman films as inspiration, not only in tone, but anyone who has any knowledge of the story knows Singer is lifting many elements of Donner's Superman I & II plots as well. so, when Ratner pays homage to Singer's work it shows how he sucks, but when Singer does the SAME thing in regard to Donner's work it is commendable? seems like a double standard, a hypocritical judgement, does it not? what it IS, is the definition of HATER.



Dude call me out by name.

Now you really can't stand the fact that Singer and Superman Returns is getting a more positive reaction than X3, that's cool, but you are being terribly biased and not even admitting it. YOU don't like Usual Suspects so YOU think it's overrated you can't go round saying other people don't like but are too afraid to say anything, that's completely without rhyme or reason. Now I could go into why most people love it, and it's not just about the twist, although that's certainly a big part. It's kind of like Sixth Sense in that yes the twist is pivotal but if you didn't care for the rest of the film the twist wouldn't pack half as much of a punch.

Now as for Ratner copying Singers style, that was Atomic's assertion, Ratner hasn't said that's what he's doing, merely that he's a "fanboy", my argument was that Ratner isn't a chameleon he just has no particular atmosphere or personality to his movies. I even said that apart from the colour palette Ratner doesn't seem to be copying anything else, so your whole bitch about my hypocrisy goes out the window. And acutally I'm using Ratner's OTHER films as evidence for his lack of skills. Like I say you really don't learn Peven.
Singer is openly in love with Donner's films and he's referencing them, but the production design, cinematography, colour palette and from the looks of it the editing/direction is not homage but actually bringing something new to the table.

And hey I agree that Singer ain't a cinematic genius (I keep saying this but you ignore Peven) but he's far far better than Ratner.

Try and argue with someone's points rather then trying to say they are a hater or a hypocrite when there's all the evidence people need, above you to tell them I'm not a hater, merely someone with a poor opinion or Ratner and a more positive opinion of Singer.....God how terrible, I'm looking a directors previous form and using it when I assess how good their new movie might be, I'm such a hater huh, making informed decisions and keeping an openmind, what a hypocrite hey.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 3:07 pm

I'm pretty sure my assertion is correct.

"There lies the genius in Brian Singer" agrees Brett Ratner, when Empire calls his LA office on a cold February morning. "No matter how good a movie I make, Bryan was responsible for taking a comic book and interpreting it, cinematically, better than anyone has done before."


In fact, from the material we've seen so far minus that one clip from Leno, you'd be hard pressed on score, design and cinematography to seperate it from the previous films in any way whatsoever. BTW TW, you're accusing Peven of what you're doing... well, you're both doing it. You're using your opinions as a basis for factual argument. You evidently don't like Ratner regardless, so there's no point debating at all.

As for Superman, I think Singer's shot himself in the foot for a lot of fans, but we'll see. That's another thread anyhow.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 3:17 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:I'm pretty sure my assertion is correct.

"There lies the genius in Brian Singer" agrees Brett Ratner, when Empire calls his LA office on a cold February morning. "No matter how good a movie I make, Bryan was responsible for taking a comic book and interpreting it, cinematically, better than anyone has done before."


In fact, from the material we've seen so far minus that one clip from Leno, you'd be hard pressed on score, design and cinematography to seperate it from the previous films in any way whatsoever. BTW TW, you're accusing Peven of what you're doing... well, you're both doing it. You're using your opinions as a basis for factual argument. You evidently don't like Ratner regardless, so there's no point debating at all.

As for Superman, I think Singer's shot himself in the foot for a lot of fans, but we'll see. That's another thread anyhow.


But hang on, I'm saying it's my opinion and I'm not inventing an group of people who don't like The Usual Suspects but are too scared to say anything to make my point. Yeh I don't like Ratner, I give my reasons, what more can I do here? I'm admitting my bias but I'm also saying I want this film to do well and I'll be more than happy, I'll be ecstatic if this film is good. It's just that most evidence suggests it won't be, yes it's my opinion but I'm giving real evidence for it, not imaginary, Usual Suspect hating cowards.

And that quote just says he thinks Singer is touched by genius (even I'm not saying that) it doesn't say that he's copying that vision. Yeh score design and cinematography are practically the same but then as other people argue Ratner probably isn't getting that much creative input into things. Production/Costume design are going to be the same as it's the same actors and the story follows a direct set up from the 2nd film, the colour palette is the same but that's the cinematographer not Ratner. Same with score.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 3:20 pm

So you're saying that... Ratner has no input on score and cinematography decisions? I find that hard to swallow.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Peven on Sun May 14, 2006 3:25 pm

there is a big difference between "The Usual Suspects" and "The Sixth Sense". M. Night actually incorporated the twist into the workings of the movie, so that after seeing the twist at the end, one could rewatch the movie and see how the clue, the hints were there all along. not so with "The Usual Suspects". the twist was a total gimmick, tacked on, and had no tie in to anything shown previously in the movie.

AH pointed out that Ratner had talked about wanting to follow the lead that Singer had established with X1 and X2, and you jumped right on that as a reason why Ratner sucked, that he had no vision of his own to bring to the table, you didn't dismiss it.

Singer is borrowing a shitload from Donner's work, from the story elements to the score he's using in the trailers, but you point to that as homage. to me, thats a double standard.

thing is, no matter what Ratner does, haters will find a way to spin it negatively. if someone points out how he says he is following Singer's lead? Ratner is a hack with no originality. if someone points out that he is introducing a lot more mutants and putting in more mutant vs mutant action than the first two movies, even killing off a few characters? Ratner isn't respecting the first two movies. before Ratner was attached to the movie, fans were complaining they hadn't seen a danger room sequence yet. so, Ratner puts a danger room sequence in, but now its a bad idea.


thing is, i have faith in the cast who have been there since the first movie. they aren't going to lose their ability just because there is a different director. don't like the story? well, thats not Ratner's doing, so bashing him for it is pretty inane. and it isn't as if there was some sort of signature Singer imprint to the way the first two movies were shot, no innovative camera angles or unique cinematic style that people will miss. in fact, if there is any Singer style that people may be able to credit to the first two movies it is in regard to how slow-moving they are in places, and how weak they are in the action dept. if X3 isn't as good as people hoped, the blame will be on the writers and studio, not the guy who came in and simply worked within the parameters set by others. if it succeeds than Ratner can't take the bulk of credit either. on the other hand, Singer has had much more control over production of SR, it is his baby, so its success or failure falls on his shoulders.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby Seppuku on Sun May 14, 2006 3:26 pm

This thread is maddening. I suggest that Kirk be made a mod so he can lock the X-men threads.

Or at least someone lock them.

This is like an unwinnable basketball match- Tony/and the Tony crew nets the ball, Peven/and the Peven crew dunks one. When will it end?

When the film is released, but for now all this back-and-forth is driving me crazy. To Quothe Noted_Sage Cpt Kirks 2Pay ARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 3:28 pm

Since when is throwing more mutants in for scenes of mutant on mutant action a good thing?

Service the mutants already there. Don't throw in 10 new mutants for no gorram reason. I mean its the crap like the spec of Gambit helping Magneto... which makes no fucking sense.

I wanted a logical extension for X-Men III. Maybe leave Cyclops out, add Beast... give Rogue more to do.

Not all these stupid mutants like Angel. (Wow - Ben Foster)... I mean we're going to be expected to care about the plethora of new characters while giving Wolverine/Jean centre-stage again?!?
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Seppuku on Sun May 14, 2006 3:34 pm

Why aren't people comparing X-Men III to Spiderman or even Batman Continues? This I don't like Singer therefore X-men will be good business makes no sense to me. How does showing another film/director's flaws make X-III any better or worse?
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby Peven on Sun May 14, 2006 3:37 pm

Chilli wrote:Since when is throwing more mutants in for scenes of mutant on mutant action a good thing?

Service the mutants already there. Don't throw in 10 new mutants for no gorram reason. I mean its the crap like the spec of Gambit helping Magneto... which makes no fucking sense.

I wanted a logical extension for X-Men III. Maybe leave Cyclops out, add Beast... give Rogue more to do.

Not all these stupid mutants like Angel. (Wow - Ben Foster)... I mean we're going to be expected to care about the plethora of new characters while giving Wolverine/Jean centre-stage again?!?


you're trying to help me make my point about people simply hating on anything Ratner does, right? "give Rogue more to do"? have you payed attention to any of the tv spots??? one of the main storylines of the movie involves Rogue, her problem in dealing with her powers, how her relationship with Bobby is affected, her desire to be "cured" so she can experience human contact. but here you are claiming Ratner isn't giving her enough to do. what more do you want her to do that would flesh out her character than what is being done in X3???
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby Peven on Sun May 14, 2006 3:42 pm

seppukudkurosawa wrote:Why aren't people comparing X-Men III to Spiderman or even Batman Continues? This I don't like Singer therefore X-men will be good business makes no sense to me. How does showing another film/director's flaws make X-III any better or worse?


Sepp, i think Singer did good work on the first two X-Men movies. but i don't think he is so indispensible that we can't get a decent X3 movie without him either. he isn't THAT uniquely talented. if it seems as if people, myself included, are pointing out Singer's flaws, it is in response to those saying that X3 will suck because there is no way Ratner can follow up Singer's work adequately being that Singer is somehow much more proven than Ratner. i say they are both less-than A-list directors, but both have made enjoyable, watchable movies.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 3:43 pm

X2 suffered from too many characters as well. For example, Deathstrike was really underdeveloped and on her death, despite her being under someone elses control (if I remember rightly, been a while), was hardly as tragic as it could've been...
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Peven on Sun May 14, 2006 3:46 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:X2 suffered from too many characters as well. For example, Deathstrike was really underdeveloped and on her death, despite her being under someone elses control (if I remember rightly, been a while), was hardly as tragic as it could've been...


i agree with you about Deathstrike. with only a few more minutes of screen time dedicated to it, her character and fate could have had much more impact than it did.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 3:48 pm

Peven wrote:there is a big difference between "The Usual Suspects" and "The Sixth Sense". M. Night actually incorporated the twist into the workings of the movie, so that after seeing the twist at the end, one could rewatch the movie and see how the clue, the hints were there all along. not so with "The Usual Suspects". the twist was a total gimmick, tacked on, and had no tie in to anything shown previously in the movie.

AH pointed out that Ratner had talked about wanting to follow the lead that Singer had established with X1 and X2, and you jumped right on that as a reason why Ratner sucked, that he had no vision of his own to bring to the table, you didn't dismiss it.

Singer is borrowing a shitload from Donner's work, from the story elements to the score he's using in the trailers, but you point to that as homage. to me, thats a double standard.

thing is, no matter what Ratner does, haters will find a way to spin it negatively. if someone points out how he says he is following Singer's lead? Ratner is a hack with no originality. if someone points out that he is introducing a lot more mutants and putting in more mutant vs mutant action than the first two movies, even killing off a few characters? Ratner isn't respecting the first two movies. before Ratner was attached to the movie, fans were complaining they hadn't seen a danger room sequence yet. so, Ratner puts a danger room sequence in, but now its a bad idea.


thing is, i have faith in the cast who have been there since the first movie. they aren't going to lose their ability just because there is a different director. don't like the story? well, thats not Ratner's doing, so bashing him for it is pretty inane. and it isn't as if there was some sort of signature Singer imprint to the way the first two movies were shot, no innovative camera angles or unique cinematic style that people will miss. in fact, if there is any Singer style that people may be able to credit to the first two movies it is in regard to how slow-moving they are in places, and how weak they are in the action dept. if X3 isn't as good as people hoped, the blame will be on the writers and studio, not the guy who came in and simply worked within the parameters set by others. if it succeeds than Ratner can't take the bulk of credit either. on the other hand, Singer has had much more control over production of SR, it is his baby, so its success or failure falls on his shoulders.



Ok, point by point.

Usual Suspects twist repays multiple viewings as you can see for yourself where Verbal was bullshitting and what other parts are confirmed by other charaters, the twist doesn't have to have clues, that's not the point, it's a film about storytelling and unreliable narrators. Repeat viewings are a pleasure to watch.

Actually I didn't jump on the copying thins as a reason why Ratner sucked, go back and READ what I wrote not what you hoped I wrote so you could try and call me a hater (really poor attempt BTW). I said Ratner trying to follow Singer's visions might be foolish. I then went on to say that the elements being copied weren't necessarily down to Ratner anyway, as people keep saying he might not have had much creative control over things. My arguments have been more that he isn't respecting the first 2 films not that he's copying things, maybe this went over your head, you really must try and read what i write with an openmind, you are clearly not a fan of judging directors by their previous work, don't do the same with Zoners :P

Yeh Singers taking a lot from the Donner film, I don't have a problem with a talented director doing that. I said it MIGHT be foolish for Ratner to try as he isn't as talented as Singer (my opinion, but then any judgement on quality is opinion, you don't need to keep saying as much, it''s implied)


As for the cast, Singer is good actors director, he draws good performances from his cast, Ratner manages to make Ed Norton ineffectual and boring. So yeh while the cast might be good how they are treated and directed is going to make a difference.
Yeh the story is bad and I have said that I blame the writers for that. I blame Matthew Vaughn for casting Beast and the studio for rushing the films.

Singer doesn't have a signature visual style, but that isn't my argument, my argument is that he has a subtelty and restraint which worked really well, yes the action scenes weren't HUGE but the action that was there I dug because I cared about the people involved. I guess I just prefer quality over quantity when it comes to action scenes.
Last edited by TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 3:48 pm

Yes, I did see those spots, but what I'm talking about is all the new mutants (who, for one, is involved in said triangle) who're going to be crammed into the film, and thus everything is going to be rushed so that it lacks the appropriate pathos.

If Singer had this many mutants and stories to go with, I wouldn't be too optimistic either.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron