And you had your gay little montage avatar before the movie came out. Was that supposed to mean I should have expected your irrelevant defense?

How does a pre-developed bias dispute the fact that this movie was objectively bad?

Dude knock it off. I know you're a mod and all, but seriously grow the hell up. If didn't like the movie that's fine. That's your opinion You don't have to jump down my throat just because I liked it.

No, I'm jumping down your throat because you figure that people must not like it based on arbitrary reasoning.

And I don't like the notion of being lumped in a group of critics who will praise the new Superman movie. I can't know for certain, but I don't believe I will enjoy that movie, that is if I go see it.

Back to the topic at hand. From what I've seen, a large amount of complaints are either about plot holes, the section I fall into, or about the misrepresentation or lack of certain characters in the movie. I'm sure there are exceptions, but then that's the case to almost every kind of grouping.

I don't understand what is SOOOO bad about this movie. I mean I can see how you could say "it wasn't great" or "I got kinda bored", but "this movie is terrible!!!" seems to be just overeacting. Sure, it was rushed, needed more character development, suffered some poor pay-offs from good setups, had that horrible "spike" guy. But does that negate all that it did well? The putting X's motives into question, the great bridge sequence, the surprises the fairly compotent Jean/Logan drama, and action sequences were good. Maybe not great but good.

I think that the comic fans just are being a touch too hard on this movie. So many expectations just can't be met. Everybody has the characters they want to see, or see "scene centered" and some of this just can't happen.

I'm not trying to chide all the people that didn't like the movie. But I am trying to say that you should judge the movie by WHAT IT IS, not necessarily what it could/should of been to your mind. I mean all of us can think up a buncha crap that (we think) would make it 20x better, but that doesn't make it a horrible movie.

No. X-men 3 isn't a horrible movie. It's certainly no Silent Night Deadly Night Part 2.

What we're saying is that it is a dumb movie, and bad compared to its predecessors. What you fail to take into account, is that it's impossible to judge a sequel based solely on its own merits when it has to base itself on established characters and continuity. What you're doing is a lot like asking people why they didn't like Godfather Part 3.

No. =/

All of these aspects of the movie were absolutely awful, because they failed to really go anywhere. Magneto moving the Golden Gate Bridge is a cool display of power, but displays of power do not make a movie. Do you think the Star Wars prequels were good because of the cool special effects?

Rogue's choice to get the cure is ultimately pointless becuase the cure itself is only temporary. Will she continue taking the cure like some sex-crazed addict?

Cyclops dying all of a sudden is disorientating, and insulting. It's an awful plot device because it throws away a character that is integral to the X-Men. The professor's death is also meaningless because he isn't dead. There was no sacrifice to be made, the entire affair was pointless outside of getting Wolverine to stop being Wolverine.

The Jean and Logan "drama" revolved entirely around Logan and Jean wanting to bone each other, and then culminating in Logan having to kill Phoenix. This wasn't competent, because Jean wasn't even present throughout perhaps 10 seconds of the film. What this was, was Logan drama. A conundrum specific to Wolverine, not the both of them.

It's short-sighted apologists like you that support this kind of shit. I hate people that don't understand why Greedo shooting first is a problem, and you, sir, are no exception.

I'm not at all a fan of the comics. I've never read them. What I am a fan of however is good movies. Before I went to see this movie I heard incredible praise from nearly every source and it was at that time rated 7.9 on imdb (not that that's a good indicator of the quality of the movie, but that's still a little generous for this one), so I feel it was reasonable for me to assume that it would be as good if not better than the first 2.

In my eyes the first two were good movies, the third was not. it's that simple.

The great bridge sequence? Are you serious?


I'm judging it in comparison to the first two, something I find quite fair because it's a trilogy. I judge a movie based on whether I enjoy watching it. As I said before, with this movie I felt like I was watching one of the cheesey Mystery Science Theater 3000 movies and I did not enjoy it.

I would like to point out that I am basing the movie on what it is. If I take the movie separately from the other two, that makes the who Jean resurrection thing a bit more believable, but a large amount of the problems are, well, still problems.

First of all, I'm not an apologist. Second, I don't support this *shit* because I don't think it is shit. Third, I do understand why Greedo shooting first is a problem (which is why I took the time to copy the THX mastered VHS to DVD digital-format because their wasn't going to be original Star Wars movies on DVD). Fourthly, no the Star Wars prequels sucked for many reasons (dialog and poorly directed scenes being the chief offendors), special effects not being one of those.

Honestly though I just watched X2 a day ago, and there are similar problems in that. Pyro is a pretty "whiny" dead character. Magneto ask him "what can you do?" just like he does in X3. Wolverine drama is again, the "only" drama. Rogue/Iceman drama is not compotent. Cyclops is a "dead" character. As for the "not making sense", how about how Jean dies? She can turn the plane on and hover it when she is outside the plane, yet she couldn't do the same thing from inside it?

I mean honestly if you get really picky you can tear most movies that are these action/drama/fantasy combinations apart because they don't master any of the genres that they dip into. X3 is no-exception to this. Very imperfect to be sure. But enjoyable, yes it is. And that is why I wasn't disappointed by my $7 investment. Because I watched, smiled, felt, and laughed (Juggernaut bitch specifically).

Again, to me, you guys are expecting too much from a movie that tries to be all things to all people, and guess what? It won't be so dont be so disappointed.

Probably the same answer to "Why does her skin change color?"; it's not that big of a stretch.

The largest problem of this movie was the fact that they essentially replaced Cyclops with Wolverine as love angst guy, something that completely ignores the basic personality of Wolverine. Jean's love for Cyclops over Wolverine was already well-established in the last two movies, so it makes absolutely no sense to not have Cyclops be love angst guy as a logical plot progression. "I do it for you!"

Well, I don't really take that as a good answer. Blue is not a natural skin color, an outward sign of being a mutant. Red, though, is a natural hair color.

I've noticed a lot of people complaining about X3 not following the comics when there are movies that didn't follow the comics storylines and a lot of people still liked them. It's okay for the Joker to kill Bruce Wayne's parents or Superman to build his Fortress by throwing a crystal into some snow, but when a modern movie deviates we get relentless complaining.

This is driving me crazy how a lot of people are so pissed off about X-3 not following the comics, when X-2 didn't and X-1 didn't but they were great.. and Batman Begins OBVIOUSLY ignored everything that had to do with the comics and yet people love that movie so I'm confused on that part.

Why are people singling Ratner out for the changes in this movie? For example people are complaining that Juggernaut was a mutant in the movie when he wasn't in the comics: Why weren't there similar complaints about Deathstrike laid at Singer during X2 (she was a human who became a cyborg in efforts to kill wolverine because she wanted his adamantium which she DID NOT HAVE, and she didn't have a healing factor either)?

So they didn't make references between Juggernaut and Xavier being stepbrothers, Singer ignored the fact that Wolverine and Sabertooth actually knew each other before Logan got involved with the X-Men, or the fact that Singer NEVER made any connection between Rogue and Mystique (who was a foster mother to Rogue in the comics) or even the fact that Mystique was Nightcrawler's mother in X2? Or the fact that Jean Grey was a doctor in the first X-Men, Bobby was not a child in training when Logan joined the X-Men (he was an original X-Man) and supposed to be from the South? Or that Mystique was never a flunkie for Magneto, and Striker wasn't a U.S Soldier, etc. I find that hypocritical.

I think the a lot of the biggest complaints at this point are do to it being inconsistant with the feel and overall quality of the previous movies. Admittedly that's bound to happen with a new director and rushed release but that still isn't going to make anyone happy with it. After all while I've heard lots of minor gripes about the previous movies for not following the comics most everyone seems to agree that they're at least decent enough movies. Not so much with this one.

I saw this yesterday. I enjoyed it. The acting was certainly better than the first one. Maybe i'm too forgiving when it comes to movies, but i enjoyed each moment of this movie. It's deffinetly not my favourite comic to movie adaptation though. That's all i'll say right now cause i don't feel like getting in on an argument at the moment.

I'm gonna hafta go with this reason as my biggest beef with The Last Stand. I just watched the first two movies back-to-back earlier today and there was a natural transition between the two. There's just something missing between the second and third movies; I bet you that Bryan Singer had something up his sleeve for part three, and then Superman Returns called. That's just how it feels to me.

Irrelevant. Simply because other movies have gotten away with it because they were actually good movies does not make your strawman any more legitimate. It's not simply a matter of it not following the comics, it's a matter of them not having the same characters.

What, you think people didn't complain about that at the time of their release? The difference here is that people will remember X3's continuity errors with more enthusiasm because this movie was just dumb. Plain and simple.

Sacrifices have to be made in order to forge a consistant narrative within a 2 hour timeframe. We can't expect Rogue to be from the South, or Mystique to be Nightcrawler's momma. These concerns are rendered meaningless by the story that Singer was able to tell, and the fact that he actually got the characters right. Neither things can be said for the current iteration, but looking at context seems to be something you apologists are never able to accomplish when it comes to defending your blind fandom.

You are an apologist. You've attempted to roll over all the elements that made this film bad by trying to highlight the stuff that you think is good. Essentially attempting to apologize for what makes this movie awful by saying that there were a few good parts. You are an apologist.

It doesn't matter if you do or not. It's an allegorical example of people that don't see the big deal in continuity errors.

As for your "problems" with X-men 2.

Pyro is supposed to be a whiny character. He has to be angsty about not being allowed to demonstrate his powers to the fullest. He has a feeling that the X-men are just holding him back, a feeling that Magneto fuels and then capitalizes upon. He's Pyro, he's supposed to be hotheaded.

Simply because the focus of the movie ties in with Wolverine does not make it his "drama." Wolverine has a subplot that the movie dedicates a lot of time to, sure, but the actual focus of the movie, on his unrequited affections for Jean and her devotion to Scott is a drama that involves multiple characters. Cyclops included. While he may not have had a lot of screentime, his presence and interactions form an actual function to the film's plot, and his sudden dissapearance isn't treated as an afterthought.

I don't think you understand how much force is behind a motherfucking dam rupture, but suffice it to say that it sure is a Hell of a lot. Jean is no Pheonix, and while she may have been capable of manipulating the X-Wing, she was incapable of manipulating thousands of tons of liquid force without applying a counter psychic force directly to help shield the X-wing. Limitations to character powers is something that seems to have been forgotten in X3, though. Which is why I suppose you find it so enjoyable. Don't have to thinking so hard. =/

"Why are fans of an established franchise dissapointed with a sequel that doesn't appeal to them in a manner that initiated their fandom? It is a mystery."

I think having seen the movie 2 times now that X3 is a good movie, but it doesn't have the panache that Singer could have given it. Its too short a movie too to end the saga! There's nothing wrong basically with the movie, it just doesn't sting like X2, I was afraid Ratner couldn't deliver like Singer and I was right. Ah well, I just hope these sub movies don't suck, Wolverine and Magneto deserve way more then lousy spin offs as Elektra and alike!

Oh yeah, and Powell's music rocked big time :D

Isn't there a contract signed and dated promising 7 X-Men movies? I dunno, i heard it from knkwzrd.

I'm not entirely sure but if it's true then it'll include the spinoffs too for Wolverine and Magneto. Right now though Fox has no plans for a X-Men 4 in the future and the before mentioned Wolverine/Magneto spinoffs will fill it's place for 2008/9 slots.

FOX confirmed X4 mere days after X3's opening.

With all the spinoffs they have planned we probably won't be getting X4 until at least 2010.

I don't see how that has to do with anything. The spinoffs wouldn't be made by the same director or production teams, most likely.

They did? I had read something about Tom Rothman saying there would be a fourth film after X3's big opening weekend on the MovieBlog I think it was but then Dark Horizons had a statement from Avi Arad stating there would be no X4:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060530h.php
I fuck up in my wording in my previous post it seems but it's still unclear if X4 is getting the go ahead. Then again didn't Avi Arad just resign from Marvel? I'd imagine they might take a different stance on whether they decide to go along with a fourth film with Arad gone?

Avi's position is a strange one. He's still connected to all the Marvel movie properties, but as a third-party entitity now. Time will tell how much controll he has over future projects.