SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jun 02 2006 05:37 pm

The problem is that blockbusters such as X-Men aren't made *for* anyone. They're made to make money. I seriously doubt that Ratner had any sort of artistic vision for X3 and if he did, that's really a shame. When you option to direct a movie based on someone else's intellectual property, your charge is to successfully translate their vision into your medium. Ratner's job was not to create or interpret, merely to transpose. And sadly, that rarely happens. And while Tim Burton's Batman was an amazing movie, it set the unfortunate precedent of "We don't have to follow canon".

You say that movies shouldn't be written for the fans? Of course they should. The only reason that comic book movies *aren't* written for the fans is because it's more profitable to dumb things down.

Posted: Jun 03 2006 02:31 am

Darkmaze, you're right that you could probably divide the changes made to movies to near infinite categories, but there's another one I want to highlight only because I heard it from EVERY FUCKING PERSON that came in to work this week (remember, I work in a comic book store). There's the category of changes made to fit the constraints of reality/technology. Apparently the manner in which Wolverine and Colossus performed the "fastball special" was slightly altered because it would have been nearly impossible to animate, or something like that. I couldn't tell you how they do it in the comics, nor do I really care, but I thought I'd share it since I've heard it so many times this week that SOMEONE obviously cares.

Posted: Jun 03 2006 03:22 am

That's what I meant. The fans vs. the most number of people to fill seats (aka the general public) - who is your audience?

Unless your film costs $5,000 to make and you know you have that many fans, you don't make something so inside, only they get it.

Case in point: Serenity. It works as a movie, because most of the TV show winks were cut out. There's enough to please fans, but overall it still works as a film. It also killed major characters, because as Joss Whedon has said, it was the thing to do for the film. I completely agree. A death near the end of said film had me believing: Oh God, anyone can die... oh no, they're all going to die. The ending was exciting. It wasn't like Star Trek XXII where you know everyone is going to live (for a real Star Trek film examples see I, IV, V, VI, and most of the Next Generation films).

Actually, what is the most beloved Star Trek film? Technically, it's IV, but I'll say II. Both of those work as separate films... Okay, I wrote an eassy about the "Star Trek" films and why they work and rehashing it now at 2:20 in the morning isn't too good an idea. Wait for the nonfiction expanded novel "Everything I Needed To Know About Movie Making I Learned From Star Trek".

My point was, the widest audience possible is your audience. Whether it's "Brokeback Mountain" or "The Da Vinci Code" you're writing it for an audience, not just the fans.

Joined: Aug 25 2005 Posts: 287

So, I'm not a huge X-Men reader, so I don't know the ins-and-outs of the mythos the way I do, say, Batman, but...

I actually find some credibility to Harry Knowle's explanation for "X3" being less-than-great, even though I despite the AICN mentality.

According to various reports the site has issued over the course of the film's production, one of the bigwigs at Fox, Tom Rothman, has had it in for the X-Men series since before Singer even finished the first one. In fact, rumor has it Rothman was behind the film's release date being pushed UP, just so he could fuck with the production and gimp Singer's chances of cashing in with the movie. When that one did really well anyway, he did everything he could to put X2 on the fast track and speed it through production, again, hoping to basically kill off the series (apparently he and Singer aren't best friends). However, Singer had gained some clout after the first one AND Fox as a studio was more on his side this time out due to the substantial gains reaped from the first one.

Well, we know what happened with X2. It went over, BIG TIME (like, "Empire Strikes Back" big, given the series). Now Rothman was burned that Singer had won, so rather than renegotiate the director's contract, he basically kept stalling the picture, hoping to make Singer drop off. Well, Warner came through with the "Superman" offer and Singer basically said "cool" and went to do that and it was then and ONLY then that Rothman greenlit X3 and, to beat Singer to the punch, unveiled a ridiculously short production time/early release date.

I buy the story to a degree, mostly because I've heard from other sources that Rothman is a dipshit and we've seen how Fox has handled its other Marvel properties (I'm looking at you, Fantastic Four). Also, Singer talked a great deal about wanting to have "his" trilogy of X-Men movies to tell one complete story arc, which obviously didn't happen. I would go so far as to wonder if Marsden's lack of availability had more to do with director loyalty and pissing off studio execs than anything else.

EDIT: The original article: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20443

Yeah, it's actually Moriarty, but Knowles backed him up.

Joined: Apr 24 2006 Posts: 292

Personally I never sawed this movie but the problem with Movies and comics/animations is that they try to take something that has a timeline and rap it up in less then a hour.

Like for example Escaflowne the Anime was a first time project and was done where the entire 26 episode series is done in four hours or so.

Then we have Spider-man the series during the 90's Spidey was done so perfectly and drawn perfectly during that time and the cartoon was perfected but then they went into the animal SPider-man which was not bad but compared to the previous it was trash.

Now looking back on Spider-man we can all laugh at how he had a Spidey-Jeep or h had a Krucut and played football and even the Japanese Spider-man and how he rode around on a Bike without a Helmet dressed up like the fonz.

X-men is suffering from the same delema and so is all other imaginary stuff. They have decided the 80's and 90's way of things is no good so now they are recyling the same stuff to program little bill or Sara into saying gosh they looked so wrong and eerything is better.

Yes I will admit the 80's hair and style was like the 60's and 70's love child but really now our society has gone down the drain and has enter a world where everything is so bald and thin.

This movie is probably good like most games are but is still lacking the fast of originalism. I know somebody here who have seen or read the originals is laughing at the idea of Original Comic heroes and ideals but it is the truth.

Posted: Jun 05 2006 11:37 pm

...did you just say that 80's hair is what destoryed today's society?

Joined: Apr 24 2006 Posts: 292

Nope I said todays world is bald and flat and it's creativitiy has gone down the drain at least for America.

Joined: Apr 30 2006 Location: Helsinki Posts: 87

What the hell does this have to do with MOVIES ?! for fucking ass sucking christ sake

Posted: Jun 06 2006 12:52 am

It's forum life, Juffo. The old forum I used to frequent, well...basically every thread would turn to gay sex in 5 posts or less.

Joined: Apr 30 2006 Location: Helsinki Posts: 87

Yeah I know, I know. But it just seems weird that derailed posts aren't removed. What if I write story about gay dog and cat living in interracial relationship ?

Goddamnit

Posted: Jun 06 2006 03:44 pm

Juffo-Wup wrote:

Yeah I know, I know. But it just seems weird that derailed posts aren't removed. What if I write story about gay dog and cat living in interracial relationship ?

Goddamnit

Sounds like a children's book Twisted Evil

I expect said book to be featured on Oprah in about two weeks.

Posted: Jun 07 2006 12:07 am

To be fair, the 80's did suck. HARD.

You heard me. I love you regulars and Syd and I have been friends for ages, but I HATED the 80's.

Joined: Apr 30 2006 Location: Helsinki Posts: 87

I lived my miserable childhood in the 80's and look what it did to me !

Posted: Jun 07 2006 04:05 pm

S. McCracken wrote:

To be fair, the 80's did suck. HARD.

You heard me. I love you regulars and Syd and I have been friends for ages, but I HATED the 80's.

The 80s didn't suck. Too say such a thing, you must focusing too much on Wham! and Rainbow Brite and not enough on Metallica and The Princess Bride.

Joined: Apr 24 2006 Posts: 292

Juffo-Wup wrote:

I lived my miserable childhood in the 80's and look what it did to me !

Especially when people are roaming the streets dressed up like Ryu and Ken.

Still man I miss the adult action thrillers along with the attitudes and speak say but in real life oh man everybody was ether working or dealing with life.

In fact anybody remembers that movie where you have disco steve( I forget the name) and the guy dressed up in blue and he had a whole ware house to himself to dance in.

Also the plagerism in the 80's was fantastic also along with the submissive women Crying