X-Men 2's Ending

[Smacktalks]

Why didn't Storm just use her weather powers and have a blizzard freeze the water?

[jitz]

A blizzard freeze the ocean.... an enormous body of water, frozen by a blizzard? Sounds more ludicrous than the idea of mutants with super powers. That also ignoring the fact that salt lowers the freezing point of water, something the ocean has a shitload of.

Your alternate ending sucks due to making no sense, perhaps you should have taken up the job of script writer for X Men 3, you may have pulled off a marginally better movie.

[System of a Daan]

hmm, everytime someone comes with an idea or arguement or anything Mister Strum is there to kill it.. and he always seems right..

[Smacktalks]

Ok, Chris wins.

Clearly I didn't think that through.

[Aero]

also, it's ending plays a part in the 3rd movie... wait, i now like pauls ending.. think about it, x3's problem was partly too many storylines going on and not enough time to develope them. pauls shitty ending would have helped this fact

[Big Bizang]

X-Men 3 is balls. Just pure balls. It should never have been made. Apart from Beast. He was awesome.

[Aero]

agreed beast was pretty damn well done

[jitz]

Yeah I reckon Beast was the best character in the movie too, he was the only one with any character development after all.

I like what they've done in doing spin offs rather than one big franchise movie again. It'll give characters actual screen time rather than having to share it with 20 other mutants. Alongside the Wolverine and Magento movies, there's the New Mutants'eque school focused movie that's surrounded in a haze and rarely spoken about apart from a few comments from Zak Penn (writer of a lot of shit movies including X Men 3) and now Josh Schwartz (The OC creator) saying he's writing it now (all the while taking a shot at Brett Ratner, Bryan Singer and the new Hulk movie).

Interesting things instore for the X Men franchise...

[Aero]

i kinda wish, seeing the likes spider man, iron man etc, that they wore more comic book style costumes in the x-men movies, think it would have worked fine.

[jitz]

It was a risky thing at the time. X Men was released in 2000, in a resurgence of the comic book superhero genre. It really was up against all odds, 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman and Robin' killed the genre. So those movies took a very comic book approach to it's visual style, and they were terrible. So X Men went a more serious route, put them in more believable leather costumes that wouldn't make them laughing stocks in the mainstream eye. While most of the actors weren't big names, they would have been hesitant of jumping into literal colourful spandex (or any other material) interpretations of the costumes.

It was a very 'year 2000' look for a movie that was released in the 2000. It did very well, paved the road for Spiderman which keeping in mind was released two years later. X Men warranted a sequel that was well under way and was actually looked forward to by not only fans but mainstream viewers who found the approach accessible. So Spiderman could take bigger risks, the genre had it's head above water and was on the press' radar. So Spiderman donned the iconic spandex costume costume, it's hard to imagine him in anything else. The movie might not have been made though if it weren't for the success of X Men.

When it came time for X Men 2, they did take bigger risks. They introduced more elemental mutant powers, and gave the mutant powers as a whole a bigger focus. It was far more 'comic booky' than the first. Spiderman 2 took more risks than the first, the directing especially with more cheesey moments playing on the character's style. What happened when they took it yet another step after the huge successes of the sequels? X Men 3 and Spiderman 3, both terrible movies. They took it too far and it lost a lot of it's credibility.

The best comic book movies walk the fine line between creativity and credibility. Batman Begins is a great example, especially against the horrible Superman Returns, which took a very literal interpretation of the character and it's story arcs. Iron Man is a success because he's a believable character, even though the movie as a whole is flawed.

So no, I don't think it's best for the X Men as a team to take up their real colours. Which brings up another point for why they wore a uniform...they wanted them to look like and actual team, not a band of misfits slapped together. Which by the way, around the time of the first movie, Marvel actually put the team into uniforms in the comic. It didn't go down well....

[Aero]

mah, i still would have liked to see it.

also, i liked spiderman 3, wasnt fantastic by any means, but decentish. x3 was superwank.

as for superman returns, you know why its shit? it's a chick flick in disguise, superman is a womans super hero, handsome, strong man that will always come to their rescue, take a bullet for them etc. i know a few girls who LOVE the movie. i've never really liked superman, tho i dont mind smallville.

can i ask what ur flaw on iron man is? (out of curiosity, i'm not gonna turn around and say "fuck you, thats completely possible with todays current technology etc.)

[jitz]

Yeah I'll explain, but just understand I do think it's a great movie and thoroughly enjoyed it.

The third act of the movie was non-existant. The movie go so bogged down in telling the origin story, that when it came time for an actual encounter with the bad guy, it didn't have any impact on the movie at all and lasted 5 minutes. Spiderman handled this the best of the superhero movies, with Green Goblin being a focus throughout the movie and made into a viable threat, capped off with a fantastic third act climax. I think the plot's pacing throughout the movie never really settled, they would have five minutes of great story telling, followed by twenty of filler.

Other than that, Tony Stark is a great character, he really is made for big budget big screen movies. However, a lot of what makes him great was left out of the movie. It's because it's a franchise and more Iron Man movies are a given, and these character developments will be made in those movies. Looking at it as one movie though, Tony Stark was a fairly basic character played brilliantly by Robert Downey Jr., he really did make the character more funny and exciting than the script was giving him. An example of great character points not explored are the alcoholism, and his promiscuous ways (yes they stood models next to him in some scenes, that doesn't count, it wasn't ever spoken about or made a big deal of), also his love of being Iron Man in the public eye. Yes he said it at the end of the movie, and yes it was made a big deal of with a big "I am Iron Man". Then BAM!, credits. If they had of moved that to the kick off the beginning of the third act and have him have to deal with trying to save his life, while dealing with fans, and the media, being a real superhero celebrity. I think it would have made for a more exciting final confrontation and explored that extremely interesting side of his character, it is what sets him apart from the other superheroes, he doesn't have a secret identity.

So yeah, essentially it all goes back to the plot and it's pacing. It is still a great movie though. Looks like War Machine will be getting into the fray in Iron Man 2 aswell, which opens up a lot of plot doors there that are simply more exciting than what was done in Iron Man.

[Aero]

see, i'll disagree to part of that.

war machine steps in pretty much when stark can't cope with the fame etc and turns more to the drink, to put all that in there would make the movie twice as long and as such too long. to me thats the 2nd movie right there. the did sorta show he likes the fame, drinking etc so they've planted the seed for the 2nd movie.

as for the short villan battle etc, ur fairly spot on, but it didnt bother me too much.

curious if they will do a war machine spin off seeing how he's pretty different, more big guns etc rather than starks technology, percision and ability etc. might be shit tho, cos erm... forgot his name, was a poor cast choice if they intend to make him a leading character in another movie, he's just lacking something.

[jitz]

HIs name is Terrance something, I can't be bothered looking it up. I don't thik they'll spin him off unless he really hits the ball out of the park in Iron Man 2. I just see him as staying in Iron Man, he's not a big character in the Marvel universe at all.

As for you point for it all being seeds for Iron Man 2, yes they are. But those seeds turn into the interesting aspects of the character, which have been left for the sequel/s, the movie as it stands has a fairly bland Tony Stark, character-wise.

[Aero]

yeah, i'll agree, but i just think if they had developed them further, the movie would have been too long, forcing them to cut other things out, and making the 2nd movie worse, i'm assuming it was done like thas as the greater of 2 evils.

also, war machine did get his own spin off, so i'm just basing it on that. he did seem like a bit of a fucktard in IM1

[takersfan]

Wasnt that a lake being held back. Im not sure but anyways why couldnt nightcrawler teleport them further? And if it was lake water couldnt ice man help storm anyways?

[Nemo]

can someone remind me as to why storm would want to freeze the ocean? i totally forgot that movie and dont feel like watching it again.

[CS]

At the end the dame breaks apart holding the lake back and Jean stops the water from drowning them while they get on plane thing.

[Nemo]

well theres no way storm couldve stopped that.

ice man, though... definitely.

[Aero]

the dame

[CS]

Blow me.

[jitz]

Iceman is still just a young kid in the movie though, he doesn't have that control over his powers yet.

The ending is right how it stands.