Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Marvel Live-Action Movies and Television' started by Wonder Woman, May 26, 2006.
Wanna be so kind as to share with A.J. what WE refer to?
As mentioned above, including my post, it's not just the comic fanboys. I'm also a person who got into X-Men thanks only to the 90s cartoon show, and I had problems with the movie. But since my X-Men knowledge is still limited, my gripes are only based on the movies. Things in X3 that were supposed to be considered edgy or larger than life story sections were just plain out of left field. In fact they weren't out of left field. They were in a completely different stadium. They were playing a completely different sport!
Jean made it clear in X2, as did Wolverine as he spoke to Cyclops, that Jean had chosen the guy she wants and loves, and that is that. When the hype gets bigger than the actual character, that's when you know you have to step off and regain some humility for your perspective of the character.
This interpretation of Cyclops wasn't an interpretation at all. Aside from showing some leadership and loving qualities in the first movie, we didn't get a representation of Cyclops for the movies. The fact is, Cyclops is very hard to pull off, and the movies were a chance to get it right, like XMEN EVOLUTION did, or to perhaps a lesser extent, the 90s X-Men Cartoon. The essence of the character is a strong leader with leadership loads on his shoulders, but he's just trying his damnest to do the right thing. This, we did not get to see.
The issue with approving of Wolverine in an "X3 Wolverine vs Cyclops" debate is that those who pick Wolverine are doing so based on a terrible catch-22, that only people who know this team (Team of heroes, not just one guy and his amazing friends in the background) can see. We want audiences to MEET the team's leader, baby! Otherwise Wolverine just sucks up the entire screen, let alone the indescribable talent of Hugh Jackman.
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.[/quote]
And there's that Catch 22. Plus an added part about James Marsden not being able to do it which I completely disagree with, because he did extremely well with what he was given. Hugh Jackman isn't about being a badass, though. Specifically, it's about being able to portray the right badass properly. He was a Tony Award recognized talent dynamo in The Boy From Oz on Broadway in NY. But playing a homosexual musical artist singing and dancing is probably not considerably 'badass.'
Not to pick nits here, since I was never personally upset over the character deaths portrayed in X-Men 3, but Jean Grey's death was a faithful nod to the comics. It's not comparable to what was done in the third film.
My only exposure were the cartoons and movies as well, but I do know that Cyclops was established as the leader in the movies, so to remove him from that position was a slap in the face for me. I like Wolverine and all but I do get sick of him being the main focus all the time, so X3 would have been a nice change of pace for Cyke to take the main role. And it's not like Marsden can act, he can and he can do it very well. He can pull off a lead role if it is EVER given to him. So will putting Wolverine in a supporting role ruin the movie for people? I'm pretty sure for some people it will, but I know far more people who would have been happier if Cyke would have taken the spotlight. At least it would have been better than what we got.
While I would have prefered to see Cyclops live, I have no problem with him being killed off. My problem is HOW they chose to do it. Sacrificing himself in the final battle in an effort to reach Jean = good. Treating him like an afterthought and killing him offscreen = bad. To me at least.
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my take on this is...it's not that people wanted Cyke to act like Wolverine, that would be totally OOC. People just feel that Cyclops should have taken the leadership role for the X-Men after Prof X died. Since he was dead and couldn't, the leadership role was thrust onto Wolverine, who did the best he could with it.
I agree. Forget the comics for a second everyone. In the movie series, Jean chooses Cyclops over Wolverine. She loves him and wants to spend the rest of her life with him. He's obviously a huge part of her life, moreso than probably anyone but maybe Prof X. But instead of using this relationship to heighten the drama, it's discarded like nothing.
It's not discarded, so much as her uninhibited side takes control and gets rid of those who prevented her from fulfilling the desires she harbored inside herself. Those two being the Prof and Cy. She wanted Wolverine, and she wanted full access to her powers. She got one, and realizing she always had the other saved her from destroying everything in the end.
Actually it was discarded. X2 spent time establishing that Jean wanted Scott over Logan. But in X3 the relationship is all but done for when she just "kills" him in like 5 seconds. There was no real work done to further detail their relationship in this movie whatsoever. The writers just wanted the plot to move faster so they just get rid of Cyclops in the cheapest possible way.
Not that I want to defend the writers, but the lack of Cyclops started with James Marsden being mostly unavailable for shooting. The writers could have given him a throwaway part like Rogue's (and it was said it was even harder to get Anna Paquin for filming actually), but they thought killing Cyclops would have a great impact on the audience that no one was safe and anything could happen (I'm guessing ala Joss Whedon).
I personally don't prefer the idea and would also have liked to see Cyclops step up more into the leader role, but I could have lived with Cyclops biting the bullet in X3 if it was done more believably as most others have said. How the team reacted to his disappearance was nonexistant.
They could have dealt with Marsden's situation by bringing back Cyclops in the end...him just walking around with his eyes closed all blind and finding his way to the final battle some weird roundabout way. Yea I know, not much better, but at least he would have been there and then just get a backup visor from the Blackbird to take command at Alcatraz.
LOL...um I really hope you're not serious. That (no offense) would have been completely RANDOM. A blind Cyclops wandering back into the movie at the very last minute? Wouldn't he have been knocked into by Angel, who also happened to make a random last-second appearance in the movie as well? The whole scene plays out very comedically in my mind...
Twilight pretty much repsonded as I would have in response to FireWarrior's argument, which sounded like Cyclops' death was taken too personally. The writers weren't trying to be "cheap". How could that have benefitted them? They're working for a huge studio with ties to a huge comics publisher and rabid fan-base. Screwing up or being petty really isn't there priority. They likely had an impossible time-frame in which to get the shooting script up to snuff (and clearly, they struggled there), so ultimately you have to ask if it was more important to get the Pheonix part of the film right (which was a substantial and well-executed storyline) or focus in solely on the death of a character that would likely be viewed a herasy no matter how well they pulled it off.
Cyclops could have died better, but he didn't and the movie doesn't suffer tremendously because of it. MOVE ON.
(and that's directed to all the Cyclops-lovers who are free to hate the movie, but need to stop trying to justify arguments that are understandably tainted by an emotional attachment to a ficticious character).
That would be awesome. "Didn't find Jean, so I hung out at the forest and did the 'one with nature' thing. What'd I miss?"
They handled the Cyclops situation the best they could. As funny as the "I randomly went on a vision quest" explanation is, can you imagine actually having that happen?
EDIT: I just thought of the irony involved in him wandering around the woods blindly, going on a vision quest. >_>
It is pretty ironic.
Say everyone...what's your take on what Jean did to him (not why...but what)? When it was happening I was thinking "Ohhh...so she's getting the fire-power from his eyes" or "She's safe from him now, but is making out with him so hard-core that he's getting hurt".
Look, shift all your complaints about Cyclops to James Marsden's shoulders. They did the best they could with an actor who didn't have time for the movie. I also felt his performance was phoned in. At first I thought he had left the project all together and while I was watching it I thought, wow, they got a really crappy actor to fill in for Marsden.
If James Marsden was not available, why not cast another actor? If they changed actors in the previous Batman Franchise, for the main role, why not doing so with a character that was not the main role of the movie and was played by an actor that is not that famous?
I think the Cyclops problem is much more deeper. In the X1, Cyclops was already underplayed, and underwritten. He existed only to be the joke motif for Wolverine. Yes, he had some spotlight in the movie, but it was too little.
In the X2, they decreased Cyclops screen time and participation in the plot. Cyclops was never portraited right in the X-Men movie franchise. And this is not James Marsden fault.
The whole option to cast an actor that was too young for the part is a nod that the producers and/or the director was not considering Cyclops as an important part of X-Men.
For it was a shame because Cyclops is my favorite hero in X-Men.
I always assumed she blew him up (or turned him into ash) a la Prof X and the soldiers at the end of the movie. Although since it's off screen, all the movie Cyclops fans can say 'We never saw him explode! He could still be alive!'
Cyclops is my favorite X-Men overall and I don't blame James Marsden with how Cyclops was portrayed throughout the series. He had his commitments to keep and I blame FOX for pushing the production of X3 to make it in time for the May 2006 release. But it was the fact that he was unavailable that forced writers to think of ways to write out his character for most of the movie.
As for recasting, would that have helped? X3 is already a messy film with plot holes, bad lines, and more new characters on top of existing ones. Who knows how they would have written Cyclops even if Marsden was available. It could have been lacking like X2 or more involvement because of Dark Phoenix. I was personally hoping for the latter, but after hearing how fast FOX wanted this film out and that James Marsden was already committed to Superman Returns I wasn't gonna hold my breath.
I'm partly curious about the Bryan Singer run on the Ultimate X-Men book, if that is still gonna happen, because it might have some insight into what his version of X3 would have been.
I actually liked it despite my not liking the film overall. The moment just before was really tender and romantic and it suddenly turned into something horrific.
I think Cyclops would eventually to be written out of X-Men franchise anyway, despite of James Marsden schedule. At each new movie, the Cyclops weight in the X-Men balance was reduced.
I don't think a simple recast would do the trick. The producers would have to change their views about the character as a whole.
In this comic book written by Bryan Singer, maybe we could see if the idea of toning down Cyclops since X1 was Singer's or FOX producers idea.
You people need to watch Blind Alley from X-Men: Evolution. In it, Mystique kidnaps Scott and takes his glasses from him, leaving him stranded in Mexico. The premisis sounds silly but damn, it was an absoloutly stunning episode.
Oh please the Phoenix storyline part was a sad version of the real story. It was obvious the bigger story was that of the cure, Phoenix felt like a very unnecessary attachment to the story. As for handling Cyke's death better, I'm pretty sure they could have. Of course I agree with you that there will be people who will view any sort of death of Cyke as a insult. However if they have given him more of a substantial death (perhaps a heroic one?) than people like me would have been fine with it. Believe me I'm no Cyke fanboy but I do recognize respect where it should have been deserved and Cyke definitely deserved it.