|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 13, 2011 18:13:39 GMT -5
They are largely marketed towards people who aren't that big on the comics, but who aren't completely turned off by the idea of a comic book-inspired movie, either - because that's the majority of the movie-going public.
The mistake, I think, is assuming that comic book fans will see these things. I think there are enough of us to damage their profit margins if we decide the trailers look like crap.
I agree about X-Men origin story fatigue. I also think the movie might lose something by focusing on the story of Xavier vs. Magneto. I think that battle is actually more interesting through the eyes of Xavier's students, who basically get caught in the crossfire, or are used as pawns, depending how you see it.
~TWF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 19:15:34 GMT -5
Yeah, the X-Men and The Brotherhood got the raw deal. Xavier and Magneto both are borderline Cult Leaders. I think Xavier has a good cause, but he used his students to do things he couldn't have done otherwise. He's even used his powers on crowds, humans and everything else. He bends things, and I can see how some characters consider him as big of a thread at Magneto, if not bigger.
I'm into the comics, but I don't want to have to set through another movie of a storyline that came out in 1963 and has been re-done several times in the past 50 years.
It's a no win situation for people like me. Either they remake something I've been seeing all my life, or they ruin it by changing something important.
Like the Phoenix plot. They totally ruined that in the movie, and the comics the first Phoenix Saga was awesome because you had Aliens, the Hellfire Club and all kinds of things going on that made it entertaining. So, in the movie it's just some psycho id in Jean's head? It was a horrible storyline, and I have no doubt Hollywood will has screwed this new storyline up just as bad.
Not only that, they have Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, and I owned Wolverine's action Figures, comics, and everything, but he utterly sucked in the movie. Maybe it's because in the Comics He's a bad ass midget who's goes toe to toe with anything like a pit bull on steroids without backing down, but Hugh did a horrible job.
Call me old fashioned, but getting somebody who also played "The Boy from Oz," shouldn't be playing a badass Wolverine. It's just no believable.
In the comics Wolverine was the reason that Magneto took the X-Men seriously. Before him he thought they were just a minor annoyance. Wolverine nearly killed him though. In the movie Wolverine's just an angry sock puppet of what is is in the movies.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 13, 2011 20:00:19 GMT -5
Oh please. That whole "soldiers in the war are just pawns cut between arrogant/overzealous/evil leaders" thing is so overdone it's not even funny. I was tired of that the first time I saw it, and I've seen it thousands of times since.
The X-Men aren't pawns. If anything, they're more culpable for their own actions than, say, a SHIELD agent, who honestly (most of the time) isn't aware of all of the things going on.
All of that "Xavier manipulates the kids!" crap was retconned in by writers who thought that they were being clever by making the authority figure the bad guy. Which, of course, is about as original as "The Butler Did it"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 20:12:16 GMT -5
I never said it was original, but that's just how the X-Men is written. Xavier uses the X-Men like tools. How could Xavier not be considered a Villain if you're anything but a mutant. He's gathering people, weaponizing their powers, and blowing sh*t up. Them getting in trouble for cult like behavior has been a huge plot of their storyline over the years. Even the writers admit that Xavier uses his students to an extent.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 13, 2011 20:32:19 GMT -5
Yes... I just said that the writers use that plot device... the problem is that it's a retcon of the original concept of Charles Xavier. Furthermore, its hackish writing and it demeans every character who has ever worn an X-Men uniform as some kind of halfwit moron who can't discern for themselves what they feel is worth fighting for.
I also don't think Xavier is remotely "cultish" but thats a whole other conversation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 21:14:18 GMT -5
Furthermore, its hackish writing and it demeans every character who has ever worn an X-Men uniform as some kind of halfwit moron who can't discern for themselves what they feel is worth fighting for. I do agree with that. The X-Men to me seem Cult-ish, but as do the Brotherhood. You don't have to agree with me, but I would like to explain why I think so. Cults have powerful leaders who take outcast or misfits of society and put them in a hierarchy. This gives each member of a group a sense of belonging, and in some cases believing their leaders are "divine." Note, not every member of the Brotherhood or the X-Men view the leaders as divine, but it has came up before. Both the Brotherhood and the X-Men have powerful leaders who take misfits from society, and give them meaning or purpose. Both leaders use it's followers to carry out task, and have a powerful influence over their followers. It gives them both a place of belonging, and Cults give followers a strong sense of belonging. Furthermore, cults use family words in order to create a bond with members. Words like brother, sister, father, mother, and so on. Then you have "The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants." It's a no brainer that sounds cult like. However, Xavier's group is a little more subtle. I've read in more than a few comics that the X-Men are more like a close nit family, and more than a few members consider Xavier as a father figure. The are the X-Men, Xavier's Men, and in short they are followers of Xavier. Also, Xavier's mutant power is Brain manipulation. Cult leaders have very persuasive abilities, or natural charisma. The two are very similar in that perspective. Let's not forget the super secret Headquarters of both groups. The Mansion, Asteroid M, Genosia, and then remember that Cults often have compounds sheltering members from the outside world. Xavier tries to shelter his students from the outside world, as does Magneto by keeping them segregated. Cults do the same thing with weird compounds, and all that. Those are the reasons I believe both groups are cult like.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 13, 2011 23:23:27 GMT -5
I don't see them as pawns either, but I think some people (and writers) do. I do think of them as being sort of caught up in something bigger than them, though (talking about the First Class kids, not the X-Men they are today). Not so much because of Xavier, as simply because they're mutants.
Point is, it isn't their war to begin with, it's Xavier's and Magneto's, and yet they're arguably the ones most affected by it. I think that's more interesting than watching the power struggle between Xavier and Magneto themselves. Still sort of boring, though, I'll admit.
~TWF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2011 23:38:44 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree for one reason. The very definition of the word pawn when applied to people. www.thefreedictionary.com/pawn2. A person or an entity used to further the purposes of another: The X-Men are used to further Xavier's Purpose, and the Brotherhood are used to Further Magneto's Purpose. Sure they choose to fallow, but most pawns do. Over all the purpose and the Masterminds are Magneto and Xavier, and they plan and make the strategies, but they use their respective groups to execute their plans. By the definition of the word, the X-Men are pawns. Sure they are mutants, but the X-Men are the ones that choose to fallow Xavier, and the Brotherhood Choose to Fallow Magneto. There have been mutants that go home, live with their families, hide, or just hang out in the sewers. Just because you’re a Mutant doesn’t automatically mean you’re an X-Man. Most pawns are swept up in something bigger. Even though the X-Men are mutants, Xavier is their leader. He’s the Mastermind.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 14, 2011 7:53:20 GMT -5
Okay F-Bomb. Now look up the words "connotation" and "denotation"
|
|
|
Post by OurLadyWar on Feb 14, 2011 9:00:07 GMT -5
lololol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 9:15:55 GMT -5
Right, know the definition, but it doesn't mean that X-Men aren't pawns.
Know luck up the word Ludder
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2011 9:42:33 GMT -5
Yep, we disagree. ^__^
I see the X-Men as a collection of individuals with a common goal. A pawn usually doesn't have much to gain by following their leader, and even when they do, it isn't the same thing that the leader stands to gain.
By your interpretation, everyone who works for someone else is a pawn. That's a pretty broad definition, I think. I like to reserve "pawn" for more damning cases of manipulation.
EDIT: Which is not to say that your perspective is wrong, we just disagree, as you say.
~TWF
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 14:39:55 GMT -5
By your interpretation, everyone who works for someone else is a pawn. That's a pretty broad definition, I think. I like to reserve "pawn" for more damning cases of manipulation. EDIT: Which is not to say that your perspective is wrong, we just disagree, as you say. ~TWF It's not "my interpretation," because it's pretty much Websters, or whomever is doing the dictionary these days interpretation. From my perspective I wouldn't say everyone who works for someone else is a pawn. Some people are just employees. Like somebody who bags your groceries for example. The word Pawn is more commonly used for warrior types, and in some cases it is used for businesses. SHIELD Agents would be Agents, but would more or less be pawns because they carrying out the orders of SHIELD, and the government. This applies to the Avengers also, or at least some incarnations of them as proved in the Marvel Civil War. Where there's a well defined than let's say a car hop at sonic. I very rarely have opinions on anything. I go by well defined terminology, and categorize things. I understand that you disagree, but you're more of disagreeing with the dictionary than you are with disagreeing with me.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2011 14:54:54 GMT -5
I'm not disagreeing with the dictionary, I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of the definition.
The definition you listed doesn't go into detail as to what constitutes "using" someone. I think that's where we have different perspectives on the same definition. For example, I don't see Xavier as "using" the X-Men, so much as he's recruiting them and working with them.
Again, I think "using" someone implies that the marks aren't getting anything (or as much as they may deserve) out of their actions, especially as compared to the user. It also tends to imply that the user doesn't care much about the pawns, though s/he will probably have to feign sincerity in order to manipulate them. This doesn't sound like Xavier to me, though I haven't read that many comics. I see him as an idealist and a visionary who believes his method is what is right for both mutant and humankind. I think he thinks he's empowering his students by helping them understand their powers and by giving them a chance to share his vision and take part in making it happen.
If he were using them, I would expect his goal to be more self-serving, and probably secret. He'd probably need to maintain a false agenda, one that would be more palatable to his students, which they could accept. That really doesn't sound like Xavier.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Hypester on Feb 14, 2011 16:50:05 GMT -5
There's also the detail of the X-Men, Cyclops specifically, throwing Xavier out of the X-Men. Pawns can't do that. Xavier isn't the only one with real power in the X-Men. Also, a cult is usually something religious, and I don't think the X-Men are a religious institution by any means.
I enjoyed the trailer immensely, and was pleasantly surprised. I heard some good things about the movie earlier as well, when they were talking about removing a dream sequence because it was similar to Inception's, but this, well, this is just great. I think they've put a lot of good work into this.
|
|