I was rather surprised by this movie, I had expected the characters and period setting to be weak and lacking in commitment and the special effects to be effective grandstanding, but it was the other way around. All of the characters even Angel and Darwin who dont get much set-up or follow through were very relatable, no one felt like a set piece who could have been easily replaced. Aside from some from the occasional "groovy" from McAvoy the sixties premise was seemless and comfortable, and while defaning what I believe to have been a Reagan statue was unnecessary it was certainly funny.
The big blockbuster moments that were teased in the previews were extremely underwhelming IMO, they made it look like Magneto lifting a sub out of the ocean would be the most visually interesting thing ever and it paled in comparison to a young Erik compacting the metal helmets of two nazis at the beginning of the movie. As a matter of fact, the entire recreation of the metal gate scene was wonderfully done and really set the mood and tone for the rest of the film. And lastly, Beast... I liked the Hank to Beast arc but using CG where make-up has done fine, poor dubbing and a mouth so layered in prosthetics it could barely move. Beast and Mystique both were woefully unexpressive in full make-up, especially compared to the other three films is inexcusable. On a purely make-up level, Beast looked like a monster and not a character that I was supposed to connect with, you take away the face and take away the humanity.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I wasn't expecting to care about the characters either, but by the end I was fully saddened by Erik's transformation to Magneto - I thought they played the tragedy well, and you could see why rational characters would agree to follow him - because he was right about everything except how to deal with the threat against them.
Loved the fairy battle (Angel vs Banshee) and the tiny unexpected Wolverine cameo - so that's why the Professor left him alone all those years!
I have no idea about the language as I didn't watch the movie in English, but I thought that the period setting was gorgeous and the costumes really added to the comic-book feel of the movie. This movie looks really iconic.
I enjoyed the sub-lifting moment - I heard some 'wow's from the younger members of the audience, so that scene is certainly going to be acted out in playgrounds across the world on Monday.
Agree about Beast's face. The actor had done a good job making him a very expressive character until that point, which made the contrast sharper.
Finally, one unintentional thing that made me laugh was that Riptide (the tornado creating guy) is all over the film and has no lines. The actor was on TV here in Spain the other day explaining that when he started work on the film he didn't know much more English than how to say 'Nice to meet you' and 'Yes, of course'. He still got the part, but his character had to stay silent.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
So thats why he didnt talk! he and the devil looking fellow were really out of place because of thier silence.
I like Banshee, and really enjoyed the portrayal right down to when he blessed himself before falling into the bushes. Forgetting that he is Irish-Catholic can be easy, especially on a big hollywood movie so I that little detail got my attention.
Not just Beast, Mystique was a blue blank stare as well. I wasnt overly impressed with the actress during the Raven scenes but her face hardly seemed to move during the Mystique moments. Considering how well they did Beast in X3 this was a major let down.
Is it me, or was there alot of alcohol in the first twenty minutes of the movie?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
That's odd. Why would they cast someone in a role when they can't speak the language that the film is in? Seems a little silly.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
On the whole, I enjoyed this movie as well. I thought there were a few rediculous moments, like Beast running, or the weird exchanges between Havoc and Darwin. Speaking of Darwin, did anyone else find it a little odd that when Sebastian Shaw mentioned slavery, he looked at Darwin? Was it because he was black? Seems kind of risky to have in a movie, although I can understand the underlining tone since the movie is about intolerance. Also, I found it a little strange that they killed off the only black character in the film. You could say that wasp was black (she's actually mixed), but she turned evil which is basically the same thing. When they do that money shot of all the characters before the final fight, they're all caucasian, which is a little weird. A little ironic considering it's an anti-racist film, so one would expect there to be a black mutant on the good side who doesn't get killed after 10 minutes. Oh well.
Anyway, I also didn't like the way beast looked after he transformed. I thought he was much more interesting before he went all blue, but maybe that's just me. The awkward talk at the end about how Professor X's G-Men were really X-Men was a little too contrived and it didn't seem realistic. And I didn't like that Charles erased Moira's mind. She is supposed to be his human supporter, and they know eachother in X3...so what's the deal?
On the whole, it was a great movie, but I wouldn't say it was better than X2. X2 still stands as my all time favorite mutant film, but this comes in second place. I loved all the stuff about Magneto and his life history and evolution to becoming the man he is. Charles Xavier was equally awesome. I could have watched an entire film just about those two characters and it would have been perfect.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Was it because he was black? Seems kind of risky to have in a movie, although I can understand the underlining tone since the movie is about intolerance.
Indicative of the era the movie took place in, I imagine.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Was it because he was black? Seems kind of risky to have in a movie, although I can understand the underlining tone since the movie is about intolerance.
Indicative of the era the movie took place in, I imagine.
What's risky about it? It would have been almost insulting not to address racism in a movie about intolerance set in 1960s America. In fact, when I first saw the trailers and realized that a member of the team was black I was sure that real racism rather that science fictional racism would get at least a mention or two.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: So thats why he didnt talk! he and the devil looking fellow were really out of place because of thier silence.
I like Banshee, and really enjoyed the portrayal right down to when he blessed himself before falling into the bushes. Forgetting that he is Irish-Catholic can be easy, especially on a big hollywood movie so I that little detail got my attention.
Not just Beast, Mystique was a blue blank stare as well. I wasnt overly impressed with the actress during the Raven scenes but her face hardly seemed to move during the Mystique moments. Considering how well they did Beast in X3 this was a major let down.
Is it me, or was there alot of alcohol in the first twenty minutes of the movie?
Well the movie was set in the early 60's. It would have been weird if there wasn't a bunch of booze. lol
I loved this film. The actors were all on the mark and the more 60's than the 60's, James Bond feel was all sorts of fun.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I thought the racism/Darwin bit was somewhat heavy handed but ofcourse the X-Men was always about anti-bigotry in all forms so its not odd at all that they were so overt. When he died my mind flashed back to every comedians joke about how the only black character always dies in movies, and for such little time on screen and no previous knowledge of the character he was really endearing and my favorite of the g-men.
The really risky thing in my opinion was the child Mystique scene, can you imagine being a producer and having to choose wether or not you should body paint a little girl and put her on screen? it was done respectfully but I would be paranoid about making that scene.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
She was wearing a colored body stocking with essentially a latex bathing suit over it. There was nothing even vaguely inappropriate about it. So why would a producer or director have any concerns?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Just the thought of someone suggesting a scene with a child Mystique when the only comparison is Rebecca Romijn in the other movies, my first reaction would be a strong no.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Well, I'd assume that most people who found the grown woman Mystique attractive would be unattracted to the child version, and since the child was completely covered up, most paedophiles would enjoy spending the afternoon at the public swimming pool more than trying to get a glimpse of this little blue kid.
I actually thought that scene was charmingly innocent, the way the little boy didn't even blink at the naked girl in their kitchen.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Little Charles saying something to the effect of " You will never have to steal again" was more endearing than McAvoy over the whole movie.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: That's odd. Why would they cast someone in a role when they can't speak the language that the film is in?
Did you see his hair? how is that not a superpower?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I enjoyed the movie a lot. I REALLY enjoyed Kevin Bacon. I thought he played a great bad guy.
I actually liked Jennifer Lawrence in the movie. Mystique wasn't the best written character, but I think she did what she could with what she was given. She just landed the role of the main character in The Hunger Games movie so she should be set for the next 5 years or so.
I loved the cameo with Wolverine but didn't understand why they chose for him to use the F-word. It was typical Wolverine, but he could have said "Go screw yourselves" and it would have had the same impact. The Marvell movies are generally family friendly, and while some profanity is expected I think including that word will turn a lot of parents off. I think they shot themselves in the foot. Well, grazed perhaps.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
I loved the cameo with Wolverine but didn't understand why they chose for him to use the F-word. It was typical Wolverine, but he could have said "Go screw yourselves" and it would have had the same impact. The Marvell movies are generally family friendly, and while some profanity is expected I think including that word will turn a lot of parents off. I think they shot themselves in the foot. Well, grazed perhaps.
Gratuitous profanity neither impresses nor offends me, but I think that it was perfect here. It was so random and unexpected precisely because it is the only use of the F-word in any Marvel movie (except the R-rated Blade films). It got big laughs from the audience at my show, and I don't think that a more "family friendly" expression would have had quite the same effect.
If one use of the F-word causes parents to react negatively then they shouldn't be letting their kids watch a pg-13 film, a rating which allows for limited use of the F-word. I mean, the film also shows people being murdered (including a coin being slowly passed through a man's head and coming out the other side bloody) and has a racy scene or two with Emma Frost (psychic sex with the Russian dude) and Angel (semi-strip tease for Charles and Erik). I don't want to sound like I'm being judgmental towards parents who don't want expose their kids to certain things, but I'm sure that the parental advisory for the film mentions all of these things (though obviously not specifically) and if the violence and racy content aren't deal breakers, it does seem a bit odd to me that a single syllable of profanity should be.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
I can't reconcile the fact that a person who is bullet proof, who can absorb all energy, especially kinetic energy, was killed because someone pushed a penny through his skull slowly. There was no setup, no foreshadowing, no expectation that if you pass objects slowly enough through Shaw's body, it'll kill him. What was that about?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Well, it had to be strong enough for the Professor to think 'I shan't bother him' for the next forty years. So for that usage, the word was perfect. It's not a throwaway line. It has consequences, and we've seen them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by manji: I can't reconcile the fact that a person who is bullet proof, who can absorb all energy, especially kinetic energy, was killed because someone pushed a penny through his skull slowly. There was no setup, no foreshadowing, no expectation that if you pass objects slowly enough through Shaw's body, it'll kill him. What was that about?
They went out of their way to show him physically moving/reacting/morphing/splitting whenever he absorbed energy. It didn't happen automatically -- he had to make it happen. It's no stretch to assume that when he's frozen by X, he was unable to use those powers.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I wasn't offended by the movie and I'm sure people will still take their kids. (Marvel movies are usually movies dads will take their sons to) I just questioned the wisdom of it.
While the scene was funny, was it needed for the plot? Nope. The movie would have been just as good if it hadn't been included. They can put it in there, I was just questioning why they would, especially since every other PG-13 movie they have released have been pretty family friendly.
As for Sebastian Shaw, his power must have to be something he turns on with his mind, which is why he wore the helmet. He knew Xavier was the only person that could stop him. I guess brain waves cannot be absorbed like other energy.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
It annoyed me that the helmet would warp with him, seemed like lazy special effects to have the metal helmet change shape as well while his body absorbed energy.
Its too bad that Magneto deflected a bullet and it went into Xavier's spine, it isnt like Magneto is a master of metal or something.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
At this point, no, he's not master of anything. He's a journeyman at best. A strong one but still, from what we've seen, he doesn't have much experience using his powers for that sort of thing.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
He deflected a bullet and it went straight behind him, it didnt ricochet or anything he blocked it and it landed in Xavier's back. Blocking indicates that the bullet hit something that stopped it, but magnetism doesnt cause a bullet to bounce away. Magneto in X1 stopping all the bullets in midair makes more sense, this was a cheap and uninventive way to make Erik responsible for Xavier's disability.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by manji: I can't reconcile the fact that a person who is bullet proof, who can absorb all energy, especially kinetic energy, was killed because someone pushed a penny through his skull slowly. There was no setup, no foreshadowing, no expectation that if you pass objects slowly enough through Shaw's body, it'll kill him. What was that about?
They went out of their way to show him physically moving/reacting/morphing/splitting whenever he absorbed energy. It didn't happen automatically -- he had to make it happen. It's no stretch to assume that when he's frozen by X, he was unable to use those powers.
*nods head*
Also ditto about Magneto not being a master of his powers yet. A journeyman is a pretty adept description.
What I'm trying to reconcile is Charles Xavier was trying to convince Magneto that he should not kill Shaw, if it was clear Magneto was going to kill Shaw, was Charles not releasing his hold on him because it was still better that Shaw be stopped, and Magneto commit murder, with Charles complicit in that murder, than whatever alternative future might happen if Shaw had been permitted to defend himself?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Did anyone else find it strange that at the beginning of X3 (which takes place in the 80's), Charles and Eric go to see Jean Grey and they are still friends? Oh, and Charles is walking (isn't he?)? But here, they leave one another and Charles is already in a wheel chair. Talk about major contradictions.
Also, in X-Men 1 Charles tells Wolverine that Magneto helped him build Cerebro, but in this one it was Beast that did it.
Oh, and in X2 there's a cameo of Beast talking on TV to Shebastian Shaw. For starters, Hank looks normal. Secondly, Shaw is alive. And this happens apparently 40 years later.
Maybe they'll explain this all later, but who knows. That first example is a major contradiction though. Do these directors and writers even look back over the other films? I know they are ignoring Wolverine Origins but come on, the other X-Men movies should still matter...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
From what I understand X-Men First Class is a reboot, so it does not synch with the other three movies. They are going off in their own direction. The nod to Wolverine I think was just for the sake of giving the audience something to laugh about, and perhaps indicate why Wolvering (who would have been alive and well at the time) isn't joining the team. They were not making the larger statement, "We're going to tie this into the other movies."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:shrug: I honestly don't care about continuity between the first three and this movie.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: :shrug: I honestly don't care about continuity between the first three and this movie.
I certainly don't.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
The problem with that explanation is that it wasn't actually in the movie. Maybe you can infer it, but there's certainly no setup. If I'm supposed to extrapolate from a special effect, then I think a failure of writing has occurred.
The reason Shaw wore the helmet was that with Charles in the game, Shaw wouldn't be able to enact his plan of World War III. He has to wear the helmet or risk his plan failing. That's it. He wasn't afraid of dying, and he never mentioned such a fear. He never said, "Oh, I have to wear this helmet, or Professor X can turn off my powers, and then I can be killed".
The fact is, the only instance in the movie where they show Shaw not morphing after being hit by kinetic forces is when Magneto kills him. So, my original point stands. There was no foreshadowing, no setup, no Chekov's gun, nothing to indicate that doing A would result in B.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
They had some comic book fan service all through the movie and used both Wolverine and Rebecca Romijn as fan service for people who only know the movies. Thats all, in fact there is no telling wether or not they will want to use Hugh Jackman in the role as they progress in this line of movies. I would prefer it if they did as they mostly did in this movie, stay away from high ranking actors to broaden the talent pool and hire someone who can really do the character justice instead of generate a couple tickets from tweens. Im looking at you Lucas Til.
Speaking of Havok, I am disapointed that they have disregarded the Summers brothers dynamic. Scott and his younger brother Alex were the only related characters who interacted in a normal fashion rather than "Mystique, you are my mother?" "yes, but you were born blue so I tossed in the river to die Nightcrawler, but you seem fine now." There are all these genetic lines tracing along the X-Men mythos but no one acts like normal people except the Summers boys, and now they are at best distant cousins, what a waste of story-telling fodder. They could have filled his spot in the story with any other offense specialist mutant and even the dialogue would have been the same, maybe even better considering Alex was always supposed to be the light hearted verion of Scott and not a junior high bully.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If I'm supposed to extrapolate from a special effect, then I think a failure of writing has occurred.
If we can't take the special effects as a part of the storytelling that make sense with everything else, then we shouldn't even have them at all.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If I'm supposed to extrapolate from a special effect, then I think a failure of writing has occurred.
If we can't take the special effects as a part of the storytelling that make sense with everything else, then we shouldn't even have them at all.
Point taken. But my point is that you only see the special effect fail to occur after he's already dead. And by then, I was left wondering what happened.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Speaking of Havok, I am disapointed that they have disregarded the Summers brothers dynamic. Scott and his younger brother Alex were the only related characters who interacted in a normal fashion rather than "Mystique, you are my mother?" "yes, but you were born blue so I tossed in the river to die Nightcrawler, but you seem fine now." There are all these genetic lines tracing along the X-Men mythos but no one acts like normal people except the Summers boys, and now they are at best distant cousins, what a waste of story-telling fodder. They could have filled his spot in the story with any other offense specialist mutant and even the dialogue would have been the same, maybe even better considering Alex was always supposed to be the light hearted verion of Scott and not a junior high bully.
Wasn't Alex the older brother? I could have sworn Scott was the young'in
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Did anyone else find it strange that at the beginning of X3 (which takes place in the 80's), Charles and Eric go to see Jean Grey and they are still friends? Oh, and Charles is walking (isn't he?)? But here, they leave one another and Charles is already in a wheel chair. Talk about major contradictions.
Also, in X-Men 1 Charles tells Wolverine that Magneto helped him build Cerebro, but in this one it was Beast that did it.
Oh, and in X2 there's a cameo of Beast talking on TV to Shebastian Shaw. For starters, Hank looks normal. Secondly, Shaw is alive. And this happens apparently 40 years later.
Maybe they'll explain this all later, but who knows. That first example is a major contradiction though. Do these directors and writers even look back over the other films? I know they are ignoring Wolverine Origins but come on, the other X-Men movies should still matter...
"First Class" is meant to be something of a loose prequel though not necessarily an outright reboot.
The writers/director aren't so stupid that they were unaware of these contradictions (Bryan Signer himself was one of said writers) but they didn't want to be too strictly bound by what was established in the other films.
Also, I thought Xavier's paralysis was just perfect. I didn't find it hard to swallow because even if Erik did have the level of control required to deflect/stop the bullets more carefully, I think it was pretty clear that he wasn't even thinking about that at the time. It's one of his defining moments of villainy. In his desire for vengeance against humans he's blinded to everything else.
As for Shaw's death, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that his power works sort of like the shields in Dune. Something with low enough kinetic energy can pass through.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:...like the shields in Dune. Something with low enough kinetic energy can pass through.
SPOILERS! Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
What happened to all of the nuclear energy he absorbed? Shouldn't he have blown up with the force of a nuclear bomb when he died?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:...like the shields in Dune. Something with low enough kinetic energy can pass through.
SPOILERS!
Huh?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: From what I understand X-Men First Class is a reboot, so it does not synch with the other three movies. They are going off in their own direction. The nod to Wolverine I think was just for the sake of giving the audience something to laugh about, and perhaps indicate why Wolvering (who would have been alive and well at the time) isn't joining the team. They were not making the larger statement, "We're going to tie this into the other movies."
It's not a reboot, at least not in the way you are describing it. This is supposed to be a prequel to the rest, but a potential start up film for a new prequel franchise. We know it's not a real reboot because Singer said he was restricted to using certain characters because the original first class were already in the other movies and those movies took place decades later, so the continuity would be messed up. They couldn't be in this because they hadn't been born yet.
If they had actually done a true reboot, you would have seen Iceman, Angel, Beast, Cyclops, and Jean Grey instead of the random assortment of mutants you have here. Those are the real first class, at least in the comics.
Singer said it is the same universe as the other films, and also that he is ignoring the Wolverine movie. That makes sense because at the end of Wolverine, you see Xavier standing up and Emma Frost is a kid. Unfortunately, this doesn't explain the slip ups with X3, although he will probably end up saying he ignored X3, which would solve most of the issues.
Personally, I just don't think he realized he was screwing anything up when he was writing this. He didn't direct or have any involvement with X3, so it makes sense that he wouldn't know the details. Although really, all he had to do was watch it, so I don't know.
That's the problem with other companies handling franchises. Marvel seems to know how to keep a coherent story line, even across several franchises, without any obvious goofs. I guess Fox and the other studios just don't have the stamina for that.
But despite that, I liked the film. It was a great period superhero piece. It's just too bad the box office numbers are down. That surprises me too, because both times I went to see it the theater was packed.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: What happened to all of the nuclear energy he absorbed? Shouldn't he have blown up with the force of a nuclear bomb when he died?
True, energy cannot be destroyed. Shaw's death would not make all that energy inert.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course, while they wrap it up in the language of science, superhero powers come from magic, not from science. Using scientific principles to describe what their powers should do won't get you very far.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:...like the shields in Dune. Something with low enough kinetic energy can pass through.
SPOILERS!
Huh?
I was just teasing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's one of the few things that they got right in the 1984 movie. Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Of course, while they wrap it up in the language of science, superhero powers come from magic, not from science. Using scientific principles to describe what their powers should do won't get you very far.
Very true. When I was younger I'd see the mutants do things that didn't make sense from just a mutation. I can understand regeneration, bone claws, telekenesis, telepathy, even laser eyes, but freezing time and flying were always a little out there to me. Still, it's all in good fun. You can't look too far into the powers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
What I'm trying to reconcile is Charles Xavier was trying to convince Magneto that he should not kill Shaw, if it was clear Magneto was going to kill Shaw, was Charles not releasing his hold on him because it was still better that Shaw be stopped, and Magneto commit murder, with Charles complicit in that murder, than whatever alternative future might happen if Shaw had been permitted to defend himself?
My read on it was that Charles knew that if he let Shaw go, they would be back to square one: Eric getting his ass kicked, Charles completely unable to help him, and Shaw with a metric s@#t-ton (technical term) of energy stored up and ready to use. He would quickly proceed to get his helmet back and be immune to Charles, and then go back happily to starting WWIII, billions dead, etc.
I was reading into things a bit, but it doesn't seem much of a stretch to imagine Charles realizing the same thing. And also, in spite of how much he disagreed with that course...he might not have wanted to let go because it would quickly result in Eric's death. I mean, very quickly. I can see why he wouldn't release him, just to save Shaw's life. Not that much of an idealist perhaps.
The real question to me was, "Why didn't he let go of Shaw once the coin was, say, halfway through his brain and the job was done?" He stuck it out all the way through. My read on that was that it was punishing behavior-punishing himself.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I think a good idea would have been to mind control Shaw to knock Magneto's helmet off and then control both of them. Problem solved.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I think a good idea would have been to mind control Shaw to knock Magneto's helmet off and then control both of them. Problem solved.
Well Xavier had already indicated that he would only be able to temporarily control Shaw. So him having limited control both in what he could make him do and how long he could make him do it seems reasonable.
Perhaps he could have made Shaw pass out. Magneto seems like the sorta guy who needs the person he is killing to see him do it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think a good idea would have been to mind control Shaw to knock Magneto's helmet off and then control both of them. Problem solved.
Charles is something of a journeyman too-and it's not at all clear how much more effort it would've taken to control Shaw than an ordinary human being of average willpower.
And then there's the whole 'big violation of my buddy's brain' thing going on, too. For Shaw? He's been in Eric's mind, after all. In this movie, I got the impression that even his tolerance and pacifistic impulses have their limits. Violate my buddy's mind to save the life of his merciless torturer and the guy who killed his mother? That...well, doesn't seem like a choice he'd have made.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Just read Card's review noting that the film was more concerned with the Holocaust which had occurred decades earlier than its setting and was totally oblivious to how bad black Americans had it at the time.
I only note that the film was written by five people, most of who appear to be Jews, and that the premise of the X-men is really an allegory for Judaic mythology, namely, that of a special people dealing with the normals who haven't been similarly been blessed/chosen. The X-men are the Chosen people who must deal with hateful Goyim whom God has passed over. Magneto and Xavier both represent competing visions of Jewish supremacy. Xavier says we are better but should condescend to the humans and Magneto says we are better and should reign over them as nature has dictated. The struggles of black Americans has no place in this intra-community argument.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ender's Game, Harry Potter... actually let's throw virtually every title on the sci-fi/fantasy shelf in with "about a special group of people who are divided by their feelings of resentment and caring for the rest of humanity."
It's a common theme, and not one that particularly bothers me. Hey, guess what? It was used in one of the oldest works of literature on the planet! The Torah! And then, it was used AGAIN! In the new testament! AMAZING! Could it be that the same story of wish-fulfillment codified by the hebrews thousands of years ago might still resonate with the people of today? Shucks, I never would have imagined!
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Just read Card's review noting that the film was more concerned with the Holocaust which had occurred decades earlier than its setting and was totally oblivious to how bad black Americans had it at the time.
I only note that the film was written by five people, most of who appear to be Jews, and that the premise of the X-men is really an allegory for Judaic mythology, namely, that of a special people dealing with the normals who haven't been similarly been blessed/chosen. The X-men are the Chosen people who must deal with hateful Goyim whom God has passed over. Magneto and Xavier both represent competing visions of Jewish supremacy. Xavier says we are better but should condescend to the humans and Magneto says we are better and should reign over them as nature has dictated. The struggles of black Americans has no place in this intra-community argument.
That's what you understood from the movie? Did you even watch it?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Duh that the theme of HP and EG is common. Too bad those works are connected to the X-men in the broadest strokes only. It's not as if humans were persecuting Wizards in HP. They were completely oblivious to the existence of Harry's world. And the kids in Ender's Game aren't some community which contends collectively against normal humans. The X-men, in contrast, is a retelling of the Jewish history as it is perceived by many connected to that faith or community: A larger community persecuting a smaller one because the former can't supposedly handle the latter are better them. But awesome that this Jewish myth subtext was obvious to you.
[ June 14, 2011, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Humans do use the children in Ender's Game, the whole flipping Shadow saga is about that. And yes, there are humans persecuting wizards in HP, several wizards are ostracized by muggle family members when their powers start to exhibit themselves. The is also persecution within the wizarding community when somebody born to a good family turns out to not be a wizard/witch.
They are very common themes in literature. Try reading up on the Greek Gods overthrowing and subjecting the Titans.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Just read Card's review noting that the film was more concerned with the Holocaust which had occurred decades earlier than its setting and was totally oblivious to how bad black Americans had it at the time.
I only note that the film was written by five people, most of who appear to be Jews, and that the premise of the X-men is really an allegory for Judaic mythology, namely, that of a special people dealing with the normals who haven't been similarly been blessed/chosen. The X-men are the Chosen people who must deal with hateful Goyim whom God has passed over. Magneto and Xavier both represent competing visions of Jewish supremacy. Xavier says we are better but should condescend to the humans and Magneto says we are better and should reign over them as nature has dictated. The struggles of black Americans has no place in this intra-community argument.
I don't know about that. The X-Men story has been around for like sixty years, and before that you had Superman and all kinds of other superhuman stories about being special and different.
What's more, the Magneto/WW2 story was in the first film (if you recall) and also in the comics. He's one of the two main characters and he basically drives the film, so of course they are going to focus on his traumatic childhood.
Furthermore, what you are suggesting is a bit racist. Saying that the Jews are oblivious to the blacks of the time is presumptuous when all they were trying to do was make a fun, action-packed movie (also, they weren't all Jewish, anyway). The writers focused on the WW2 stuff because 1) Magneto's rage was born there, and he's a HUGE character in the franchise, and 2) the villain came out of that era (Shaw). They might have been able to incorporate the Black struggle of the time, but do you really think there was enough time for all that?
Now, I do think it was a little silly to kill off the only black character in the film (Angel doesn't count. I mean, she was mixed, so she's just as much white as she is black, honestly). Maybe the sequels will bring in a new black mutant, since the other films had Storm, but we'll see.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, goodness! Is it time for Sa'eed to pivot back to thinly veiled anti-Semitism? Looks like it!
The X-Men could be construed as an allegory for Judaic history and myth...if you go looking for it. As Orincoro said, basically. This is one of those weak-minded arguments that's so vague and ambiguous, Sa'eed, that nothing that happens, nothing that's presented, will actually contradict the core of your premise.
Here's one reason why your ideas as expressed are stupid: there are basically three people in the story who are 'concerned' with the Holocaust: Eric himself, for obvious reasons; Shaw in the story, because he was involved in the Holocaust; and Charles loosely, insofar as he'd inhabited Eric's mind. It was 'concerned' with the Holocaust in about the same way that it was 'concerned' with liberal university upbringing.
The fact that blacks were underrepresented, well it might be a sign of a conspiratorial allegorical telling of Jewish history. Or it might be the fact that, well, blacks (and all minorities) are underrepresented in just about all big blockbuster style movies. On the one hand we've got a hugely common, substantiated explanation...and on the other we've got a vague, shadowy sneaky plot by some Jews to give a nod to their history.
Can we just fast forward to the part where you ramp up the thinly-veiled anti-Semitism, Sa'eed, to the point where it's not quite so thinly veiled and you have to back off for awhile?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I really liked Darwin, the actor fleshed out the character so quickly that I wish they hadnt removed him from use in future films. Im trying to think of how many black mutants already exist, who could also be used in this time-line without re-writing everything about the character, and I cant think of any besides Storm.
I also think that it would nice to include an openly gay mutant in the next installment, The X-Men have long been a reflection on gay rights and being gay in American culture.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, the theme is obvious to me. The "jewishness" of the theme is just your own anti-semitism.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
You don't need to go looking for it. It's there in your face, with all the Holocaust elements in the story and the fact that the people behind these films (and the comics) happen to be of the Hebraic persuasion. I merely argue that the film doesn't have time to address the civil rights issue because it's implicitly chronicling Jewish folklore. I don't believe a crime has been committed by not including more black characters but I wish the film was more forthright about its allegorical intentions.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
It was bothersome - that scene when they highlighted the race issue with the 'slavery' close-up on Darwin, Angel turning, and then Darwin appearing to turn and then being killed off.
If I were charitable, I'd suggest that they made Darwin a very likable character and that he was meant to have died a big darn hero, but honestly it was awkwardly done, and left the cast weirdly pale in their basic forms. Although, when some of the characters, when they're not hiding their true nature are transparent, red and demonic, or blue and/or furry, perhaps we're overlooking something when it comes to color.
I wonder if, had they put in a scene where, for example, some of the government agents had behaved 'of the era' with Darwin, it would have made his death more unbearably sad and enraging.
Honestly, though, there is hardly ever a balanced representation in movies or TV of the real racial mix of America.
Equally, no-one was fat or ugly or out and gay, or many other things that people might discriminate against (although there was a ginger male hero, and a disability so yay for that I suppose) so I think looking to movies for a representation of society as a whole is never going to work.
As for the Jewish thing - don't be so ridiculous. Being Jewish was then and still is in much of the world, very difficult, so it's a bit silly to complain that one kind of discrimination is ignored but to be upset that another is highlighted, unless you think that one kind of discrimination is justified and another is not.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I'm not upset that it was highlighted.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Maybe they'll give us Bishop in the next film, even though he's from the future. Regardless, he's one of the best mutants in the history of the franchise, so I'd love to see him in a film.
I'm predicting that they'll add in a new black character at some point in the films (just like they did in X-Men Evolutions, that tv show a few years back, where they created a black character named Spike), realizing their all white cast and the recent turbulance over this debacle in the African-American community (yes, there are a few articles about it already surfacing).
I don't really think it's a big deal, though. No one complains that the Avengers don't have any black characters. Though maybe that will change when the film gets released (unless you count Nick Fury, but he wasn't always black...and he has zero superpowers)?
Moving on, I'd like to see the following X-Men at some point:
-Forge -Bishop -Cable -Psylocke (she was technically in X3, but that doesn't count since they completely changed her character, alliance, and powers) -Gambit (he deserves better than that Wolverine movie) -X-23 -Quicksilver
I'd also like to see Magneto create Asteroid M or some equivilant to that. For those who don't know Asteroid M is basically a Mutant nation entirely its own. Pretty awesome story if they could do it right.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: (unless you count Nick Fury, but he wasn't always black...and he has zero superpowers)?
He may not have powers but he still orders everyone else around and isnt afraid of Wolverine, that makes him cooler than Stark and the rest in my book.
Also, I considered the validity of using Spike but not too hard seeing as his main line to the X-Men was his blood relation to Storm. If they really wanted to they could just use the basic persona and power, they already ruined Havoc so why not.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Yeah, and it seems like they don't care about continuity anyway. I mean, Havoc is Cyclops's younger brother, but in this he's at least 15 years older, more or less. I'm sure they wouldn't mind using Spike or even just making up a character just for the movies.
Ironically, if they had just rebooted the whole franchise they wouldn't have the same problems they're facing to begin with. With a new "Refreshed" world to visit, every mutant would be open for use, but instead they're limited to second and third tier X-Men because they already used all the people everyone know. Of course, there's still a few untapped avenues, but I really don't know of too many popular characters besides what I already mentioned or that were already in the other films. Ah well.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Deadpool is where its at.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Just read Card's review noting that the film was more concerned with the Holocaust which had occurred decades earlier than its setting and was totally oblivious to how bad black Americans had it at the time.
I only note that the film was written by five people, most of who appear to be Jews, and that the premise of the X-men is really an allegory for Judaic mythology, namely, that of a special people dealing with the normals who haven't been similarly been blessed/chosen. The X-men are the Chosen people who must deal with hateful Goyim whom God has passed over. Magneto and Xavier both represent competing visions of Jewish supremacy. Xavier says we are better but should condescend to the humans and Magneto says we are better and should reign over them as nature has dictated. The struggles of black Americans has no place in this intra-community argument.
I note that you're a pig and an anti-semite. No offense.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: You don't need to go looking for it. It's there in your face, with all the Holocaust elements in the story and the fact that the people behind these films (and the comics) happen to be of the Hebraic persuasion.
"Hebraic persuasion"? Jewish. Yes, and since Jews also created Superman, Batman, The Hulk, The Fantastic Four, Spiderman (half of Spiderman, anyway), and a slew of others, presumably all of those are Jewish allegories as well.
You are such a dope, Ib.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If anything, the X-Men are a gay allegory. The whole "everyone is against mutants" thing in the Marvel Universe didn't start until around the time of Dazzler. When all sorts of discrimination was making the news. The movies have repeatedly used gay/anti-gay tropes like "Have you tried not being a mutant?"
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
The fact that Bryan Singer and Ian McKellen are both gay probably has something to do with that.
I'd like to think that mutants and the x-men can represent any group that has been discriminated against or persecuted, or even any individual who feels like they personally don't fit in.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fact that Bryan Singer and Ian McKellen are both gay probably has something to do with that.
It's probably the reverse, if anything.
As has been noted, the X-Men started as a fairly obvious Jewish allegory, including nods to a "Master Race," and very quickly segued into a racial allegory by the early '70s. By the early '90s, the racial allegory had largely become homosexual allegory. This is not surprising, since the underlying motif -- an oppressed class of people who are hated for their differences -- has stayed the same, while the particular real-world "class" that would spring to mind when society imagines such a group has gone through several changes, and will no doubt continue to do so.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"Hebranic persuasion" is the most roflcopter quote of this thread.
Its like... "I don't want to sound like I'm racist, even I am, so to sorta give that impression and yet have the grey area of not technically being racist..."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)