# X-Men 3 trailer



## Navarre (Dec 9, 2005)

Have you seen this yet? (requires Quicktime to view)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/x3/

Comments?


----------



## splazzatch (Dec 9, 2005)

The video won't play for me? It just shows a broken icon.


----------



## Swordlady (Dec 9, 2005)

Looks like Storm is going to be a LOT more powerful than in the other two movies, where she was a total wimp.  I'm still mad about Rogue not flying.

Otherwise, movie looks pretty good.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 9, 2005)

Do you have Quicktime 7 installed?

If I click "View the announcement teaser" on the left, nothing happens. It might be loading but I can't tell.

If I click "High definition announcement teaser" I can see that it is loading (beneath the viewing screen). The first HD listing (480P) loads pretty quickly.

Does that work for you?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 9, 2005)

Eh, Its no "Punisher"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Navarre (Dec 9, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Eh, Its no "Punisher"
> 
> :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



It's no Hulk or Electra either. Of course, they all pale compared to Catwoman.



			
				Swordlady said:
			
		

> Looks like Storm is going to be a LOT more powerful than in the other two movies, where she was a total wimp. I'm still mad about Rogue not flying.



Well, Storm should be very powerful. It's either natural character progression or Halle Berry wanted a more memorable role.

As for Rogue, the first movie showed her powers manifest for the first time. Therefore, this is all before Rogue absorbed Ms. Marvel's powers (including flight). Of course, they've also changed Rogue's connection to Mystique, the composition of The Brotherhood, Rogue's relationship with Iceman, and so on. 

From the looks of the trailer, they are going to start a love triangle between Rogue, Iceman, and Kitty. At least one might conclude this from the trailer. If they don't have the connection between Kitty and Colossus, I will be most unhappy. 

But, since neither of these characters have really been spotlighted yet (although both are in the film) I think they will go for the aforementioned love triangle. It will add more character tension. The movie doesn't need 2 teen couples. 

Like most book to screen adaptations, I concede that some things have to be changed to incorporate so much history into one movie. I'll just be glad to see it.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Well, Storm should be very powerful. It's either natural character progression or Halle Berry wanted a more memorable role.



My understanding is that the latter is the case--she almost refused to do a third film because of her small role.


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 10, 2005)

Yea bring on Halle Barry more power more beauty. Way to go hollywood.
Terry


----------



## Kreth (Dec 10, 2005)

I see they're finally going to include Beast, after writing him out of the first one due to concerns about make-up time. I wonder how they'll treat his character, since his scientific knowledge was folded into the Jean Grey character.
Overall, the movies have been fun to watch. I was even able to get over the fact that Hugh Jackman is over 6', while Wolverine is supposed to be closer to 5'.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 10, 2005)

Logan is 5' 3" and weighs 195 lbs (if I remember correctly). His weight is due, of course, to the adamantium lacig in his skeleton.

I didn't see Nightcrawler in this one. Maybe they thought 2 blue members were too much.


----------



## Solidman82 (Dec 10, 2005)

My friend Mel asked me "What's with all the blue guys?" when I showed her the profile photo for Beast (I hope Kelsey Grammer doesn't screw it up by the way). I guess mutants turn blue.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 10, 2005)

Hopefully, the story doesn't suffer from all the new characters. I see Juggernaut, Callisto, Angel, Beast, etc on the official website.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2005)

Wasn't the beast seen in the background, on a TV, in the previous film?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 10, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Hopefully, the story doesn't suffer from all the new characters. I see Juggernaut



What I thought was Juggernaut in the trailer seemed much too small. I hope they "blow him up" a bit!


----------



## Navarre (Dec 10, 2005)

Solidman82 said:
			
		

> My friend Mel asked me "What's with all the blue guys?" when I showed her the profile photo for Beast (I hope Kelsey Grammer doesn't screw it up by the way). I guess mutants turn blue.



Well, Mystique is blue and Nightcrawler is her son (in the comic, not the movies) so that explains the blue skin.

Beast wasn't always blue. He was originally a normal looking guy except he had dense musculature and overly large hands and feet. At a later point he mutated further into the blue-furred beast...and still later de-evolved into another variation of this.

And yes, Arnisador, Henry McCoy aka The Beast was seen on a television in the first movie discussing mutation. He had a human appearance at that time.


----------



## splazzatch (Dec 12, 2005)

Yes, that is what it took for me to get it to work. I simply upgraded my quicktime..I have version 7 now, I had version 6. 

That is an amazing trailer. I can't wait I am such a fan of X-men


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Well, Mystique is blue and Nightcrawler is her son (in the comic, not the movies)


 
My recollection is that in one of the movies there was a bare hint of this relationship, that those in the know would recognize but those who had only seen the movies would not. But, I'd have to view it again to see if I am remembering correctly.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 12, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> My recollection is that in one of the movies there was a bare hint of this relationship, that those in the know would recognize but those who had only seen the movies would not. But, I'd have to view it again to see if I am remembering correctly.


 
The only scene I can recall where Mystique and Nightcrawler are really around each other is when they are in the woods after Magneto prevents the Blackbird from crashing. 

I don't recall any hint at a connection though. I'll go back and look at it. I mean, they've essentially revised all of X-Men history for the movies. But, again, I understand why so many things had to be changed.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> The only scene I can recall where Mystique and Nightcrawler are really around each other is when they are in the woods after Magneto prevents the Blackbird from crashing.


 
Yes, that's the one I mean. You have to be looking for it. Let me know if you agree that a hint is there for those in the know!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 12, 2005)

Awesome, I can't wait for it to come out!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Odin (Dec 13, 2005)

I was sad to see that gambit didnt make it in,apperantly the producer thought that his character resembled logans too much.....what part im not sure....them damn producer ruin everything....look at hulk...oh my green dogs?!?!have you guys seen the new superman trailer?wow.


----------



## Swordlady (Dec 14, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> As for Rogue, the first movie showed her powers manifest for the first time. Therefore, this is all before Rogue absorbed Ms. Marvel's powers (including flight). Of course, they've also changed Rogue's connection to Mystique, the composition of The Brotherhood, Rogue's relationship with Iceman, and so on.


 
That's all well and good, but they still totally screwed up Rogue's character.  In the comics, she was adopted by Mystique and became a villain.  She stole Ms. Marvel's powers - and memory - and totally kicked the X-Men around the first time she met them.  She only turned good because she was desperately trying to deal with Ms. Marvel's memories, and turned to Professor X for help.  And of course all the other X-Men didn't trust Rogue at first.

I heard that the X-Men movie producers didn't want to deal with the special effects involved with making someone fly, which is why Anne Paquin's Rogue is earthbound.  Personally, I think that's a stupid reason - especially when you had Neo flying around in the Matrix movies.

Can you tell that Rogue is my favorite X-Men character?


----------



## Navarre (Dec 14, 2005)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> Can you tell that Rogue is my favorite X-Men character?


 
Rogue is very near the top of my favorite character list. She is an outstanding character.

They could have her fly easily, you're right. They could also have given her an accurate history. However to do so would have meant a completely different movie as her entry into the X-Men would have been a major plotline for the entire film.

I think the movies have done her a tremendous disservice. However, I don't think it's as much her lack of flight or skewed history as it is failing to capture the heart of this character.

Rogue is one of the most tragic characters in comics. She is a young woman of incredible passion forced to endure torturous isolation because of her power.  To bear witness to what the most average person may share with another but be so unable to know the touch of passion or hug of affection is very sad. 

They vaguely make such statements in the film but dilute it by involving her with Bobby Drake. Even though it's shown that they can't express all we can, I don't think they do nearly enough to exhibit the emotional pain Rogue endures.

They have been content to make Wolverine the star (as does Marvel in most things). They are not utilizing Rogue's character to its fullest.

Comic book movies would do well to draw more female viewers. They need characters that females can care about. Releasing crap like _Electra_ and _Catwoman_ makes the situation worse.

If they would show Rogue for all she is and use her correctly, they would have a much more "human" element. This is what makes people care. 

It is why movies like _Serenity_ can be appreciated by even those who don't like sci-fi. Rogue could be the reason comic book movies get the same regard.


----------



## Odin (Dec 15, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> They have been content to make Wolverine the star (as does Marvel in most things). They are not utilizing Rogue's character to its fullest.
> 
> Comic book movies would do well to draw more female viewers. They need characters that females can care about. Releasing crap like _Electra_ and _Catwoman_ makes the situation worse.
> 
> ...


 
The problem is with the x-men movie is everyone has thier own fav character,the writers and producer will always end up annoying some fans with the way they portray certain characters since they cant make everyone centre stage.(or get their story right!)

The beef i have with marvel is I find their writers bloody annoying,they create origins for charaters and then two months later when they're bored of that one they create a completely different one and use the 'implanted memory' line.

Beast was an orignal X-man when he was in human form yet he's not in the first film.why!?!

and vinnie jones as juggernaught?!!? vinnie better get his butt in the gym!


----------



## Kreth (Dec 15, 2005)

If they ever made a movie exploring all of the subplots that run through a typical X-men comic, it would be around 8 hours long. I think they've done a decent job bringing the characters to the screen. They even tried to throw in a few things that only "insiders" would get, like Toad's line in the first movie, "Don't you people ever die?!"


----------



## clfsean (Dec 15, 2005)

My question is why are they bringing Callisto in? Are they bringing the rest of the Moorlocks as well? But I gotta say... their Callisto looks much better than the comic Callisto. 

Also... why Omega Red? Is he just a flash memory from somebody? Wolvie has a history with him. Is OR gonna be a flashback now?


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

I agree that it isn't realistic to give proper attention to every character. In that regard, however, they should limit the number of characters in the film and focus on them more.

Their approach is one of marketing though. It's more interesting for the fans to see the new character brought in for each film. 

That makes it even more impossible to accurately recreate the comic's history though. Beast is only now being brought in for the same reason Angel is. Original X-Men or not, it didn't fit the story they wanted to tell.

No one will ever be completely pleased by the films, you're right. I think they've done a great job overall.

My suggestion is that they should invlove us a little more in some of the current characters, especially Rogue (for reasons stated earlier). They do centralize the movies around Wolverine too much. 

The plot of the second movie was driven by his character. If they are doing a version of The Dark Phoenix Saga in X3 then Logan will again be prominent due to his connection to Jean.  

There is also serious talks of a stand-alone Wolverine movie. I think they need to focus on some other characters. 

I can't pick up a Marvel comic without seeing Wolverine and/or Spider-Man in it somewhere. I could do without the movies being the same way.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

I agree that Rogue had the possibility of being a break-out character. They have banked on Wolverine and his claws.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I agree that Rogue had the possibility of being a break-out character. They have banked on Wolverine and his claws.


 
And history has shown that Wolverine sells the product. That's fine because I like Logan too.

Rogue has a higher sympathy factor than Logan. That, mixed with her passion, wit, powers, potential, and gender would all make her a very marketable character as well.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

A Wolverine-only movie would be a big commercial success. But a Rogue-only movie could do what Elektra should have done, if it hadn't been such a horribly bad film--bring out the non-action side of comics a bit more.


----------



## clfsean (Dec 15, 2005)

Rogue without Ms Marvel powers will tank in a stand alone movie. Also no inclusion of Remy LeBeau with sink it further. Remy actually needed to be included in this movie. That character with Wolverine would seriously throw the movie over the top.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

clfsean said:
			
		

> Rogue without Ms Marvel powers will tank in a stand alone movie. Also no inclusion of Remy LeBeau with sink it further. Remy actually needed to be included in this movie. That character with Wolverine would seriously throw the movie over the top.


 
No, no! I don't think Rogue should have a stand-alone movie! 

You're right, it would likely bomb.  I just think they should focus on her more in the current franchise.

As for Gambit, they've almost nullified his existance by having Rogue be involved with Bobby. There has been talk of adding him but so far it doesn't seem likely.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 15, 2005)

I think from the logo alone it should be obvious that X3 will feature Wolverine prominently. As I understand it, a major theme will be Logan stepping up as a leader after the "loss" of Jean.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

It doesn't seem that Scott (Cyclops) has ever been presented in a very good light, either in the comics or movies. My wife can't stand "the whiney boyscout" and wishes Jean were with Logan.

This seems like the concensus from most everyone I talk to. I wonder if we were even ever supposed to like Scott or if he is a clever foil to the Jean/Logan romance.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2005)

Especially in the movies, Cyclops has been a wasted character. He's these mostly to give Logan someone to snap at, it seems.

The Beast was always a favorite of mine...but, I can't picture Kelsey Grammar in that role. I hope it isn't pure comedic relief (even though that was always one of the Beast's functions).


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

I think the wit of Kelsey Grammer as Frasier and the wit of Henry McCoy is very similar. I don't think they will use the Beast as a joker tpye but with the sardonic wit that befits him. 

So far they've remained essentially true to each character's personality; they just haven't shown us enough of most of them.


----------



## Swordlady (Dec 15, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I think from the logo alone it should be obvious that X3 will feature Wolverine prominently. As I understand it, a major theme will be Logan stepping up as a leader after the "loss" of Jean.


 
Yeah...but weren't Storm and Cyclops the X-Men's leaders in the comics?  Though they both have been mishandled in the movies.

Don't get me wrong, I like Logan too, but all Wolverine all the time gets really boring after a while.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 15, 2005)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> I like Logan too, but all Wolverine all the time gets really boring after a while.


 
Amen, Swordlady. That's my point too.

And yes, Storm and Cyclops were team leaders. This was largely true at the time when The X-Men series began (as opposed to The Uncanny X-Men).

I don't think they will have Wolverine be "the leader" but it won't matter. He wasn't the field leader in the last two films. 

This still didn't stop the entire plot of X2 and most of X-Men from revolving around him while Cyclops got the snot kicked out of him in 10 seconds by Deathstrike (who Wolverine later defeated in a magnificent battle, of course).


----------



## Odin (Jan 12, 2006)

I cant help but thinking why on gods green earth juggernaught is in the film played by Vinnie jones.....vinnie jones has the face but old jug's in the size of a bloody house!what would you try to put him in the film??

Iv seen beast he looks remarkably good,well done to the make-up team on that one.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 12, 2006)

I hope they will use Hulk-style effects for Juggernaught...I had the same thoughts as you.


----------



## Navarre (Jan 12, 2006)

Well, Hugh Jackman isn't 5'3" and 195 lbs either but he does well as Wolverine. Sir Ian McKellan isn't twice the size of Elijah Wood but they looked appropriate in Lord of the Rings.

You can do a lot with forced perspective and other effects. I'd prefer that to complete CGI.  Even at its best CGI would look odd intermingled with the live actors.

I also just saw that they have added Psylocke to the film as well. She'll be on Magneto's side though.


----------



## Odin (Jan 12, 2006)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Well, Hugh Jackman isn't 5'3" and 195 lbs either but he does well as Wolverine. Sir Ian McKellan isn't twice the size of Elijah Wood but they looked appropriate in Lord of the Rings.
> 
> You can do a lot with forced perspective and other effects. I'd prefer that to complete CGI. Even at its best CGI would look odd intermingled with the live actors.
> 
> I also just saw that they have added Psylocke to the film as well. She'll be on Magneto's side though.


 
You see jugs in the trailer and he's about normal size,when you are talking about characters like wolverine it doesnt matter so much since whats 3 inches? turning a character that big and making him that small is a little silly espeacailly when you consider the main characteristic's of that charater is his size.doubt it will effect the film that bad though.


----------



## Navarre (Jan 12, 2006)

No, if they don't make any effort to make him look huge I agree that it isn't consistent with the character.  When I think of Juggernaut I think of someone almost equal to the Hulk in size.

Some characters are simply different. Most notably, Rogue is very different from the comic version, both in appearance and personality.

They'll still do a fine job I hope. With a new director you never know. But if it's as good as the last two then it'll be awesome.


----------



## Cujo (Jan 12, 2006)

Can't wait to see the movie. I'm also amazed to find this many comic book geeks here. (don't take offense, I'm one also).

Pax
Cujo


----------

