What was the last movie you've seen?

[Stark]

Well if you defend X-Men 3 not sure there's any help for you.

Why? It's just like every X-Men comic I've ever read. Seems like a good adaptation to me. The people who claim it's not like the comics are in denial.

I didn't say it wasn't like a comic you've read, I haven't read X-Men comics. I would say it's not a great movie and it seems to me they could've handled the Phoenix saga a lot better IMO.

[Luke]

The people who claim it's not like the comics are in denial.

I'm in denial. Super, mega, huge denial. Then again I didn't read the issue where Jean Grey turned Professor X into dust while Stan Lee was wondering what the hell was wrong with his garden hose. In fact I never read a single X-Men comic where the Beast was a pudgy dude wearing a wig that spoke with a fake accent.

X2 was incredible. X3 was trash.

[Retrodude]

Just as long as you don't say the Transformers films were good.

The first one's kinda meh, the second one's better, the third is the best of the lot, especially since it's a more-or-less direct adaptation of one of the best episodes of the original series (The Ultimate Doom). Also, it was great to see Leonard Nimoy come back to the franchise after previously being embarassed by his involvement with it. I've always wondered how they managed that.

[Luke]

Just as long as you don't say the Transformers films were good.

The first one's kinda meh, the second one's better, the third is the best of the lot...

"Kinda meh"? Your film buff card is on suspension.

There is no "best" in Bay's Transformer series. "Least worst" is a much better description.

[AppleQueso]

I have a feeling that Retrodude and Luke are going to have a lot of interesting discussion in the future...

[Ack]

Just as long as you don't say the Transformers films were good.

The first one's kinda meh, the second one's better, the third is the best of the lot...

"Kinda meh"? Your film buff card is on suspension.

There is no "best" in Bay's Transformer series. "Least worst" is a much better description.

Then again, if considered as an overall examination of Michael Bay's career...I mean, how does it rank when compared to Armageddon or Pearl Harbor?

Bay has directed only three good films, which contain the words "Bad," "Boys," or "Rock" in their titles.

[Luke]

I have a feeling that Retrodude and Luke are going to have a lot of interesting discussion in the future...

I'll play nice, but I can't see how robot balls, pot brownies, and humping dogs makes a movie better. Bay's Transformer movies are all half a star.

[Retrodude]

I'm in denial. Super, mega, huge denial. Then again I didn't read the issue where Jean Grey turned Professor X into dust while Stan Lee was wondering what the hell was wrong with his garden hose. In fact I never read a single X-Men comic where the Beast was a pudgy dude wearing a wig that spoke with a fake accent.

X2 was incredible. X3 was trash.

Let's be honest. When you get right down to it, superhero comics are completely silly and ridiculous. That's why I enjoy them. It's the only form of literature that can get away with being that silly on a regular basis. Although some movies succeed at getting the audience to take them seriously (The Dark Knight, Watchmen, The Avengers), it seems to me that the purest adaptations are the ones that know exactly what the source material consists of and don't even try to hide it (Ghost Rider, Green Lantern, X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Now you might feel that what works in a comic book doesn't work so well in a movie and that's fine, but I don't see anything wrong with enjoying the films that take that approach.

[Ack]

I'm in denial. Super, mega, huge denial. Then again I didn't read the issue where Jean Grey turned Professor X into dust while Stan Lee was wondering what the hell was wrong with his garden hose. In fact I never read a single X-Men comic where the Beast was a pudgy dude wearing a wig that spoke with a fake accent.

X2 was incredible. X3 was trash.

Let's be honest. When you get right down to it, superhero comics are completely silly and ridiculous. That's why I enjoy them. It's the only form of literature that can get away with being that silly on a regular basis. Although some movies succeed at getting the audience to take them seriously (The Dark Knight, Watchmen, The Avengers), it seems to me that the purest adaptations are the ones that know exactly what the source material consists of and don't even try to hide it (Ghost Rider, Green Lantern, X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Now you might feel that what works in a comic book doesn't work so well in a movie and that's fine, but I don't see anything wrong with enjoying the films that take that approach.

But the issue here is partly how each generation views a comic book character, how well said comic book movies compare to their source material, and how well these movies are acted and special effects are done. I get a great amount of joy out of the 1960s Batman movie, but I accept that it is a product of its time, spawning from a television production with a limited budget, and features a campy sort of Batman intermixed with 1960s kitsch and still reeling from accusations made in the 1950s about the character.

All three of the films you mentioned that you consider truer to their source material have had major budgets but still receive flak for their special effects and the quality of their mainstream actors giving some pretty terrible performances. And yes, comic books can get away with some terrible plots that we seem to accept...to an extent. I've also quit reading favorite comic bookss due to bad plot archs and poor writing, just as I have trashed these movies for them. Regardless of what is acceptable, if I feel writing is poor in any medium then I feel it is poor.

Now for a film that gets so much wrong (and so much right), how do you feel about Judge Dredd?

[indecks]

Let's be honest. When you get right down to it, superhero comics are completely silly and ridiculous. That's why I enjoy them. It's the only form of literature that can get away with being that silly on a regular basis. Although some movies succeed at getting the audience to take them seriously (The Dark Knight, Watchmen, The Avengers), it seems to me that the purest adaptations are the ones that know exactly what the source material consists of and don't even try to hide it (Ghost Rider, Green Lantern, X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Now you might feel that what works in a comic book doesn't work so well in a movie and that's fine, but I don't see anything wrong with enjoying the films that take that approach.

You have a valid argument. Comics are silly for the most part. But Xmen The Last Stand (i refuse to call it Xmen 3) actually DID suck completely.

Ratner has no idea what he's doing unless it involves Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan, and he completely botched Singer's version of the X-Men. he couldn't even bring himself to really kill a character, or his/her powers. He turned Cyclops into a moody emo kid that dies in the first 20 minutes, and he completely ruined Phoenix. "Lets turn one of the most powerful Marvel characters/villains into a henchman for Magneto."

And don't get me started on that bridge scene that goes from 3 in the afternoon to 1030 at night in a matter of seconds. "no one will notice... " Juggy was turned into a mutant? Juggy's not a mutant. That guy 'Quill' was useless with his death-hugs. And he turned Psylocke into a stupid looking villainess cameo.