Re: X-Men, The Last Stand


"MZ" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20060530162343.L44165@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Glenn Greenstein wrote:

"QuiGon" <QuiGon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h9OdnUWa389AVObZRVn-rw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"testy" <mikfaitnospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vkMeg.2174$hv1.1153@xxxxxxxxxxx

Although there were some poignant moments they were few and far
between.
They seemed bent on introducing as many new characters as possible and
therefore sacrificing character development. Nightcrawler, arguably
the
most interesting character in the series, doesn't even make an
appearance.

I don't see Nightcrawler as even being in the top-10 of the "most
interesting character" so I don't think his presence was missed.

A couple of annoying details: Colussus is Russian but seems to have
completely lost ALL of his accent and Juggernaut is NOT a mutant...his
powers are magical, therefore, a mutant "cure" would have no effect on
him.

Don't hold the movies to any continuity with the comics. Look at it as
a
completely separate entity and then there are no inconsistencies. If
the
movies say Peter Parker can make his own webs (instead of using a
device)
then that's the way it is. If the movies say Juggernaut is a mutant
then
he's a mutant.

I haven't seen the movie, but I don't all together agree with this. Sure,
people take a certain amount of artistic license with these adaptations,
but
doing something like making a guy American instead of Russian, or making
someones powers mutant instead of magical IMO just shows a lack of
research
(unless there was a plot line associated to the changes which appears to
not
be the case). This doesn't neccesarily make for a bad movie, just ask
anyone
who read "The Lord of the Rings" and then saw the films. Most people
(myself
included) enjoyed both, but they pretty much kept to Tolkins characters
(at
least the ones they didn't leave out all together).

Mostly true, but explain "I, Robot." I'm not exaggerating one bit when I
say the only thing it had in common with the original work was the title
and the names of some of the characters (and the obligatory three laws).

I never read the book. I should ask my brother about it since he was a big
Asimov fan. If you really want to see something that was butchered, the
running man gets my vote. The only thing that movie had in common with the
book was the game show (which was in no way the way it ws portrayed) and the
name of the movie.


.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Will the real hacker please stand up and raise their hand
    ... I think perhaps fantasy characters, heroes and protagonists often embody, ... Americans acted like a character out of a John Wayne movie. ... I encountered this America before I actually came here. ... employees, Tom Porter, was leading a security team at the World Cup. ...
    (Pen-Test)
  • Re: OT: What movies have you seen recently?
    ... Realize that all great literature has a standard plot at its core - ... With this movie, it ... leaned too much on creating sympathy for the two men ("but given the ... have hurt the movie or the characters to make them a tad more ...
    (alt.fashion)
  • X3: Hollywood style
    ... Love the characters, love the story lines, and really enjoyed the ... That brings us to this, mmmmmm, movie. ... characters, history, or plot of the comics. ... have the right powers, and they should follow the proper history. ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: OQFTCI Game 2 R7-8: movie chars, Burns
    ... Round 7: Entertainment - Movie Characters ... Name the 1994 film at #3 on the list, ... Round 8: Literature - Robert Burns ...
    (rec.games.trivia)
  • Re: Should I try to see the series, before watching Serenity?
    ... > I recommend you watch the DVDs first. ... Just got back from the movie ... I don't think I would have cared much for the characters even if I had seen ... Take the humor out of serenity, and it would be a much more engaging movie, ...
    (alt.fan.starwars)