"X-Men: The Last Stand" Talkback (Spoilers)

[DisneyBoy]

I really doubt they would have made a big last-ditch push in this film to have the audience switch loyalties and root for Cyclops all of a sudden. Even if he was in the movie the way the fans wanted him to be, he would still only seem like a character who needed a love interest to be interesting.

Wolverine was always the big man in these movies. Check out the advertising. Check out the spin-off plans. Cyclops doesn't come close...

Which is too bad, because James Marsden has all the chops and the looks to be just as successful in Hollywood. Poor guy can't land that big break-out role...whether he's Glenn Foy on Ally McBeal, or Cyclops...he don't get no love.

On a seperate note, why does Xavier dying and Rogue taking the cure bother anyone? Xavier's death was a highlight of the picture, and really brought the story to another level. And it was handled so well. Can you really imagine a better death for this character in these movies without changing them? I really loved the idea (if not the horrific dialogue that explained it) of Xavier's complicity in restraining Jean all this time, rather than fully trusting her. He created the beast that is the Pheonix in that sense, which made his death a deserved one in some ways. Yes, he's still a good guy, but he invaded Jean and suppressed something in her, which is a violation. Never saw that coming in the storyline, and I liked it.

And as for Rogue....picture, for one full minute, living your life unable to hug, kiss, handshake, caress, high five or otherwise make skin-to-skin contact...with ANYONE for your entire life. Can you really say her taking the Cure wasn't justified? I believed it. Now, I'll agree that making Kitty out to be a possible love-interest for Bobby felt a little ham-fisted, and that Rogue's screentime needed to be better used (not necessarily longer), but saying that the poor girl wouldn't jump at the chance to finally make contact with people, and in doing so, get that one thing she's always wanted - a sense of belonging? Babies need touch in order to survive. Adults get less and less of it as they grow older, but they need it even more. Her powers really are a nightmare.

But script-wise much more could have been done in a far more interesting and clever way, yes.

 

[DarkAngel]

Xavier's death was a highlight of the picture, and really brought the story to another level. And it was handled so well.

It would have been if it'd been a true death. I hated that bizarre look he gave Logan before dying that hinted that he wasn't actually going to die which completely ruined the power and tragedy of what was happening. Take that out, as well the post-credits scene, and I would have loved it.

I really loved the idea (if not the horrific dialogue that explained it) of Xavier's complicity in restraining Jean all this time, rather than fully trusting her.

This could have worked if they had set up for it in the previous movies. Here, it came out of left field and felt completely out of character. This was not the same Xavier we had been watching and it was jarring to see.

And as for Rogue....picture, for one full minute, living your life unable to hug, kiss, handshake, caress, high five or otherwise make skin-to-skin contact...with ANYONE for your entire life. Can you really say her taking the Cure wasn't justified? I believed it.

So did I. I had little issue with this aspect and just wished they could have given her more screentime.

What I do have a serious problem with is having the whole movie revolve around the cure and its ramifications and then strongly hinting at the end that the cure doesn't work or is temporary in effect. Come on. Either have the guts to shake up the universe with cure or don't bother.

I also didn't care for the complete waste of the Phoenix character. Again, either attempt to do justice to the whole "Dark Phoenix" angle, or don't bother.

To deal half-heartedly with both the mutant cure story and Phoenix in a short 1 hr, 40 minute film that doesn't do justice to either made for a complete waste of a movie. A lot of impressive visuals, but very little of meaning or worth beyond that.

 

[Mynd Hed]

I really loved the idea (if not the horrific dialogue that explained it) of Xavier's complicity in restraining Jean all this time, rather than fully trusting her. He created the beast that is the Pheonix in that sense, which made his death a deserved one in some ways. Yes, he's still a good guy, but he invaded Jean and suppressed something in her, which is a violation. Never saw that coming in the storyline, and I liked it.

Am I the only person on Earth who just wants one character, out of all of geekdom, to just be GOOD? Professor X' whole THING is that he's an idealist. Take that away, and you take away everything compelling about his character. There are plenty of flawed heroes in the X-Men universe, we don't need to shoehorn the Prof into that role. It may have been unexpected, but only because it in no way suited the character.

And that's pretty much what was wrong with the whole movie; it had no respect for its characters. Wolverine does NOT make speeches about teamwork. He just doesn't. And Mystique does not turn Judas on everything she's ever believed in just because one man pisses her off. It felt like I was watching these bizarre made-in-Taiwan knockoff versions of my favorite characters.

 

[HaagenDas]

I agree with that Professor X degredation comment.

As for people wanting Gambit, he just has been fit in as one of the X-Men's most notable characters. I personally wanted to see him because we saw his name on teh computer Mystique hacked into in X2.

 

[The Myst]

As I read more complaints about the movie, it becomes obvious to me that these complaints are only ones big fans of the comics would have.

I've never read an X-Men comic in my life and I didn't have any problem with various characters not acting like their comic book counterparts (Wolverine, Professor X) and I didn't care that Cyclops wasn't the focus.

On the Cyclops issue, I can say from an unbiased standpoint that you'd have to have a pre-existing knowledge of the comics to want to see a movie focused on him. Having never read an X-Men comic and having only knowledge of various X-Men cartoons, the first two movies featured the most boring Cyclops I've ever seen and I would've been completely turned away as a casual fan if he had been the focus of the third one as most comic book X-Men fans seem to want.

I also see people saying that Cyclops is supposed to act like Wolverine does in this movie. That's all well and good but he didn't act that way in the first 2 so that would've been a radical change for him in itself at least in movie continuity and Marsden couldn't have pulled it off anyway. You guys seem to assume that people like me like Wolverine based on the personality and that if they had done it right and put Cyclops in there with that personality, everybody would've liked it. That's wrong for me and everyone I know. It's partly about how Wolverine acted. His badass one-liners and stuff. But it was also the way Jackman portrayed him. Without Jackman and the whole claws schtick, I know I wouldn't be as interested. Marsden doing the same character but with laser eye beams, it would've sucked. Laser eye beams are pretty lame for one thing, just my opinion though I know quite a few who agree, and Marsden doesn't have the same stature as Jackman. Jackman exudes badassness. Marsden just plain doesn't. So giving Cyclops his personality back and making him the main character would've basically ruined the movie for the casual movie viewers like myself who just like super heroes and think the movie looks good, regardless of the comics.

And for Professor X not being "fully good". I can just speak for myself when I say that fully good characters in a movie are just not interesting. They may be in comics. God knows I've read my share of 1970's black and white, good and evil Green Lantern comics. And I love those. I prefer those to current Green Lantern comics. But in a movie like this, it's different. You have to have a higher form of a conflict than good vs. evil because good vs. evil is boring unless it's in the form of a short comic book. Things can't be as black and white as Professor X is a boy scout that never does anything slightly unethical or untrusting of his colleagues.

Other people have pretty much covered my feelings about Xavier's death and Jean taking the cure so I won't get into these.

But I'll just reiterate my point that all of these complaints are things that only the comic book fan community really cares about. Being a member of the same community but with a different company of heroes, I can understand. But I'm also just a casual movie watcher who has no vested interest in the X-Men so I understand that viewpoint just as well.

The thing is, all these fans have their different ideas of how the movie should go and when the directors and writers take it in a different direction, the fans cry foul because the directors and writers usually forego relation to comics just to create a good movie. But the comic fan's idea of a good movie is one that adheres to comics strictly while still following a similar plot (Or a radically different one depending on the fan). But then the movie gets bogged down in needless semantics and becomes a fanboy's dream but a casual fan's nightmare. In the same way, maybe Cyclops as main character with movie Wolverine's personality would be a fanboy's dream but it would be a casual fan's nightmare. Do you see what I'm saying here?

Look, I'd probably do the same thing if it were a Green Lantern movie or a Dr. Mid-Nite movie so I can understand.

Then again, I was interested in seeing Jack Black as Green Lantern because I like Jack Black, I like comedy, and I like Green Lantern. I even thought the plot sounded really funny. So maybe I just don't care about movies ahering to comics.

I don't know, I'm tired. It's nearly 4:45 AM and I kinda lost my point a few paragraphs ago.

 

[EinBebop]

The sheer fact that Cy was there and mourning Jean means they tried (to some extent) to pick up where things were left off, instead of taking the easier route of saying "Cy left town/killed himself/never existed and was really Mystique in disguise all along".

Or was a femmebot... with machine gun jugglies!

 

[HellCat]

-Juggernaut cussing toward a teenage girl was unnecessary

That was a nod to the fan parody "The Juggernaut B****"

 

[HaagenDas]

Having Juggernaut as a mutant was acceptable, but it would have been better to still have his family link to Xavier...would explain the helmet too.

 

[DarkAngel]

As I read more complaints about the movie, it becomes obvious to me that these complaints are only ones big fans of the comics would have.

Not true, as I'm not a huge fan of the comics. Most of the criticisms are valid simply within the context of the films.

On the Cyclops issue, I can say from an unbiased standpoint that you'd have to have a pre-existing knowledge of the comics to want to see a movie focused on him.

It's not that I wanted the focus on him (I don't mind Logan being the central character), but that the character should have been far better utilized, even if in only a small role. This is the case both with X2 and X3, but particularly with the latter.

Scott is part of the love triangle introduced in "X-men". It's not good writing to then deal with that angle and play up the Jean/Logan attraction by simply ignoring Scott through limited screentime. Given that X2 played a large part in that, I wasn't expecting a radical departure in X3. But I did expect the character to be treated with respect. To kill off an important member of the team off-screen and then to not even acknowledge that its happened right away (non-reactions from Logan and Storm at the site and then back at the mansion) is not only jarring to the viewer, but insulting to us and the characters. It's another example of characters acting out of character. There was no drama there and no purpose.

Add in some of the real world contributions for why Scott was killed off in X3 (Marsdens involvement in Singer's SR), and the whole thing leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth.

And for Professor X not being "fully good". I can just speak for myself when I say that fully good characters in a movie are just not interesting.

Like I said above, I have no problem with shades of gray and conflicted characters. The problem here isn't that Prof. X differed from the comics or wasn't fully good. The problem is that there was no set up for this in the previous movies and that this portrayal completely conflicts with what we've seen from the character before (again, within the movies). It was completely unbelievable. This kind of thing can't just be pulled out of nowhere. There has to be development of it. There wasn't and it's an example of poor writing.

But I'll just reiterate my point that all of these complaints are things that only the comic book fan community really cares about.

And I'll point out again that, no, they're not. I didn't come in with pre-existing notions of what dramatic choices should be made or what stories told. I went in to X3 expecting solid writing and an intelligent treatment of the characters and universe. We didn't get that. Putting aside the comics entirely, X3 simply fails as a movie. It's weak, poorly written, and undermined in its dramatic potential at almost every turn. From a quality standpoint, it's far below both "X-men" and X2.

 

[Web Head]

I think I can sum up most people's problems with X3 in two words...wasted potential. The reason I, and many others, dislike it is because it could have, and should have been so much more than it was.

The film polarized viewers into two categories. Those that went in with little knowledge/ties to the X-Men universe enjoyed it. Fans of the source material, by and by, didn't. So the question becomes...why?

1) They dropped the ball with Dark Phoenix. Now I'll be the first to agree that a literal telling of the comic story, Shi'ar and all, was not the way to go. But the Phoenix saga is the definitive X-Men story arc. And it's reduced to what is basically a side-plot. The mutant cure storyline felt very out of place, and would have been better in it's own movie.

Dark Phoenix was supposed to be the opponent that the whole series was building to. But Jean never came across as the destructive force of nature that she should have been.

2) Cyclops. Did the first 2 movies paint him as a great leader? No. But this could have been his coming out party. They could have played him as the guy that was always content to follow Jean or the Prof, but now was suddenly thrown into a situation that was way over his head.

I the comics he agonized over whether he could/should kill his wife for the greater good. His wife that could destroy solar systems at the drop of a hat. Imagine all this drama, then throw Wolverine and his feelings/the love triangle on top of it. Those would be some powerful scenes.

Instead, we get Cyclops being offed like he was an afterthought, and the self-proclaimed loner leading the team along with Storm, who was handled just as poorly as Cyclops throughout the first 2 movies.

In summation, X-Men 3 was not a bad movie. I would classify it as mediocre to good, depending on the viewer. But it should have been a great movie. It should have been the type of movie that was held on the same level as X2 or the Spiderman films or the first two Donner Supermans. THAT'S why it is held in such poor esteem.

 

[Mynd Hed]

As I read more complaints about the movie, it becomes obvious to me that these complaints are only ones big fans of the comics would have.

I've never read an X-Men comic in my life and I didn't have any problem with various characters not acting like their comic book counterparts (Wolverine, Professor X) and I didn't care that Cyclops wasn't the focus.

If it was just that they didn't act like their counterparts in other media (comics, animation), that would be one thing. But the characters are also wildly inconsistent with the previous two movies. You can make the argument that the movies need not pander exclusively to comic book fans, but don't you think they should make at least some allowances for the expectations of people who viewed and loved the previous movies in the series?

And for Professor X not being "fully good". I can just speak for myself when I say that fully good characters in a movie are just not interesting. They may be in comics. God knows I've read my share of 1970's black and white, good and evil Green Lantern comics. And I love those. I prefer those to current Green Lantern comics. But in a movie like this, it's different. You have to have a higher form of a conflict than good vs. evil because good vs. evil is boring unless it's in the form of a short comic book. Things can't be as black and white as Professor X is a boy scout that never does anything slightly unethical or untrusting of his colleagues.

Except that if you want moral gray areas, you've already got Magneto and Wolvie and PLENTY of other characters. That was always the strength of the better incarnations of the X-Men franchise; you got to see the whole moral spectrum, from extreme to extreme and everything in between.

The thing is, all these fans have their different ideas of how the movie should go and when the directors and writers take it in a different direction, the fans cry foul because the directors and writers usually forego relation to comics just to create a good movie. But the comic fan's idea of a good movie is one that adheres to comics strictly while still following a similar plot (Or a radically different one depending on the fan). But then the movie gets bogged down in needless semantics and becomes a fanboy's dream but a casual fan's nightmare. In the same way, maybe Cyclops as main character with movie Wolverine's personality would be a fanboy's dream but it would be a casual fan's nightmare. Do you see what I'm saying here?

The first X-Men film took liberties from the source material (especially younger, depowered Rogue) and it worked great by staying true to the spirit of the originals while fudging the details where necessary for a self-contained plot and render the premise more believable. The third film made changes that added nothing to the franchise.
Changes from the source material don't inherently make a movie bad or good. The first movie succeeded because it made good, necessary changes, and the third movie sucked because it changed what had been reasonably fleshed-out character to cardboard cutouts.

 

[Discloner]

As I read more complaints about the movie, it becomes obvious to me that these complaints are only ones big fans of the comics would have.

Toss my name into the 'nay' hat as well. I've never been into comics - most of my knowledge on the X-men universe comes from the 90's TV series if anything (with a hint of comics knowledge sprinkled in from my pre-10 year old years).

My complaints on X3 are based on the film as just a sequel to a sequel in a franchise of films that have an established story line with characters within it. X3, despite desperately trying to be one of the pack, somehow manages to make it self seem more foreign. Jean, who so 'chose' Cyclops at the end of X2, somehow winds up tossing him aside for her true love Logan. Wolverine, the rebel without a cause is randomly spouting leadership speeches and quips about teamwork while popping in and out of locals (Oh hey look he's in the Woods! Now he's at the mansion! Back in the woods! Oh a Neighborhood! Back at the mansion...) so quickly that he probably could've given night crawler a run for his money.

The dialoge in the film was awful. There simply is no getting around it - there were so many cheesy one-liners and 'wtf' moments being spouted about I could barely detect where one ended and the next began. I distinctly recall a moment in the film when it's suggested they shut down the school, only for Angel to pop in and practically say 'yo' for them to change their minds. In the grand scheme of what the X-men stand for based in this universe the films have created...why was this even an option? Better yet...how did one rich shirtless teen change their minds?

And while I couldn't care less how prominently Cyclops was featured in the film (unlike the majority, its not an issue I have with the film(s)) - I still think X3 tossed him aside in a rather unbelievable way. Here we've got a character whom through two films is the leader of this group - longer then we've known the films star Wolverine. Yet the love of his life is crushed by a tidal wave and they immediately drop him and cast him aside as "a changed man"? To me that's completely unreal...

And if that didn't make me cock my head to the side just a tad - they rubbed a bit of salt in the wound by completely disregarding Scott altogether, barring a quick funeral that was more Xavier's moment then anything. Here Scott's missing; Wolverine finds his glasses, but we're to assume that was enough for them to drop the subject all together? They whisk Jean back to the school to see how she is yet the former leader of the X-men life isn't even being questioned? If he's alive shouldn't they be worried that he doesn't have his glasses and could be hurting people, or in more peril since he's now blind AND lost in a cold woodland area? If he's dead...shouldn't they be upset that he's...uh...dead?

There is so much more wrong with this movie, and so many more examples to support my stance - but my main point is not all of us are snooty comic book people complaining about inconsistencies from paper to film. I go to the movies to see a good film, not a rehash of drawings and speech bubbles. I never understood Potter fans who cry fowl when a film doesn't slavishly follow a book, and so I'd never be as hypocritical to place myself in the same situation. X3, to me, was just a bad film - not a bad translation.

 

[DarkAngel]

I distinctly recall a moment in the film when it's suggested they shut down the school, only for Angel to pop in and practically say 'yo' for them to change their minds. In the grand scheme of what the X-men stand for based in this universe the films have created...why was this even an option?

Oh, yes. That was definitely a 'wtf' moment. The writers apparantly decided to cram an entire subplot into one scene. Given that Xavier had specifically spoken to Storm at the beginning of the movie about taking over when he was gone, it's utterly baffling that Storm would even consider closing down the school. And that Beast would agree. Like you said, Angel then walks in, says one line, and the bulb suddenly lights up in Storm's head. And Beast idiotically grins his approval. Come on. Completely unnecessary scene (and nonsensical). It could have been excised and the movie would not have missed a beat. Given how short this movie was, they couldn't have given us something else in place of this scene? I mean anything else.

Here Scott's missing; Wolverine finds his glasses, but we're to assume that was enough for them to drop the subject all together? They whisk Jean back to the school to see how she is yet the former leader of the X-men life isn't even being questioned? If he's alive shouldn't they be worried that he doesn't have his glasses and could be hurting people, or in more peril since he's now blind AND lost in a cold woodland area? If he's dead...shouldn't they be upset that he's...uh...dead?

This is exactly my problem with Scott's situation. It's not that he didn't have a larger role. I don't care so much about that. It's the extremely poor, unrealistic handling of his death. It was like a non-event. No one reacted. And that's not how people react when someone close to them is possibly hurt or dead. It's not believable for a second and that pulls us right out of the movie. And like you said, this is just one of many moments like it.

 

[The Myst]

Well, then maybe I just have low standards and don't really think about how good a movie could or should be, I just enjoy it for what it is and don't pick it apart.

 

[FireWarrior]

Well, then maybe I just have low standards and don't really think about how good a movie could or should be, I just enjoy it for what it is and don't pick it apart.

It seems like we are picking it apart because it has so much wrong with it. I can handle flaws, every movie has them. X1 and X2 had their share, but they were minimal to the point that the movies didn't suffer too badly and still came out on top as good quality films. X3 just had so many bad things with it that I couldn't enjoy it properly.

 

[HannaBarberaFan]

Basically here's why I didn't like it:

Prof. X and Cyclops bite the dust

The body of Cyclops was never found....

And as for Professor Xavier, IF there is an "X-MEN IV" -- I am MOST certain that it WILL be found out that Xavier did NOT die that day....but instead a doppelganger sacrificed himself...whilst the REAL Xavier was sequestered away warding off an attack from the Z'noxx (Any follower of X-MEN history in the printed medium KNOWS of which I speak! )

 

[A.J]

The body of Cyclops was never found....

And as for Professor Xavier, IF there is an "X-MEN IV" -- I am MOST certain that it WILL be found out that Xavier did NOT die that day....but instead a doppelganger sacrificed himself...whilst the REAL Xavier was sequestered away warding off an attack from the Z'noxx (Any follower of X-MEN history in the printed medium KNOWS of which I speak! )

UH...whaaaat????

 

[AnimatedSnow47]

The body of Cyclops was never found....

And as for Professor Xavier, IF there is an "X-MEN IV" -- I am MOST certain that it WILL be found out that Xavier did NOT die that day....but instead a doppelganger sacrificed himself...whilst the REAL Xavier was sequestered away warding off an attack from the Z'noxx (Any follower of X-MEN history in the printed medium KNOWS of which I speak! )

Silver age fan, I see.

 

[Desifoxy]

Nobody ever blamed Singer for killing off Jean Grey. I thought, alot of those "shockers" were needed. For example, killing cycolops instead of some secondry mutant wouldnt have made a big impact as it did. Jean wouldn't have looked as dangerous as she did without killing the two of the main characters...Xavier dying for a good cause also made him look like a great guy...well, more of a great guy.

 

[Metabee]

Don't get me wrong, I really like X3 (I really like anything with our Clawed Canadian), but X3 was the worst of the three.

They killed Cyclops for little to no good reason other than to show off how strong Phoenix is (though this Cyclops was a pale imitation of any I have ever seen before). She at least had a reason to kill Xavier, after what he did to Jean he deserved what he got. The plot was very weak, and not even worthy of Magneto the basic of the plot would have worked for him if the actual plot was stronger. Storm once again was pathetic. Beast looked decent enough save for the face, I hated his voice, the fact that Beast was a member of the President's cabinet that early on in the movie franchise time line was ridiculous, for him to be a cabinet member should have at least waited until movie six assuming at least 3-4 years between movies even then it's pushing it imo. Various mutants under Magneto just got random powers for no good reason. Callisto never could since the level of mutant power or run really fast before. (Where was Toad and Sabertooth?)