Why Ratner deserves respect…
-
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 13, 2008 03:36 PM)
Ask the very respected Gavin Hood what it is like when Fox's Prez' Rothman steps in and makes a movie bright and pretty in post. That is what's happening to "Wolverine". Halle Berry was promised a larger role by the studio before Ratner signed on or she would have walked.
Brett is a fan of the comic and video game world so naturally he wanted to do anymore that he could. Singer should not have made the Xmen a SciFi movie. It is not a scifi story. The comic is real life people dealing with abilities they were born with. The comic is all about action, hell all Marvel comics are. That's why a lot of people prefer DC. Stan Lee - "It's like an issue I did of Spiderman where Peter and Mary Jane were shopping for lingerie. Of course I had Green Goblin show up and pumpkin bomb the hell out of the place!" Marvel thrives off action, so much they have to back pedal to cover up their screw ups when characters get killed. Ratner is a Marvel buff, he knows this. He also knows that wasting time by giving a backstory on every random character is pointless when the crowd knows the story anyways. Half of their stories were not worth the waste of time to give it.
BHC has been in pre-production since way before Ratner stepped in on it. I believe Eddie has been working on it for over 3 years now.
Your opinion on Red Dragon is just that, your opinion. The ratings people have given Red Dragon are higher than Hannibal by a solid 1.5. The rating is even higher than Hannibal Rising and the original Manhunter.
Still, what makes Brett Ratner a bad director? Not the writing of his movies, he did not write them. What about the direction is so bad to condemn him?
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
jwoehr — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 12:44 PM)
Bryan Singer wouldn't have killed off Xavier, Cyclops and Jean Grey all in one movie! He respected the characters unlike Ratner. He probably would have done more with Angel as well instead of having him a fruit that just wants to fly and spread his wings like an erection he doesn't want to hide.
Sure Xavier didn't actually die and is now in someone elses body but what a mess. I mean in the last movie with no plans to make more, you kill off Xavier and leave it off with him in someone elses body ? It would have been sooo much better if Singer ended things. There's too many loose ends and even cliffhangers. Just shows that he has no idea what he's doing. -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 11:27 PM)
Um, Singer had the biggest hand in the death of Cyclops since that happened due to scheduling conflicts with Marsden because he was doing Superman. Lastly, the X3 5b4script was approved BY Singer before he flew the coop to screw up Superman. Once again, Ratner did not WRITE X3.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 15, 2008 08:48 AM)
No, Singer has his own writing team, and he was looking at making X-Men 3 and 4 back to back and wanted to make the Dark Phoenix storyline the main focus
I think you mean David Hayter. He finished the screenplay for the first movie and it blew chunks. Go watch it again. I saw the movie a month ago and being more mature since it came out on DVD, I realized that Xmen 1 as a whole sucked. The characters were shallow, pointless idiots. Sabretooth did nothing but fight Wolverine. Anyone outside of comic fans had no clue who the guy was except for his name. Toad? Really? He did nothing and had nothing going for his character besides his death caused by the worst line in the movie alla Halle Berry. Mystique is a big ole no body, but she has a power. The only character that was given a deep story thanks to Singer's writing team was Magneto, Wolverine, and Rogue.
THANK GOD that Zak Penn stepped in on X2. X2 was a great movie. It had a lot of action and a lot of character depth. People learned who Iceman was, all about Wolverine, even about some of the others. Zak Penn then wrote the third movie also, BEFORE Singer left. David Hayter was not there to put his terrible writing spin on anything like he did with Xmen and The Scorpion King (yuck). Xmen 3 had a lot of character depth considering the amount we learn of Jean Grey and Prof X and Magneto in the beginning.
I am so afraid of the Watchmen. SOMEHOW David Hayter was allowed to write the screenplay. He hasn't written a screenplay since The Scorpion King. uh oh.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
jwoehr — 17 years ago(October 18, 2008 03:18 PM)
I saw the movie a month ago and being more mature since it came out on DVD, I realized that Xmen 1 as a whole sucked. The characters were shallow, pointless idiots. Sabretooth did nothing but fight Wolverine.>>
Well Juggarnaught and Collasus were in X-3 and don't even fight! Wolverine and Sabortooth fought because they are enemies. How aren't the characters in X-3 pointless ? We're supposed to just guess who the extra villains in leather are. At least the villains were given names in X1 and each one had their own fight scenes. Juggernaught had nothing to do but chase Kitty Pryde around and a small scene where he kicks Wolverine's ass, other than that he was totally wasted. Yes X-1 had some bad lines but it still respected the characters enough.not to ki1c84ll them off!!
Anyone outside of comic fans had no clue who the guy was except for his name. Toad? Really? He did nothing and had nothing going for his character besides his death caused by the worst line in the movie alla Halle Berry.>>
At least Toad had a name and some entertaining scenes, can you tell me the names of half the villains running around in X-3 ?>> -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 18, 2008 04:15 PM)
I grew up reading comics and cannot tell you even 3 of the Murlocs names. Afer watching the movie again, the main girl is given the name Callisto.
Juggs and Wolverine fought just as much as Sabretooth did to me.
Xmen 1 failed in the biggest regard by passing up any character development between Sabretooth and Wolverine amongst others. For example, I got my mom into Xmen with the movies and showed her the leaked Wolverine trailer. She had no clue that those two Sabretooths were the same character.
Bryan Singer gave us a few frames with Jubilee, a few lines from some big metal guy (Colossus), completely passed up Kitty Pryde save for one quick shot of a little girl running through a wall, and gave a name on an obscure TV of "Dr. hank McCoy". Singer passed up a LOT of major characters, gave NO story on the ones he had (except Magneto and Wolverine), and had a bogus plot about Magneto. (see below)
Yet, people give Ratner crap? At least Ratner introduced the idea of rebel gangs mutants, Juggernaut, Beast, Angel, Kitty Pryde, Leech, Multiple Man, put Rogue and Iceman in a damn uniform, and a plot about the Xmen!
Sure Angel just flew around, but at least he had a name and a back story. Hell, everyone he introduced was given a REAL name.
XMEN 1 PLOT:
What I mean by Xmen 1 plot being bogus: Magneto is known for one thing. Being not a homosapien but being a "homosuperior". Magneto considers being a mutant a blessing that nature intended for him and his kind. Humans are inferior to him. So, why in the hell would the plot be for Magneto to make the leaders of the world mutants? He would not devise a method to "upgrade" people to the likes of him. Meaning a stupid, bogus plot.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
Thetruthisinhere — 13 years ago(February 24, 2013 05:56 AM)
umm.I guess you dont own the dvd ? listen to the directors commentary and you will hear that the body of the braindead man is a man called Xavier,his twin brother(in the comic he had a twin sister who was born braindead because Charles used up the brain potential of both for himself while in conception.) And of course check out the post-credits scene,that is clearly Patrick Stewart laying in bed there,Ratner even said how they filmed it. Heck,you can even HEAR Patrick Stewarts voice when he says ''hello Moira'' and see his face.
Same body.twin brother.check out the dvd. -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 14, 2008 11:33 PM)
Most people think that he couldn't do anything without it being light hearted and bright, blah blah blah. All I can say is go watch Season 1 of Prison Break. Oh wait, Rothman isn't the nazi over FOX TV, that's right.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 15, 2008 08:23 AM)
It's Matthew Vaughn, not Michael Vaughn. And he left X3 probably because he didn't have the b4lls to stand up against Rothman.
American TV has gotten a lot better, but they still suck a lot. That's why you don't watch anything from Basic Cable, and should only watch Showtime or HBO shows. Even Lost, pardon the pun, lost its ways in the third season. Abrams hasn't been able to replicate the success of the first two seasons of Lost. But every single primetime basic cable show: Heroes, Lost, Terminator, ect start out strong but eventually get weaker as the seasons roll by. All shows should be miniseries and last no more than 24 episodes. Unless you have real stories to tell, you shouldn't continue the show. "John Adams" is a good example of how to tell a story.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 15, 2008 10:24 AM)
Freemantle,
It seems that you are very critical of Ratner purely because of X3. You don't seem to have much to say about his directing style, and most of the issues you have with him is because of what he did (or didn't do) with X3's plot. You follow the pattern of a lot of fans of a comic book series or game series. You couldn't care less or have an opinion about a particular director until he "screws" up your favorite franchise. Paul Anderson wouldn't receive half the hate he gets if he didn't direct 16d03 or 4 geekdom franchises. Notice now the only movies that he didn't get pure hatred for are: Shopping, Event Horizon, and Death Race. None of these are particular geekdom franchises. But you don't have much to say about Ratner's other films, none of which are terrible, and all of which were at least half way decent. He's still a young director, has much to learn and has a great career in front of him.
It just makes me laugh when people call him "bland". Fanboys love the genres directors. The ones that always go for the money shots, do a lot of slowmotion, play up the melodramas, Use tons of exotic vocals you know, the overtly expressive directors. Fans love them because they bring everything but the kitchen sink to the surface. These are not subtle directors, and never hesitate to make their presence (style) known on screen, whether it calls for it or not. Sam Raimi, Zack Snyder, and Edgar Wright are good examples of these type of directors. I do enjoy their ways, but ultimately it ends up a little flat sometimes, when these directors exerts so much weight on the film that it slows the film down and essentially crushes the story. Sometimes I just want to yell at them "JUST GET ON WITH IT ALREADY!!".
Then there is the type of director who plays it cool, but packs a punch in the action scenes. They hold back on the "style for style's sake", and are more interested in creating a more realistic version of the world. They don't do so much melodrama, and place a lot of importance on humor and entertainment. They place a lot more emphasis on telling a story than filling it with style. They are not interested in throwing every camera tricks in the book on screen all at once. These are the Jon Favreaus and Brett Ratners of Hollywood. But just because they are subtle doesn't mean they don't have a style. Watch a Ratner's film, and it's like listening to a good jazz piece. Watch for Rhythm, shot selections, coverage. Watch for the way the story moves forward, the sense of urgency, the energy in an action scenes. Watch for the steadfast way he stays on a dramatic note, but doesn't linger when the emotion has wane. he doesn't try to force what simply isn't there. What fanboys call "bland" or "lazy filmmaking" is simply mature film making, a director with a bag of tricks throwing everything on screen and see what sticks. You like Marc Forster, I'm sure you can understand this.
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 15, 2008 08:55 PM)
Oddly enough as you were talking about what makes a good director I was reminded of Body of Lies. Ridley Scott's style is a strong blend of the two. It is a terrific style. Right when you think it is slowing down. The camera movement jolts you back and the actors get intense reeling you back in to the movie.
I really agree. Ratner is young and still learning in the movie business, but he is doing a terrific job for himself and I am excited to see his future work.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/ -
Goldenboy142 — 17 years ago(October 16, 2008 12:37 AM)
Ridley Scott is weird for me. I love Black Rain, Black Hawk Down, and his director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven. I like matchstick men, Alien, and Blade runner. but I hated Gladiator, GI Jane, and pretty much everything else he did. He's kind of a toss up, with a good possibility for a good flick once in a while. For me anyway. I really don't like some of the DP he works with, and I hate the way he bathes his scene with heavy saturation sometimes. His films can also be a little dreary for me. but Black Hawk Down, that movie ruled!
http://goldentempura.com/
reviews, music, and musings. -
KyleKyleBensen — 17 years ago(October 16, 2008 07:55 AM)
Then you will love Body of Lies. Like I said, it is almost slow, but then the acting gets intense or the camera jolts and reels you back in. Alexander Witt is the DP and he has worked on Pirates 1, Casino Royale, and American Gangster. He was the second unit DP for those movies, but it shines through in Body of Lies.
Best in [TV] Show
http://www.imdb.com/board/10285403/