shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 8, 2017 12:54:35 GMT -5
First Class is easily my favorite movie in the franchise. It is fun, and the Xavier/Magneto relationship is brilliant. Ws never half as invested in any of the Singer films, even DOFP. Don't be fooled by the director credit; Singer's mark on this film is significant. I enjoyed Days of Future Past more, but I agree this film does a tremendous amount right. I would have enjoyed more time on Charles and Erik's friendship. I feel like the only time it truly makes sense to me is in the scene where Charles helps Erik access the memory of his mother. Beyond that, I felt the interpersonal relationships in this film were all cut short for time. Once more the challenge of having a large cast.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 8, 2017 15:40:36 GMT -5
This is the worst of the X-men films. I resented them recasting the main characters just to save money.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 8, 2017 15:58:22 GMT -5
This is the worst of the X-men films. I resented them recasting the main characters just to save money. What makes you think that's why they did that? They wanted to tell a story that didn't require cleaning up the present continuity of the film franchise, and when they tried to CG Stewart and McKellan to make them seem younger in Last Stand, everyone laughed.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 8, 2017 20:30:50 GMT -5
I get that they painted themselves into a corner with Last Stand , but I liked the original cast.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Apr 8, 2017 21:52:50 GMT -5
I get that they painted themselves into a corner with Last Stand , but I liked the original cast. Isn't that a much better explanation for the cast changes than budgetary concerns? The Last Stand wrote many of the main start out of the franchise, and I don't think anyone was dying to see Halle Berry in another X-Men movie.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Apr 8, 2017 21:59:05 GMT -5
I love First Class. It revitalized the franchise after the scorched earth Last Stand debacle. As a big X-Men fan, I don't mind the big changes they made (mixing around ages/chronologies), because the spirit of the film was so great. The closing credits sequence is awesome. I'm also a tiny bit in love with Rose Byrne.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 8, 2017 22:06:35 GMT -5
I get that they painted themselves into a corner with Last Stand , but I liked the original cast. Isn't that a much better explanation for the cast changes than budgetary concerns? The Last Stand wrote many of the main start out of the franchise, and I don't think anyone was dying to see Halle Berry in another X-Men movie. I like seeing Halle Berry in movies. Also, I absolutely think the budget is a big deal. I imagine they saved half the money that they were paying Patrick Steward, Hugh Jackman etc.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 8, 2017 22:07:33 GMT -5
I thought First Class was excellent. Probably my favorite X-movie until Logan.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Apr 8, 2017 22:32:38 GMT -5
Isn't that a much better explanation for the cast changes than budgetary concerns? The Last Stand wrote many of the main start out of the franchise, and I don't think anyone was dying to see Halle Berry in another X-Men movie. I like seeing Halle Berry in movies. Also, I absolutely think the budget is a big deal. I imagine they saved half the money that they were paying Patrick Steward, Hugh Jackman etc. The point of the post you quoted was that they wrote stars like Patrick Stewart out in The Last Stand. They destroyed his body and put his mind in someone else. First Class didn't do that; The Last Stand did. And Hugh Jackman was in First Class. I know his cameo probably resulted in a salary much lower than a starring role, but he probably got paid a lot for a cameo. Plus, they added a bunch of other stars.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 8, 2017 22:54:02 GMT -5
My point was that while they were planning Last stand, they had their minds made up kill off the high salaries and start over on the cheap. It was planned that way. I heard that the reason many of the Star trek TV shows ended after 7 years was that the salaries for the regulars became prohibitive.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 9, 2017 4:19:40 GMT -5
Plot holes aside, I end up laughing my head off abut the historical inaccuracies and "period detail." They're mostly nitpicks, since the film, as a whole, is pretty entertaining. To me, it illustrates that Hollywood, in general, just can't pull off historical pictures anymore, and make it look like the period. It's not just this film, it's many of them, as actor bodytypes don't match the period, the clothes are wrong, the slang is wrong, the retrofitted attitudes; things like that. It's especially glaring with the stick figure actresses trying to pull off characters from an era where the female body type tended to be curvier and the Hollywood ideal was someone like Marilyn Monroe. For instance, the Hellfire Club scenes; it looked like a modern strip club, not a 1960s Playboy Club. The lingerie is too modern, the "ladies of negotiable affection" are too thin, hairstyles are wrong, etc... Clothing doesn't look right because they aren't using the same kinds of fabrics and the cut is different. The military are carrying the wrong weapons. They have Naval troops with M-16 rifles. I served from 1988-1992 and the US Navy used the M-14. The M-16 didn't even enter military service until 1964; so, the soldiers should have had M-14s. This. Along with some rather big plot holes, this was absolutely my biggest gripe about the film. I am very sensitive to historical anachronisms in period films and this one was chock full of them. Other than the guns thing (which I wouldn't know about), I had problems with all the examples that you mentioned above, Cody. Glad wasn't just me! It really pulled me out of the film when I watched it, as I noted historical inaccuracy upon historical inaccuracy. I don't even see this as being particularly "nitpicky" either: one of the film's selling points was its retro setting and it was really badly done. Getting period detail correct in a period film shouldn't be an after thought. The setting is the hinge on which the entire film pivots, so for the filmmakers to have made such a hash of it really damages the film overall in my view.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 9, 2017 7:27:09 GMT -5
one of the film's selling points was its retro setting and it was really badly done. Getting period detail correct in a period film shouldn't be an after thought. The setting is the hinge on which the entire film pivots, so for the filmmakers to have made such a hash of it really damages the film overall in my view. They seemed to think that all that happened in the 1960s were Go Go sex parties and political stuff. There certainly wasn't any striving for realism. I get that they painted themselves into a corner with Last Stand , but I liked the original cast. I partly agree. Despite incredible acting, I can't accept Fassbender as a replacement for McKellan, but I do think McAvoy is a better Xavier than Stewart was, and I think it was really important for an X-Men film to prove it could carry itself without Hugh Jackman by this point. As for the rest of the cast, what's to miss? Hallie Berry is a great actor, but not in these films -- she phones it in. The rest...ugh.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 12, 2017 21:24:03 GMT -5
The Wolverine (2013) Directed by James Mangold Produced by Lauren Shuler Donner, Hutch Parker Screenplay by Mark Bomback, Scott Frank Box office $414.8 million Avoiding the mistakes of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and yet being careful not to violate any of its continuity (even though First Class already did), this follow-up by James Mangold (who will ultimately give us 2017's "Logan") is a much more mature film with superb acting (especially Svetlana Khodchenkova / Viper), stunning on-location visuals, and action scenes that, while too drawn out for my patience, were incredibly well done nonetheless. Is it a faithful adaptation of the Claremont/Miller Wolverine limited series? Not really. Many of the cosmetic changes it makes are acceptable and sometimes even improvements to the original plot, but that brilliant first-person soul-searching, and Wolverine's struggle to earn honor and become a samurai, are far too muted in this adaptation. And really, he can't strive to be a samurai if Yashida already called him a Ronin (masterless samurai) at the very beginning. And then some Fox executive got involved somewhere down the line, stumbled in drunk, and said "Heeeeey. Thish ish shupposed to be a shuperhero film. Can't...can't he like...fight a giant robot at the end? Make thish all Robocop and shtuff?" I mean, you can literally freeze the film at the exact moment the film jumps the shark. And then Viper starts shedding skin for absolutely no reason, and stuff just gets weird and silly. This film spends three fourths of its running time veering as far away from the superhero genre as possible and then spends those last thirty minutes as one of the stupidest superhero films I've ever seen. Beyond that completely mismatched portion of the film, this one holds up pretty well. The script is largely tight (aside from the ridiculous convenience of Logan needing to die in order for his healing factor to be extracted and passed to someone else), and plot holes and conveniences are minor. It misses the most memorable parts of the source material from my standpoint, but it holds together pretty well (until the climax) in spite of this. Continuity:- This film doesn't go out of its way to acknowledge the previous flop, but you can also tell that care was put into this film to honor the continuity of the original, from the bone claws, to the question of how long he's been alive, to Logan's comment about "too many fun wars". And while it's unlikely Logan could have stormed the beaches of Normandy and then got shipped off to Japan in order to become a POW in time for the bombing of Nagasaki, it's certainly possible (though I would then ask why Victor didn't go rescue him). Another minor adherence to continuity -- when Logan is being scanned in order to see what's attached to his heart, the scanner never gets as far as his brain, where there should be bullet wounds (and possibly an adamantium bullet) from the first film. - This film closely aligns itself with Last Stand, even while First Class clearly ignored it. Almost seems like Fox hadn't decided to continue from First Class at this point, the Sentinels film they set up at the end of this one perhaps not yet having been intended to intersect the two timelines. - I'd imagine the original plan was to explain how Xavier is back in (what looks like) Xavier's body in Days of Future Past, but that never ended up happening. Overall, the film did a lot right that I respected, but I never loved it (neither as a film or as an adaptation) and the climax was utter garbage. Grade: B-
|
|
|
Post by coinilius on Apr 14, 2017 2:06:46 GMT -5
Xavier is in a body that looks just like his original because he transferred his mind into the comatose body of his identical twin brother, whom he mind wiped in the womb or something.
Seriously!
That's apparently the explanation that is there, and hinted at in Last Stand, but not explicitly laid out in any movie.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 14, 2017 7:48:41 GMT -5
Xavier is in a body that looks just like his original because he transferred his mind into the comatose body of his identical twin brother, whom he mind wiped in the womb or something. Seriously! That's apparently the explanation that is there, and hinted at in Last Stand, but not explicitly laid out in any movie. Wait...what? We know he transferred his mind into the comatose body, but how where/when was it suggested it was his twin brother?
|
|