X-Men Director Reveals Movie's Plot

[kypsilon]

Since when has stepping outside the concept material for any given superhero/villain yielded positive results in movies? If you're willing to set the thing back in the 60's rather than try and adapt it to modern times, why bother monkeying with the characters at all? They already invented the wheel guys, just let it roll.

Nolan stepped out side of the source material with his batman films and yet the comic-fan(me included) don't howl at him and his films.

And if you actually go back and look at how lame Batman was when DC first created him you'd realize that was a necessity. The difference is that Marvel came along much later in the comic book world and had a much different start with their characters than DC. I have no particular desire to get into a DC/Marvel versus match at this point, so I will respectfully end by saying look at the previous X-Men movies and tell me they did as good a job as they did with Batman.

 

[CatmanStu]

Looks like this is going to be as pointless as the new Spider-man reboot. I like the idea of it being the 60's but everything else just looks and sounds awful. It makes no sense having Xavier and Magneto work with the CIA; a) Why would the CIA a employ a telepath who could read all their secrets, and b) Magneto wouldn't work with an authoritarian organisation due to his history with the Nazis.

I guess this just all re-affirms my assertion that Nolan is really the only director out there that knows how to treat a comic series source material with respect.

I would say that Nolan's Batman is a reinvention having only the most superficial resemblance to the source material, but that is beside the point as what I wanted to say is that comment is a bit unfair to Richard Donner who pioneered comic adaptations with the original Superman, Tim Burton who did a decent job of Batman (still my favourite version), as well as more recently Sam Raimi and Jon Favreau who did very accurate recreations of Spider-man and Iron Man respectively. Not to mention smaller titles like Sin City, Kick Ass (I didn't really enjoy it, but it bore mentioning) and Scott Pilgrim.
Not a dig at the original comment, just thought that, as there is so much shit about, it's good to remember the ones who got it right.

 

[zHellas]

This is either gonna be really good and entertaining, or really bad and entertaining.

 

[duchaked]

I actually quite enjoyed and liked Origins Wolverine
The Last Stand...I still have trouble with that one but they all have some enjoyability factor

First Class does have me excited again tho =)
2011 is gonna be intense (movies AND games)

 

[WolfThomas]

And if you actually go back and look at how lame Batman was when DC first created him you'd realize that was a necessity. The difference is that Marvel came along much later in the comic book world and had a much different start with their characters than DC. I have no particular desire to get into a DC/Marvel versus match at this point, so I will respectfully end by saying look at the previous X-Men movies and tell me they did as good a job as they did with Batman.

Batman originally killed people and carried a gun. Adam West's Batman and the comics code did a good job at obscurring the hardcore roots of him. Marvel was created only five years after DC, both had different names, Timely Publication and National Allied Publication respectively. The X-men movies have been by different company than Marvel/Disney, FOX. As Marvel has grown in movie ability it's support for 3rd party movies has dwindled to nothing. This is part of the reason both Spiderman and X-men have gotten progressively worse after some alright initial movies. Also Christopher Nolan could probably make a brillant Daredevil or Dr Strange movie almost as good as this bat trilogy if given the same resources.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Is anyone else still as shocked as I am that the picture on the news post is one of the pictures released to try and make the movie look better than those fake images that got around? I mean, seriously? I honestly haven't seen the fake pictures, but judging by that image, I would have to imagine they were done in crayon in order for that to have been a step up.

The more I hear about this movie, the less I look forward to it... :/

 

[Vigormortis]

Looks like this is going to be as pointless as the new Spider-man reboot. I like the idea of it being the 60's but everything else just looks and sounds awful. It makes no sense having Xavier and Magneto work with the CIA; a) Why would the CIA a employ a telepath who could read all their secrets, and b) Magneto wouldn't work with an authoritarian organisation due to his history with the Nazis.

I guess this just all re-affirms my assertion that Nolan is really the only director out there that knows how to treat a comic series source material with respect.

I would say that Nolan's Batman is a reinvention having only the most superficial resemblance to the source material, but that is beside the point as what I wanted to say is that comment is a bit unfair to Richard Donner who pioneered comic adaptations with the original Superman, Tim Burton who did a decent job of Batman (still my favourite version), as well as more recently Sam Raimi and Jon Favreau who did very accurate recreations of Spider-man and Iron Man respectively. Not to mention smaller titles like Sin City, Kick Ass (I didn't really enjoy it, but it bore mentioning) and Scott Pilgrim.
Not a dig at the original comment, just thought that, as there is so much shit about, it's good to remember the ones who got it right.

I'm not forgetting Tim Burtons first Batman film or the second Spiderman film Sam Raimi did. However, I have to add that I was essentially referring to comic superhero movies. I probably should've added that part. So things like Sin City and Scott Pilgrim weren't in my mind.

There have been decent superhero/comic films over the years, but in the past five years or so Nolan seems to be the only one who can churn out a comic-book film that isn't lazy, campy, or poor made.

Speaking of Nolan, I have to say his version of Batman is anything but superficial. Especially compared to other adaptations. He, along with his brother and David S. Goyer, seem to want to adhere more to the original comic version of Batman instead of the variations over the years.

 

[kypsilon]

Valid points. So who's point matters? The guy who wanted to watch the movies for the effects, or the guy who showed up because it was something he idolized from his childhood? These movies aren't just popcorn shows for the masses, these are the living breathing realizations for people who never thought someone would come along and bring these things to life. I'd personally just like the directors and writers to have a little respect for the things that brought people to the room in the first place. The X-Men for example never really got any better than when Chris Claremont wrote them and even after he left and came back so many years later, he can't write them as well now. Some concepts are tied to a specific time and way of thinking, something that might not translate as well into a modern approach. In those instances, maybe we shouldn't bother trying to recreate a series because a demographic thinks it would be a good idea. Believe me, I want an X-Man movie to be good because everyone wins. But how many times do we hit that same problem where the reinvention isn't as good and everyone dumps on the series because they honestly don't know any better? How many people here have actually read the X-Men run with Claremont? Most people I'd wager wouldn't know the X-Men other than what the current Marvel run on them is peddling and honestly...that isn't far from Twilight.