X-Men 3 - scene after the credits

[R00k]

And how can they even act like they are leaving it open for later additions, after what happened in the movie? :icon27:

[MKJ]

maybe its just to make you feel good. ahh he's not dead, hurray.

[Jackal]

And how can they even act like they are leaving it open for later additions, after what happened in the movie? :icon27:

They are making more movies. It may be a while, but I know for a fact that they are.

[MKJ]

And how can they even act like they are leaving it open for later additions, after what happened in the movie? :icon27:

They are making more movies. It may be a while, but I know for a fact that they are.

IS THAT YOUR OPPINION?

[Jackal]

And how can they even act like they are leaving it open for later additions, after what happened in the movie? :icon27:

They are making more movies. It may be a while, but I know for a fact that they are.

IS THAT YOUR OPPINION?

I know you're joking, but I actually had dinner with the special effects supervisor on the movie when I was down at E3.

[MKJ]

fun :icon14:
i dont care about the xmen movies myself though, mostly because halle berry is such a slag.

so did you try the clam chowder?

[Jackal]

fun :icon14:
i dont care about the xmen movies myself though, mostly because halle berry is such a slag.

so did you try the clam chowder?

Nope, greens and some sort of chicken with cheese in it. Very tastey.

[R00k]

Have you seen the whole movie yet Jackal?

[Jackal]

Have you seen the whole movie yet Jackal?

Yeah, last night.

edit: I actually say the last 45 minutes of it about a month ago. I saw the whole thing last night though.

[R00k]

*spoilers*

It just seemed to me that a lot of the liberties he took with the story, were just plain unneccessary to make it a good film. Rogue giving up her powers for the love story stands out as one, but there were others. Why make the dark Pheonix a psychological issue? I can understand that the alien symbiote/whatever wouldn't exactly have fit in with the mutant vs. human war they decided on for the storyline, but why not make it a mutant who hijacked Jean's body and powers, instead of making it a generic split-personality disorder, that was all Professor X's fault?
Why kill Jean Grey, when the antidote would have stopped all the destruction?
Magneto turning his back so quickly on Mystique was pretty ridiculous, since that didn't seem to fit with the character that was developed in the movie - a man who had a lot of character and grand vision, but who thought his approach was the only way.
I wasn't much of a fan of the Cyclops character in the films either, but he just seemed to be the first domino to fall in a quest to kill off as many characters as possible for a contrived dramatic effect.

And after Nightcrawler was so involved in the battle in the last movie, he is just omitted and not spoken of in this one, like he just disappeared with no explanation.

It seems like the writer, for whatever reason, already felt he needed to kill off a lot of the characters, and just had to fit them all in somewhere.

And like someone already mentioned, Magneto could have practically won the last battle and gotten the boy by himself, so the battle only added to the feeling that everything was very contrived to get to the point they wanted it to, but still without putting much thought in the way it should be played out.

[sliver]

Rogue giving up her powers for the love story stands out as one

She was such an annoying angsty cunt anyway, I'm glad she's [hopefully] gone.

Why make the dark Pheonix a psychological issue? I can understand that the alien symbiote/whatever wouldn't exactly have fit in with the mutant vs. human war they decided on for the storyline, but why not make it a mutant who hijacked Jean's body and powers, instead of making it a generic split-personality disorder, that was all Professor X's fault?

Because this set up tension between Wolverine and Prof X. His actions regarding Jean seemed to contradict what he had done unblocking Logan's mind.

Why kill Jean Grey, when the antidote would have stopped all the destruction?

And how are you going to get a cure-containing needle into a very angry super-duper-psychokinetic? Any mechanism to achieve that would have been far less credible than what happened.

Magneto turning his back so quickly on Mystique was pretty ridiculous, since that didn't seem to fit with the character that was developed in the movie - a man who had a lot of character and grand vision, but who thought his approach was the only way.

I agree. But at least we saw Rebecca Romijn naked.

I wasn't much of a fan of the Cyclops character in the films either, but he just seemed to be the first domino to fall in a quest to kill off as many characters as possible for a contrived dramatic effect.

The actor had scheduling conflicts due to his role in Superman Returns, so he was only available for a bit of shooting; thus, they killed him off early in the movie.

And after Nightcrawler was so involved in the battle in the last movie, he is just omitted and not spoken of in this one, like he just disappeared with no explanation.

The actor asked not to come back. And with so many other mutants to think about, it would have been uneconomical (not to mention hackneyed) to insert a "let's recap why Nightcrawler left us" dialogue. That said, I did enjoy the character and it's too bad whateverhisnameis didn't want to be in this movie. Also, I read somewhere that the director said "three blue mutants would be too confusing" which is dumb but what can you do.

And like someone already mentioned, Magneto could have practically won the last battle and gotten the boy by himself, so the battle only added to the feeling that everything was very contrived to get to the point they wanted it to, but still without putting much thought in the way it should be played out.

That's the dilemma of multiple superheroes. They have to do combat one at a time or you only get to see the powers of one or two of them. Sure Magneto could have just dropped the golden gate bridge on TOP of alcatraz, virtually guaranteeing the Leech boy's death, but what kind of ending would that be?

[losCHUNK]

what kind of ending did they leave us with ?

cyclops dying was just plane gay

wolverin stabbing pho was utter gay

juggernaut was THE gay

and prof X dying only to hijack a lazy bastid who cant breathe for himself was the pinacle of ghey

[phantasmagoria]

oh, did anyone notice how much they pimped dell monitors and TVs?

More product placement than I fucking Robot.

[LawL]

I agree with everything Rook said.

[R00k]

She was such an annoying angsty cunt anyway, I'm glad she's [hopefully] gone.

That's completely beside the point.

Because this set up tension between Wolverine and Prof X. His actions regarding Jean seemed to contradict what he had done unblocking Logan's mind.

To what purpose? They never expanded on that theme in the slightest. Besides, it's hardly like you need such a reason - Wolverine is at odds with every character on his team at some point, it's just part of his M.O.

And how are you going to get a cure-containing needle into a very angry super-duper-psychokinetic? Any mechanism to achieve that would have been far less credible than what happened.

Far less credible than Wolverine just strolling up to her and stabbing her?

I agree. But at least we saw Rebecca Romijn naked.

No we didn't, she may as well have been wearing a bathing suit the way she was covered. lol

The actor had scheduling conflicts due to his role in Superman Returns, so he was only available for a bit of shooting; thus, they killed him off early in the movie.

Well that validates the feeling that it was contrived. But having a real reason for doing it doesn't mean the writer/director should get a free pass to make it completely obvious.

The actor asked not to come back. And with so many other mutants to think about, it would have been uneconomical (not to mention hackneyed) to insert a "let's recap why Nightcrawler left us" dialogue. That said, I did enjoy the character and it's too bad whateverhisnameis didn't want to be in this movie. Also, I read somewhere that the director said "three blue mutants would be too confusing" which is dumb but what can you do.

Why would it have been uneconomical and hackneyed to explain that Nightcrawler had decided to go home? After the last film it would have been fairly believable, because he seemed conflicted in what he was doing from the start. I don't buy it.

That's the dilemma of multiple superheroes. They have to do combat one at a time or you only get to see the powers of one or two of them. Sure Magneto could have just dropped the golden gate bridge on TOP of alcatraz, virtually guaranteeing the Leech boy's death, but what kind of ending would that be?

Who said he had to drop the bridge on top of Alcatraz? How about hurtling cars at all the soldiers from a distance until the X-men came to confront him? How about nearly anything besides a traditional 'soldier rush' into the front lines? He could have used Jean Gray - that's what he brought her for.

[sliver]

That's completely beside the point.

Fine, but I'm still glad she's human and useless. Her power wouldn't have been any help in the fight because she can't get near anyone without being slaughtered by their various powers, so what better character was there to seek the cure? She is major enough that it has meaning for her to give up on the mutant life, she had a singularly acceptable reason to do so (how many other mutants are hindered as much as she was by their own powers?) and she would have been useless to the rest of the plot. Ergo, cure her.

To what purpose? They never expanded on that theme in the slightest. Besides, it's hardly like you need such a reason - Wolverine is at odds with every character on his team at some point, it's just part of his M.O.

Okay, but the split personality is still the simplest and most logical way of developing the storyling. Having a "mutant who hijacked Jean's body and powers" would require the introduction of said mutant and his/her/its death or some other sort of resolution, which would just take up even more time and space in an already-crowded movie. There's nothing wrong with it being a psychological issue unless you have the mint-condition X-Men No. 1 stuffed up your ass -- the end result for the purposes of the narrative is exactly the same.

And how are you going to get a cure-containing needle into a very angry super-duper-psychokinetic? Any mechanism to achieve that would have been far less credible than what happened.

Far less credible than Wolverine just strolling up to her and stabbing her?

Yes. Wolverine could get close to her because he healed as fast as she tore his skin off; and on some level she didn't want to kill him. If someone shot her with a cure gun she'd just deflect the dart. Even if Wolverine could magically find one of the cure darts at the right moment from a conveniently-discarded gun, it would disintegrate as he walked toward Jean. So Yes.

The actor had scheduling conflicts due to his role in Superman Returns, so he was only available for a bit of shooting; thus, they killed him off early in the movie.

Well that validates the feeling that it was contrived. But having a real reason for doing it doesn't mean the writer/director should get a free pass to make it completely obvious.

The actor couldn't be there, so they killed him off in a demonstration of Jean's new dark side. What's the damn problem? What else were they supposed to do? They had only so much to work with, and they made the most of Cyclops's five minutes on screen setting up one of the movie's central plot lines.

The actor asked not to come back. And with so many other mutants to think about, it would have been uneconomical (not to mention hackneyed) to insert a "let's recap why Nightcrawler left us" dialogue. That said, I did enjoy the character and it's too bad whateverhisnameis didn't want to be in this movie. Also, I read somewhere that the director said "three blue mutants would be too confusing" which is dumb but what can you do.

Why would it have been uneconomical and hackneyed to explain that Nightcrawler had decided to go home? After the last film it would have been fairly believable, because he seemed conflicted in what he was doing from the start. I don't buy it.

Exactly. It would be believable for Nightcrawler to have gone home. And so he did. They don't need a scene explaining that -- his absence is proof enough.

Who said he had to drop the bridge on top of Alcatraz? How about hurtling cars at all the soldiers from a distance until the X-men came to confront him? How about nearly anything besides a traditional 'soldier rush' into the front lines? He could have used Jean Gray - that's what he brought her for.

Nobody said he "had to drop the bridge on top if Alcatraz," but by your logic why would he do anything else? It's the simplest, fastest, most assuredly-successful way of destroying the Leech kid and the whole cure factory in one fell swoop. But bad guys can never take the easy routes because then they'd win.

[losCHUNK]

That's completely beside the point.

Fine, but I'm still glad she's human and useless. Her power wouldn't have been any help in the fight because she can't get near anyone without being slaughtered by their various powers, so what better character was there to seek the cure? She is major enough that it has meaning for her to give up on the mutant life, she had a singularly acceptable reason to do so (how many other mutants are hindered as much as she was by their own powers?) and she would have been useless to the rest of the plot. Ergo, cure her.

i was hoping she turned round and grappled hold of gene, stealing her powers and leading to some ownzorz fight scene...

[Sanction]

Rogue giving up her powers for the love story stands out as one

So she never became anything like the powerhouse she was in the comics?

Why make the dark Pheonix a psychological issue? I can understand that the alien symbiote/whatever wouldn't exactly have fit in with the mutant vs. human war they decided on for the storyline, but why not make it a mutant who hijacked Jean's body and powers, instead of making it a generic split-personality disorder, that was all Professor X's fault?

Technically, it always was a psycological issue. In the Dark Phoenix saga, Jason/Mastermind tried controlling Phoenix so she could be the Hellfire Club's Black Queen. Mastermind was killed in X2, so they had to make the extra changes to the storyline.

[SplishSplash]

I agree with everything Rook said.

Me too, except one thing: Rogue giving up her powers was the right thing to do imo because she had no useful powers anyway. It's like giving up the power to smell like poo.

[MidnightQ4]

I saw it today and about 2/3 of the audience waited for the last scene. probably about 200 ppl.

movie was pretty good really, i mean I think some ppl expect too much when really what you should expect is a semi flat plotline with lots of special effects and carnage. i think the movie delivered in that regard.

[Jackal]

*spoilers*

It just seemed to me that a lot of the liberties he took with the story, were just plain unneccessary to make it a good film. Rogue giving up her powers for the love story stands out as one, but there were others. Why make the dark Pheonix a psychological issue? I can understand that the alien symbiote/whatever wouldn't exactly have fit in with the mutant vs. human war they decided on for the storyline, but why not make it a mutant who hijacked Jean's body and powers, instead of making it a generic split-personality disorder, that was all Professor X's fault?
Why kill Jean Grey, when the antidote would have stopped all the destruction?
Magneto turning his back so quickly on Mystique was pretty ridiculous, since that didn't seem to fit with the character that was developed in the movie - a man who had a lot of character and grand vision, but who thought his approach was the only way.
I wasn't much of a fan of the Cyclops character in the films either, but he just seemed to be the first domino to fall in a quest to kill off as many characters as possible for a contrived dramatic effect.

And after Nightcrawler was so involved in the battle in the last movie, he is just omitted and not spoken of in this one, like he just disappeared with no explanation.

It seems like the writer, for whatever reason, already felt he needed to kill off a lot of the characters, and just had to fit them all in somewhere.

And like someone already mentioned, Magneto could have practically won the last battle and gotten the boy by himself, so the battle only added to the feeling that everything was very contrived to get to the point they wanted it to, but still without putting much thought in the way it should be played out.

Alright, I'm gonna try to hit most of your points but I'll probably miss a few.
First, Rogue. The thing about the whole Rogue issue is that it's completely ambiguous. We saw that she can touch Bobby and we saw her at the cure station but we never saw her TAKE the cure. In classic comic book fashion they can always take that one back if they want. The rule being "if you don't see it, it's not necessarily true".
The Dark Phoenix from the movie was taken almost completely from the Ultimate Marvel universe. The Phoenix arc in the ultimate line (which is currently taking place) focuses on Jean having a sort of split personality.
Now, the Professor X thing. Bassically they've tried to cram in the Xavier plotline from the recent X-Men "Deadly Genesis" in which we've found out that Charles, always the idealist, has actually done some very ethically questionable things in his past to reach his goals. The Professor messing with Jean's mind is just the way they showed it. As an aside however, Xavier did the same thing in the 616 universe, it just wasn't really a big deal.
Magneto turning his back on Mystique was kinda shitty, but I don't think a movie can quite capture the subtle nuances of Magneto's character.
Cyclops - see Rogue comment.
Nightcrawler - sigh. This was all Fox's fault. See, Fox does all of it's movies by commitee, meaning that a bunch of old guys literally sit around a table and have the final say in what they want in the film based on their own preferences. The reason behind Nightcrawler being gone was apparently that it would be too confusing to have 3 blue characters in the movie (4 eventually if they ever make Angel Archangel).
And that last battle? It was apparently supposed to be completely different but the committee felt it was too "hardcore" and as such was rewritten.

[andyman]

The angel dude was played up too much. He didn't really do anything except save his dad.

[Jackal]

He was most likely just being set up for a future film. My god he looked terrible though.

[losCHUNK]

*spoilers*

It just seemed to me that a lot of the liberties he took with the story, were just plain unneccessary to make it a good film. Rogue giving up her powers for the love story stands out as one, but there were others. Why make the dark Pheonix a psychological issue? I can understand that the alien symbiote/whatever wouldn't exactly have fit in with the mutant vs. human war they decided on for the storyline, but why not make it a mutant who hijacked Jean's body and powers, instead of making it a generic split-personality disorder, that was all Professor X's fault?
Why kill Jean Grey, when the antidote would have stopped all the destruction?
Magneto turning his back so quickly on Mystique was pretty ridiculous, since that didn't seem to fit with the character that was developed in the movie - a man who had a lot of character and grand vision, but who thought his approach was the only way.
I wasn't much of a fan of the Cyclops character in the films either, but he just seemed to be the first domino to fall in a quest to kill off as many characters as possible for a contrived dramatic effect.

And after Nightcrawler was so involved in the battle in the last movie, he is just omitted and not spoken of in this one, like he just disappeared with no explanation.

It seems like the writer, for whatever reason, already felt he needed to kill off a lot of the characters, and just had to fit them all in somewhere.

And like someone already mentioned, Magneto could have practically won the last battle and gotten the boy by himself, so the battle only added to the feeling that everything was very contrived to get to the point they wanted it to, but still without putting much thought in the way it should be played out.

Alright, I'm gonna try to hit most of your points but I'll probably miss a few.
First, Rogue. The thing about the whole Rogue issue is that it's completely ambiguous. We saw that she can touch Bobby and we saw her at the cure station but we never saw her TAKE the cure. In classic comic book fashion they can always take that one back if they want. The rule being "if you don't see it, it's not necessarily true".
The Dark Phoenix from the movie was taken almost completely from the Ultimate Marvel universe. The Phoenix arc in the ultimate line (which is currently taking place) focuses on Jean having a sort of split personality.
Now, the Professor X thing. Bassically they've tried to cram in the Xavier plotline from the recent X-Men "Deadly Genesis" in which we've found out that Charles, always the idealist, has actually done some very ethically questionable things in his past to reach his goals. The Professor messing with Jean's mind is just the way they showed it. As an aside however, Xavier did the same thing in the 616 universe, it just wasn't really a big deal.
Magneto turning his back on Mystique was kinda shitty, but I don't think a movie can quite capture the subtle nuances of Magneto's character.
Cyclops - see Rogue comment.
Nightcrawler - sigh. This was all Fox's fault. See, Fox does all of it's movies by commitee, meaning that a bunch of old guys literally sit around a table and have the final say in what they want in the film based on their own preferences. The reason behind Nightcrawler being gone was apparently that it would be too confusing to have 3 blue characters in the movie (4 eventually if they ever make Angel Archangel).
And that last battle? It was apparently supposed to be completely different but the committee felt it was too "hardcore" and as such was rewritten.

i more or less agree with this which is why i found it disapointing

which is a shame because i thought the 1st one was 'alright' and the 2nd one owned

i rly thought everyone else would be slagging it off and me defending it but, even tho i still liked parts of the film, i felt let down

[Pext]

oh, did anyone notice how much they pimped dell monitors and TVs?

More product placement than I fucking Robot.

did anyone see the subtle PS3 product placement?