The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

X3 Plans, Before Ratner became director.

G

gaz1978

Sex God
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Posts
866
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Liverpool
There's also no way Bryan Singer (openly gay) would have done a "cure" story either, since the mutant thing is also a metaphor for homosexuality in the 2nd film.

Singer also would have beefed up the emotional payoffs, rather than calously killing characters off for the sake of a good set piece.

He also wouldn't have cast Vinnie Jones, who ruins the film.
 
gaz1978 said:
There's also no way Bryan Singer (openly gay) would have done a "cure" story either, since the mutant thing is also a metaphor for homosexuality in the 2nd film.

Singer also would have beefed up the emotional payoffs, rather than calously killing characters off for the sake of a good set piece.

He also wouldn't have cast Vinnie Jones, who ruins the film.
But...he's the Juggernaut bitch! LOL.

Seriously, I personally love Singers work so I don't care what the plans would have been either way, it just would have been MUCh better with him at the helm. And longer too. That measly 104 minute runtime is pathetic for a movie that's supposed to serve as the end of a trilogy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Just so you know most of that is fanboy BS. Tatum was only ever considered after Ratner was on the movie. Also IMDb is known for it's gross errors so never trust it as a primary source. Lastly things majorly change from version to version, the only thing Singer had was early ideas, and that means nothing. Early in X2's development he wanted one of the main storylines to be the Legacy virus wich wasn't even mentioned by the time the movie came out.

PS. Gambit never had a big part in X3, in most version he was almost only a cameo.
 
glo-unit said:
Just so you know most of that is fanboy BS. Tatum was only ever considered after Ratner was on the movie. Also IMDb is known for it's gross errors so never trust it as a primary source. Lastly things majorly change from version to version, the only thing Singer had was early ideas, and that means nothing. Early in X2's development he wanted one of the main storylines to be the Legacy virus wich wasn't even mentioned by the time the movie came out.

PS. Gambit never had a big part in X3, in most version he was almost only a cameo.
Click to expand...

I won't infer, but it just kind of seems as though you prefer Ratner over Singer from the way your comment is framed.

I'm curious to know if you enjoyed X-3 with Ratner as director or would have enjoyed it with Singer better, or what.

Not trying to start anything, just curious.
 
I think Singer was the better director of the series, and X2 is easily my favorite of the series, in fact the first message boards I joined was IMDb so I could participate on the X2 boards. However I enjoyed X3 and thought it was a good entry in the series so I do tend to defend it when some act like he did to X-men what Joel S. did to Batman which IMO he didn't. Also from my time on many X-men and comic related forums on of my pet peeves is hearing mere rumors confirmed as truth. While I definitely don't mind if someone prefers Singer or thinks he would of made X3 better, I always get annoyed when I hear Singer's X3 would have been better because he would have used real Sentinels, or Gambit, or the Hellfire Club, etc, etc.

There is little to nothing on what he would of done with X3 and most of the rumors are just rumors, and many fanboys use rumors to blindly hate Ratner because he took away what they wanted from X3. Well, that annoys me and it let it known. To the OP sorry if I came off as an asshole, but you happened to do one of my message board pet peeves and I can be a bit of a cranky bitch at times. I'll probably discuss this more later, but I've already spent enough time on this message.
 
I myself did not like X3 as much as the other two, with X 2 being my fave. Rumours are now abound that Singer is returning to the franchise for X 4 and that he is going to totally revamp the series to get it back on track to when he was at the helm. One idea suggests that he is going to treat X 3 as 'never happened' and somehow resurrect Jean Grey and Cyclops and redo the storyline of the Pheonix, perhaps even using it to explain WHY Jean and Co did not really die in part 3.
Oh, and the pay off of the 'secret' ending with the Professor is most warranted for part 4 I reckon.
 
omg Singer is such an idiot for doing superman instead! His version of X3 sounds waaaay better!

I was so pissed at how they fucked Rogue over, she was soooo boring!
 
There's no way in HELL Channing Tatum could play Gambit. Doesn't look like him at ALL. Too beefcakey. Not a good enough actor.
 
I actually liked the movie but I did not like Superman at all! I even thought all the casting sucked!!! Lois was the worst!! What was he thinking?! x3 really follwed the Astonishing X-men comic. Even the DR was the same. Can the y rip something off like that and not give Joss Weadon credit?
 
I honestly don't think you need a "good" actor to play Gambit, but anyway I liked X3 over Superman Returns as well...but different strokes for different folks I guess...
 
carbine222 said:
I honestly don't think you need a "good" actor to play Gambit, but anyway I liked X3 over Superman Returns as well...but different strokes for different folks I guess...
Click to expand...

How would you know that without having seen the script?
 
I love x3 over Superman, and this because I don't care whoever would direct. JUst make it and I'd watch it. Why would the fanboys think x3 a failure is beyond me. It did make money than the other two that Singer did. However, I really think all this dissing was because of two fan boys' favorite characters: Rogue and Gambit. Any xmen movie without Gambit will sure fall below the fanboys standard. The rest of the world sure don't care whoever is in or not in the xmen world. If it is enjoyable, then bring it on.
 
Just because it made money doesnt mean that it was a good movie. All that showed was that the interest was there but in the end it didn't deliver. All Brett seemed to be focused on was the action and how many mutants I can show off and in the end the story suffered. I am sure if fox waited for Singer to return after superman like he wanted we would have had a way better film.
 
I personally like x3 a lot and thought it delivered on the action than either of the previous films and I personally thought that was great but the plot maybe wasn't as great as in the previous films which seem to be more character driven than the latest installment. Also I'm sure a lot of people who maybe aren't as familiar with the comics but more familiar with Saturday morning cartoon might have been a little turned off by the whole Phoenix saga and the movie chose to portray it, which I'm sure left a lot of people giving this move more unfavorable reviews than it deserved.
 
Raven03 said:
Just because it made money doesnt mean that it was a good movie. All that showed was that the interest was there but in the end it didn't deliver. All Brett seemed to be focused on was the action and how many mutants I can show off and in the end the story suffered. I am sure if fox waited for Singer to return after superman like he wanted we would have had a way better film.
Click to expand...


Sorry to just answer this late. Box office success doesn't mean good movie, I agree. But, you know, I wasn't talking about that. Care to elaborate though why Singer could be better had he been given a chance. Any idea how he could have treated it even without Gambit?
 
I wouldn't count on X4 anytime soon. Not with both Magento and Wolverine spin-offs already in the works.
 
sfireboy said:
Also I'm sure a lot of people who maybe aren't as familiar with the comics but more familiar with Saturday morning cartoon might have been a little turned off by the whole Phoenix saga and the movie chose to portray it, which I'm sure left a lot of people giving this move more unfavorable reviews than it deserved.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, so were a lot of people familiar with the the Phoenix Saga. Outside of featuring Jean Grey, I'm not really sure how you can even begin comparing the two (outside of really badly...).

It's just that you had a logical conclusion that had been built towards (using Leech to nail her powers) and that an illogical one was substituted in its place (Wolverine stabbing her). Throw in the Rogue, Mystique, and Magneto silliness, as well as Storm basically losing it when Rogue wanted a cure (Storm could have been a bit more empathic). It's not that hard for a non-comic fan to tear down the movie; Heaven help it if an actual fan decided to tear into it (and I'd probably start with the cameos)...

RG
 
"X-3: The last stand" is the best of the X-MEN trilogy. At least, for me.
Bryan Singer's initial concept could have worked, but as it is now, the movie subversive look at the controversial issue of "The cure" elevated the plot to a whole new level for those who can read between the lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top