blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/627-x-men-fir...
I'm looking forward to hearing more info on this.
It sucks, they fail comics history forever.
Then again, it takes a REALLY good comc-based movie for me to get over the massive inaccuracies that will be there.
The nerd rage is strong with this one.
Well, I won't be seeing it in the theatre, anyway. But I'll put it on my Netflix and see it in a year or so.
*shrug* I'm not as big a stickler for staying true to the comic books - I mean, they can't keep their own history/backstory/universe consistent, so why should I care if a movie does? As long as the story is good and the characters are done well (like Nightcrawler was not), then I'll enjoy the movie.
Well, I won't be seeing it in the theatre, anyway. But I'll put it on my Netflix and see it in a year or so.
Exactly. I find it funny when people get bent out of shape over some inconsistency. It's a movie... about people with mutant powers... doing super-hero stuff... what does it matter if the movie dowsn't follow the "comic's history?"
I may or may not see it in the theater. It depends on whether or not I can still get in for free, and if I want to put up with a bunch of annoying kids cowding the theate. Even if I don't see it in the theater, I'll see it on Netflix when it becomes available.
It sucks, they fail comics history forever.
Then again, it takes a REALLY good comc-based movie for me to get over the massive inaccuracies that will be there.
The nerd rage is strong with this one.
Nope, just actually read them. That's the reason I never see book-based movies, either. The only good ones in ages were the Dark Knight and the first Iron Man. And Sherlock Holmes.
Personally I just view the film versions (movies or TV) "inaccuracies" as yet one more alternate univese for whatever characters....
Happens all the time in the actual books, why not in other forms of media?
So I don't begin by being upset at changes.
And same as with the books, some of the changes & stories told I like/enjoy. (I love the two Batman movies Tim Burton made) Some? (Like 90% of Superman Returns & every aspect of Smallville?) I don't. And yet others I don't care one way or another about.
As I see it, every single new writer and artist that comes along introduces a new take on a character/comic book, putting their own spin on it and giving us their interpretation of it, and a director/screenwriter is no different. The work of whoever is currently doing the character/book/movie/etc does nothing to invalidate the artistic integrity of the work of anybody else that's previously been the creative force behind it.
I honestly don't give a flying
whether or not they spent half their budget hiring rabid fanbois to fact-check every last sub-atomically small costume detail and bit of canon because, for me, the only important thing is that they provide an interesting interpretation of the original character/book/etc and an entertaining movie.But if you got a tall, cool, good looking Cyclops with a short sized and short-tempered scruffy Wolverine as a duo, slashers would shriek in glee.
... well, in case that isn't clear, the canon is pretty ****ed up. Sure, it can be fun to talk about, but there is, quite simply, no way to make a new story that is entirely canon-accurate. You can't even do an off-world story without tripping on canon toes because the writers have been everywhere already.
For a short-run comic that never sprawled into umpteen regular series, and hopefully had a defined beginning/end (Like, say, Preacher, Sandman, Watchmen Johnny the Homicidal Maniac and so-on)? Yeah, you can stick pretty close to "canon" for that (Watchmen did a pretty good job. The details they changed really weren't essential details). But with any series that has a few decades of backstory, off-shoots, alternate universes, ret-cons, and so-on? It's better to stick to the core identity, purpose, and story of the character rather then the history of the character1.
________
1For the difference between the "core story" of a character and the "history" of the character, look at Jean Grey. When she first died, she was dead. Then a few years later they wanted to bring her back, so it became that she wasn't "really" dead, it was a Phoenix-force clone of her that died. And then they decided that Scott's new wife was secretly a Jean Grey clone all along. Then they decided... and so-on. That's the "history" of the character. The "core story", at least today, is the balance between power and control, sacrifice and second chances.
Just how they tell the story changes each time, but in the retellings they (rightfully) haven't sweated the details, they've focused on the themes and overall movements of the story, not that she was found in a creepy bio-capsule under the sea by the Fantastic Four so that the editors could put the original X-Men back into a single team for X-Force.
Meh, I only really liked the first volume of Ultimate X-Men. There he was seducting an 18-year old Jean Grey... yeah, still a little creepy.
But if you got a tall, cool, good looking Cyclops with a short sized and short-tempered scruffy Wolverine as a duo, slashers would shriek in glee.
Yeah, forgot about that. Didn't like Ultimates much, either. ESPECIALLY the Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch twincest.
Didn't see that, don't care. But I really liked when one of the issues started with Cylops and Wolverine taking out Russian mafia trash and later talking in car. This duo could have a good character dynamic that would make for an interesting story (no to mention rid Cyclops of the sissy douchebag appearance).
Hmm, New X-Men also started with just Wolverine and Cyclops working somewhere alone. Maybe someone in Marvel will see this. I'd read/watch that.
Provided I wouldn't need extensive knowledge of the whole X-Men canon to enjoy it of course.
But then I recently got around to picking up the Mesiah Complex trade edition and... wow. It was hard to read more then a few pages without having to go back to the Marvel Wiki and get explanations. I know that was part of the point (it was wrapping up a lot of things) but it wasn't casual reader friendly at all...
