Brett Ratner Doesn't Care What "Comic Book Geeks" Think

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by Beast

A movie only has 2 hours or so for the story. So there's no way to really satisfyingly cover the Phoenix idea in 2 Hours.

Isn’t that what I just said, that it should have been the main storyline instead of sharing time with another storyline or should have been spread out over two films? Spider-Man 3 had the same problem, too many storylines and not enough time to develop any of them fully.

[uziel5000]

Originally Posted by Beast

Recasting ANY character in a film series is problematic.



A movie only has 2 hours or so for the story.

So there's no way to really satisfyingly cover the Phoenix idea in 2 Hours.

Unless you are Kevin Costner. Then, it's the law that he get 4 hours. Not matter the script or story he is filming.

[cathexist]

I'm not a comic book geek...Last Stand was just a bad movie...

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by Diesel

What are you talking about Cymbol? Death hugs are terrifying

[SpaceDog]

Ratner wasn't just untrue to the X-men comic books, he was also untrue to the universe as set by Bryan Singer in the initial two movies.
The Last Stand was a deeply flawed film from start to finish. I try to ignore that it existed at all.

He didn't just ignore who the X-men are, he ignored what they stand for.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Beast

A movie only has 2 hours or so for the story.

So there's no way to really satisfyingly cover the Phoenix idea in 2 Hours.

If Fox were wise, they'd have waited to have Singer on board for 2 more films.
The first could have been a Sentinel story in which Jean Grey returns with Phoenix powers. (Or the "cure story" if they realize that Rogue wouldn't choose to be cured just so she can kiss a boy).
The second could have been Dark Phoenix.
In neither would Jean kill Scott.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

If Fox were wise, they'd have waited to have Singer on board for 2 more films.
The first could have been a Sentinel story in which Jean Grey returns with Phoenix powers. (Or the "cure story" if they realize that Rogue wouldn't choose to be cured just so she can kiss a boy).
The second could have been Dark Phoenix.
In neither would Jean kill Scott.

I don't necessarily think Singer's presence is make-or-break for the franchise, but Ratner was just not the way to go.

A Sentinel story would have been a great way

[Show spoiler]for the President to call Xavier's bluff, so to speak, after the ending of X2--a secret, mutant-killing, giant robot project.

Jean could have been brought back any number of ways. For instance,

[Show spoiler]maybe Logan returns to Canada for a post-mortem on Alkalai Lake or to hunt down some other Weapon-X folks (as Logan is presumably trying to rebuild his memories still) and in the process finds Jean and returns her to Westchester.

They could have continued to show her Phoenix powers developing without going 'full monty' with it--trying to tell an entire origin-through-finale saga with the Phoenix story--saving much of that for a 4th film, or just kicking it down the road indefinitely--dropping more and more hints about the Phoenix over a long period of time...showing a gradual escalation in Jean's powers/psychosis. That could have been very effective and also somewhat comic-book like in presentation as well.

In short, there are countless ways a third X-Men movie could have been so much better. Count on Ratner though to constantly challenge himself in terms of pushing the suck to 11.

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by ryan69969

I don't necessarily think Singer's presence is make-or-break for the franchise, but Ratner was just not the way to go.

A Sentinel story would have been a great way

[Show spoiler]for the President to call Xavier's bluff, so to speak, after the ending of X2--a secret, mutant-killing, giant robot project.

Jean could have been brought back any number of ways. For instance,

[Show spoiler]maybe Logan returns to Canada for a post-mortem on Alkalai Lake or to hunt down some other Weapon-X folks (as Logan is presumably trying to rebuild his memories still) and in the process finds Jean and returns her to Westchester.

They could have continued to show her Phoenix powers developing without going 'full monty' with it--trying to tell an entire origin-through-finale saga with the Phoenix story--saving much of that for a 4th film, or just kicking it down the road indefinitely--dropping more and more hints about the Phoenix over a long period of time...showing a gradual escalation in Jean's powers/psychosis. That could have been very effective and also somewhat comic-book like in presentation as well.

In short, there are countless ways a third X-Men movie could have been so much better. Count on Ratner though to constantly challenge himself in terms of pushing the suck to 11.

I agree with you 100% that there were countless ways to make a better X3 and I really did not think Singer would have been the savior (in my opinion Singer took the X-men in a medicore direction). I dislike Ratner as much as most, but I really do not blame him for the full X3 suck fest. Wasn't he just taking over what had already been written/scripted and in fact planned by Matthew Vaughn before he left? Yes, maybe with a better director the movie may have been better, but as you would agree, the whole story from the start was flawed. Ratner just nailed it to the cross.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

Ratner wasn't just untrue to the X-men comic books, he was also untrue to the universe as set by Bryan Singer in the initial two movies.
The Last Stand was a deeply flawed film from start to finish. I try to ignore that it existed at all.

He didn't just ignore who the X-men are, he ignored what they stand for.

No he really didn't. The film is quite in keeping with the previous two films.

[Lord_Stewie]

Agreed. Given that Ratner's version of the XMen really wasn't that great, what are we all looking for.

As for the OP providing this little interesting article I think that Ratner was right and wrong at the same time. Sure Director's works are always in the hot spot since there are those who like it VS. those who didn't. He was wrong in making a reference to the Fanboys. But his message is misinterpreted by the Fanboys as well.

Bottom line no matter who directs a project there is a negative side marching toward it. What are looking for a re-boot of the 3rd X-Men movie. :shrug

I think Steven Speilberg is one of the great directors in the movie industry, any movie with his name attached = the big greens definitely. But even Speilberg screwed up, and the biggest example is one of his own masterpieces Indiana Jones. the latest one was just ridiculous. You could also blame Lucas for that very same film since it was his idea to begin with.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

They were developing a sequel with Singer, but after the success of The Dark Knight they wanted to go in a different direction with the franchise.

Yeah but what can you reboot? Make Superman darker? The idea of using TDK as a turning point is such a bad idea. TDK work's because Batman can be done in this fashion but you can't make every superheroe books that way, specialy not Superman. I don't say make another Superman 4 but you cannot turn Superman into TDK either.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Beast

No he really didn't. The film is quite in keeping with the previous two films.

No, it's really not. I find it astonishing that anyone could come to that conclusion. It's a remarkably stupid film.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Yeah but what can you reboot? Make Superman darker? The idea of using TDK as a turning point is such a bad idea. TDK work's because Batman can be done in this fashion but you can't make every superheroe books that way, specialy not Superman. I don't say make another Superman 4 but you cannot turn Superman into TDK either.

I understood it to mean that they want to take Superman in a darker direction, too, which would be a huge mistake. What they really need is a fresh take on the character, a Superman Begins, in the hands of a good filmmaker. They need a director who’s not an obvious choice for a comic book action film, just like Nolan when he was brought in to reboot Batman.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

I understood it to mean that they want to take Superman in a darker direction, too, which would be a huge mistake. What they really need is a fresh take on the character, a Superman Begins, in the hands of a good filmmaker. They need a director who’s not an obvious choice for a comic book action film, just like Nolan when he was brought in to reboot Batman.

They could keep Routh and get a good story, just introduce Brainiac, Darkseid or Doomsday. A reboot they would show us once again the origin of Superman, how he became what he is because of Martha & Jonathan, how he's a all around good guy in the bad city of Metropolis and give is another ordinary story with Lex

Hollywood as to stop re-booting, re-making, re-doing and just get off their lazy @ss and write good stories.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Oh, I agree, a reboot isn’t necessary, but if they’re determined to do one, I’d rather see a fresh take on the character instead of the Dark Knight of Steel.

[vega2K]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

They could keep Routh and get a good story, just introduce Brainiac, Darkseid or Doomsday. A reboot they would show us once again the origin of Superman, how he became what he is because of Martha & Jonathan, how he's a all around good guy in the bad city of Metropolis and give is another ordinary story with Lex

Hollywood as to stop re-booting, re-making, re-doing and just get off their lazy @ss and write good stories.

I think if the next Superman movie includes an origin story again and/or Lex, it would be the stupidest thing possible. Whether it's a reboot/sequel/reimagining/whatever, it has got to focus on him using his powers to battle a super-foe. And it needs to dive right into the action. Maybe touch on his relationship with Lois and maybe use flashbacks for his origin, but they cannot be the focal point.

I think Superman has one more shot at jump-starting the franchise, otherwise, we won't see him for another 20 years.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by vega2K

I think if the next Superman movie includes an origin story again and/or Lex, it would be the stupidest thing possible. Whether it's a reboot/sequel/reimagining/whatever, it has got to focus on him using his powers to battle a super-foe. And it needs to dive right into the action. Maybe touch on his relationship with Lois and maybe use flashbacks for his origin, but they cannot be the focal point.

I think Superman has one more shot at jump-starting the franchise, otherwise, we won't see him for another 20 years.

It depends on how they handle it.

The best idea for the origins story would be for them to do like they did with The Dark Knight. That tie-in DVD/BLU they released before the film opened, Batman: Gotham Knight. Just do the origins as an animated feature, that way you can really go hogwild with depicting Krypton. And then you can kick off the film from there. That way since Supes Origin is pretty well known, people don't have to sit thru it if they don't want to.

As for Lex, it depends how they use him. If they go more with the comics version or the version depicted in the various cartoons... then they would have a compelling version of Lex. But they really need to not ever show the Lex from the movieverse again. The Land Scheme stuff is not interesting. Now Lex in the old battlesuit powered by kryptonite in a slugfest with Supes... that I could happily take. Though they should use Brainiac also.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by vega2K

I think if the next Superman movie includes an origin story again and/or Lex, it would be the stupidest thing possible. Whether it's a reboot/sequel/reimagining/whatever, it has got to focus on him using his powers to battle a super-foe. And it needs to dive right into the action. Maybe touch on his relationship with Lois and maybe use flashbacks for his origin, but they cannot be the focal point.

I liked the way they handled Wolverine’s early years in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a pre-credits sequence and then a montage underneath the credits. They could do something like that with a new Superman film and then get right into the action after the credits. They would definitely need a fresh villain, because Lex has been entirely overused in the previous films. The villain would also have to be more of a physical challenge for Superman to overcome.

[P@t_Mtl]

No more Lex, he's been around for years in movies and now for 9 seasons on Smallville, they really should give us something more the Lex for a new movie

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

I liked the way they handled Wolverine’s early years in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a pre-credits sequence and then a montage underneath the credits. They could do something like that with a new Superman film and then get right into the action after the credits. They would definitely need a fresh villain, because Lex has been entirely overused in the previous films. The villain would also have to be more of a physical challenge for Superman to overcome.

And there's tons of choices. Though I hope they don't use Doomsday...

Brainiac, Metallo, etc. You know who would be cool and a total swerve for the fanboys. Reveal the main villain as a baldheaded scientist ranting that he finally has the perfect plan to destroy Superman. They could even do whatever possible to make people believe it's Lex Luthor. But then do the swerve and reveal him to be Gerard Shugal... aka The Ultra-Humanite. Big 7' 0" Albino Gorilla with a Kryptonite Blaster Cannon.