SHP Forums

Saw the trailer.

Sitting here. Resting head on palm. Typing with one hand. Tapping forehead trying to form a single coherent thought.

Nope. Can't do it. Ummm... wow.

I don't know where to begin with this trailer. Chunks of it look fan-made, other shots look unfinished, and the rest looks like stock footage from the Fox library. And this is coming out in under four months? I'm not exactly a big X-Men fan, but even I can feel my heart sinking.

I have a feeling that even Fox knows the movie blows. The exact same thing happened with "Dragonball: Evolution" a couple years back, where Fox held out on promotions until the last minute, revealed the same kind of underwhelming trailer, and then cut half the film's post-production budget because they knew word-of-mouth would kill the movie before it even hit theaters. I think they're finally admitting defeat with the X-Men franchise for now.

So some additional thoughts... Watched it again - and commenting and pausing.

So we get the JFK video thing - which brings us back between 1961 and 1963 (when JFK was president). However, World War II was from 1939 to 1945. Magneto was a young Jew, and vastly effected by the events he endured during World War II. Let's just say Magneto (Erik) was 5 years old (and it was the tail end of WWII, so making him born around 1940) - making him a minimum of 21 years of age by the time First Class is happening. WHICH he could pass for in the movie. But by the age of 21, Magneto had already discovered his powers, and was already falling far into the "gray" side of things. So we shall see how that pans out.

Now, if this is indeed taking place around 1960 to 1963 - none of the characters in First Class even remotely look CLOSE to dressing right for the period time. Now, not too trivial of a fact - but the SR71 Blackbird was introduced to the world in 1966 (3 years after Kennedy was assassinated), and yet they're seen flying in one. This COULD be because, the video they're watching of Kennedy was 3 years before the time they're in the SR71 Blackbird.

I am still vastly disappointed to see Azazel in the movie (the red guy seen teleporting near the end of the trailer). I can't logically understand why they put him in the movie. Also, having Alex Summers, who is Scott Summers (in comics, younger) brother... So if Alex Summers is around in 1966 and around 20 to 21 years of age (like everyone else)... uh, that would make Alex Summers old enough to be Scott's father. But - meh - they do this kind of stuff all the time when they convert comics to movies (for example, Iceman and Pyro were never young kids in Charles Xavier's school; and for that matter, Pyro was Australian).

I am beyond skeptical of this movie... but I will probably still go see it.

Story line wise, applying any version of comics canon is not logical as the movie is supposed to be taking place in another 'verse. Ala an alternate universe as in the new Star Trek movies.

Still, I've been burned too much by the X-Men movie franchise to expect anything good even if I love the cast and Matthew Vaughn (director) has done movies I really liked before. (Layer Cake, StarDust and to a lesser extent Kickass)

therogue wrote:Story line wise, applying any version of comics canon is not logical as the movie is supposed to be taking place in another 'verse. Ala an alternate universe as in the new Star Trek movies.

Oh, trust me. I accept that. I, unlike you, didn't mind the X-Men movies (well the third X-Men movie had plenty I disliked, but over all, shrugged it off myself). I know from the start things are going to be changed - like making Rogue young, making Pyro young, Iceman young, that entire team of X-Men never existed, as never did that version of Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.

That's not my problem. I don't mind changes.

But there's certain aspects you can not take away, or else, even in alternates, it ruins the character. Magneto's appeal is that his ... choices and views... can sometimes be considered ... "gray"... not really good, but not really too evil sometimes (as he can sometimes actually sound logical about what he's doing, even though you know it's probably wrong). I didn't see too much of that in the preview; but it was just shy of 2 minutes. So not to be expected. Alex Summers, his main thing was always living in the shadow of Cyclops/Scott/his brother, and what a great leader he was, how he was seemingly pretty stable, etc - obviously this isn't going to apply, I imagine if they have Alex sitting around in 1966. Azazel... God help me, with his teleporting effect, I dread the idea that they may actually do what the comic did, and tie him to being Nightcrawler's father (which, I ... would be stunned by... considering how much that story was hated).

And what is kind of irksome, yes, as I mentioned; when they make a comic movie they change things from the comic to the movie; and sometimes VASTLY so. But ... this isn't "X-MEN"... this is "X-MEN FIRST CLASS" - which is a fairly new comic. You figure that it would be at least REMOTELY associated and tied to the comic ... but they're not. Not even close. I think they just needed to make it a "new" X-MEN movie and still use "X-MEN" in the name, but find a way to make it it's own thing.

BUT - by all intents and purposes, they APPEAR to be tying it to the EXISTING X-Men movies... with the whole, "See how it all began"... "Before he was Professor Xavier..." (Wheelchair) "He was Charles"... "Before he was Magneto" (Magneto's helm and scenes from the previous X-Men movie) "He was Erik."

And if they're doing THAT - consider this. Beast is seen in X-MEN: FIRST CLASS. If that movie is taking place in and/or around 1966 (as it would seem it is with the Kennedy thing) - then Beast, who is seen in the previous X-MEN movies is WELL over 60 years old. (If he was around 20 in 1966, and you would assume the latest X-MEN movies would fall in the year 2000 or so?)

This just looks more and more like a hack job, the more I give it thought...

WHATTHEFRACK!?!?!?

http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/627-x ... ew-trailer

On October 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy spoke on television about the growing threat from the Cuban Missile Crisis. He said, "The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it." The entire nation watched Kennedy lay out his administration's plan to keep the Soviet Union from launching nuclear weapons from Cuba. Including, it seems, Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, better known to comic book and movie fans as Professor X and Magneto.

That's how the brand-new trailer for "X-Men: First Class" begins. Originally posted to Facebook for fans, it's now available for all to see. Watch it below, then keep reading to learn what this first preview tells us about this prequel to the original "X-Men" films.

In "X-Men: First Class," Charles Xavier (James McAvoy, playing the role originated by Patrick Stewart) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender, stepping in for Ian McKellen) are compatriots, bound together by their mutant abilities that have not yet been revealed to the world. When a band of evil mutants, the Hellfire Club, begins working behind the scenes to orchestrate a nuclear war, Xavier and Lehnsherr put together a team of young mutants to stop them.

The new trailer gives us the first look at Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw, the leader of the malevolent Hellfire Club. He is assisted by Emma Frost (played by January Jones), who can be seen mutating her skin into diamonds. There is also a brief look at Azazel (Jason Flemyng), the red-skinned villain who is able to teleport (much like his future son, Nightcrawler, who appeared in "X2").

Plus, the trailer gives us the first look at the teenage mutants who become the original team of X-Men. Beast (Nicholas Hoult) is seen before, after, and during his transformation into his more familiar furry appearance. Also there is a shot of Mystique (Oscar-nominee Jennifer Lawrence, taking over for Rebecca Romijn) changing from her human form to her natural blue-skinned state. New members of the team are also highlighted, including Angel Salvador (Zoe Kravitz), the young woman with the insect wings. There is also footage of Havok (Lucas Till), who blasts energy out of his hands -- in the same way his brother, Cyclops, does with his eyes in the earlier films.

Director Matthew Vaughn told Entertainment Weekly that the 1960s setting makes this film like "X-Men meets [James] Bond, with a little bit of 'Thirteen Days' thrown in." It's clear in the trailer that the style of the '60s is everywhere in the movie, from the character's regular clothes to their X-Men uniforms, which copy the blue-and-yellow color scheme from the original comic books. Obviously, there is a lot of action in the movie, but Vaughn insists there's more to it than that. He said, "It's got a lot of teenage angst. The 'Twilight' girls will like it."

"X-Men: First Class" will arrive in theaters on June 3.

Tawmis wrote: In "X-Men: First Class," Charles Xavier (James McAvoy, playing the role originated by Patrick Stewart) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender, stepping in for Ian McKellen) are compatriots, bound together by their mutant abilities that have not yet been revealed to the world. When a band of evil mutants, the Hellfire Club, begins working behind the scenes to orchestrate a nuclear war, Xavier and Lehnsherr put together a team of young mutants to stop them.

So, I am assuming Azazel is behind Russia wanting to launch or something...

Tawmis wrote: The new trailer gives us the first look at Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw, the leader of the malevolent Hellfire Club.

I didn't see Kevin Bacon in there... but he's Sebastian Shaw? I am very, very, very hesitant... Sebastian Shaw is one of my top favorite villains... so help me if they do him wrong.

Tawmis wrote: He is assisted by Emma Frost (played by January Jones), who can be seen mutating her skin into diamonds.

Which I'd like to point out, was her "Secondary Mutation" which didn't develop until MANY MANY MANY years later (like she first appeared in early 1980, and this whole 2nd mutation thing didn't get introduced till like 2006... And idea I have, as it's probably clear, hated... so now they're saying that she had this power in 1966... ugh).

Tawmis wrote: There is also a brief look at Azazel (Jason Flemyng), the red-skinned villain who is able to teleport (much like his future son, Nightcrawler, who appeared in "X2").

WHY GOD! WHY?

Tawmis wrote: Plus, the trailer gives us the first look at the teenage mutants who become the original team of X-Men. Beast (Nicholas Hoult) is seen before, after, and during his transformation into his more familiar furry appearance.

WTF?

Really? "We see the teenage mutants who become the original X-Men... Beast."

Jack ass. Mutants is plural. The only person we appear to be seeing before hand is BEAST. There's no Cyclops, Jean, Iceman or Angel...

*head desk!*

Tawmis wrote: It's clear in the trailer that the style of the '60s is everywhere in the movie, from the character's regular clothes to their X-Men uniforms, which copy the blue-and-yellow color scheme from the original comic books.

What? Their clothes look like the 60s? I would strongly disagree.

Tawmis wrote: He said, "It's got a lot of teenage angst. The 'Twilight' girls will like it."

And with those words, he has perhaps forever buried my desire to see this.

I don't mind the Twilight movies, my wife liked the books (more so the first few than the later few). But I don't care for all the angst.

Sweet mother of all that is good and pure........most of that sounds like a recipe for disaster!

MusicallyInspired wrote:Sweet mother of all that is good and pure........most of that sounds like a recipe for disaster!

We, my friend, agree so much it's not even funny!

Going beyond the complete idiocy revealed in that news article, I have to ask this: who says the Twilight fans even like the X-Men? How does teenage angst even equal "the Twilight girls will really like it?"

Lots of movies and shows have teenage angst in them and yet they never reached the same mass appeal that the Twilight series has gained. Maybe the reason girls like Twilight goes beyond teenage angst.

Let's face it -- the premise behind Twilight is much different than the X-Men. Simply adding an unnecessary component (i.e. teenage angst) won't suddenly endear it to the Twilight audience.

Even if, by some chance, the Twilight fans go nuts over this new X-Men movie, they'll still be alienated their core demographic: comic book fans. Yes, they want to grab as many people as possible, but if there was ever one truth to marketing, it's don't screw over the primary fans in order to possibly gain new ones.

DeadPoolX wrote:Going beyond the complete idiocy revealed in that news article,

We so agree...

DeadPoolX wrote: I have to ask this: who says the Twilight fans even like the X-Men? How does teenage angst even equal "the Twilight girls will really like it?"

My guess? The writer, director, whoever said that Twilight thing... went to the San Diego Comic Con these last two years. Two years ago, people camped out the night BEFORE the Twilight panel at SDCC. The. Night. Before. As in... tents. The Night Before. It's San Diego, and in the Summer, and it's by the bay - so it's cool. But there was something like over 2,000 people in line - for a thing that holds like 300 people.

And last year's comic con was pretty much, JUST AS BAD. People sat through other Panels, just because the Twilight panel was in that room. So because Twilight was in this panel, all these Twilight fans endured all these other comic related panels which - more than likely - they were not interested in - but did it to make sure they had seats for the Twilight panel.

So maybe they think - well Twilight fans go to Comic Con. Let's lure them in...



As MI said, this has disaster all over it.

DeadPoolX wrote: Lots of movies and shows have teenage angst in them and yet they never reached the same mass appeal that the Twilight series has gained. Maybe the reason girls like Twilight goes beyond teenage angst.

Well, I dunno about the books, but I think they like the movies because there's shirtless, buff, young men running around.

DeadPoolX wrote: Let's face it -- the premise behind Twilight is much different than the X-Men. Simply adding an unnecessary component (i.e. teenage angst) won't suddenly endear it to the Twilight audience.

Yes, it was that quote that pretty much sealed the deal for me that I will pass on this movie. There was already a ton of other aspects - but that was it - that was that last straw.

I will make it my hobby to shred this movie at every turn.

It makes sense that they want to appeal to teenage girls. I mean, come on - they're the only kinds of movie-goers who even travel to movies in packs anymore. Everyone else uses Netflix or piracy.

But still... once film-makers start looking to Twilight for inspiration... *shudder* This is exactly how I envisioned the end of the world.

I hate sheep. Baaaad movie producers. I'm not even huge X-Men fan (although I liked the first 2 movies), but I'm ready to cry at all the extra dumb garbage and remakes they're doing lately.

A bunch of people liked Twilight because it they were told it was so awesome and totally hyped it up. There are tons of good supernatural series out there, so it's not like it was doing anything new.

However, because it fluked out and became the latest fixation of a bunch of movie-going lemmings, every producer thinks it's the holy grail of movie series.

It's like the entertainment industry has become so dominated by marketing and the desire to make everything a "franchise" that quality, creativity, and well, entertainment no longer matter.

Here's an idea: instead of copying a trend, why not make your own? People are so lazy. Down with the marketing weasels!

Maiandra wrote:I hate sheep. Baaaad movie producers.

Holy crap! She made a pun!

DeadPoolX wrote:

Maiandra wrote:I hate sheep. Baaaad movie producers.

Holy crap! She made a pun!

And quite the punny one, too!

This just keeps getting better and better...
(Please, if you missed it, it's my sarcastic tone!)

My 8 Year Old Did X-Men: First Class movie posters! wrote: The best thing about the worst movie posters is that they are the product of laziness. Posters exist to promote, and, thus, with all that money on the line, one has a certain expectation of professionalism and salesmanship, a creativity of marketing. But the worst movie posters, why they're so fun, is marketing gone awry in the name of sloth. Bad movie posters happen, mostly, because someone stopped trying. Here's some of the greatest old ones: Our favorite is "The Blue Lagoon," which pretty much just describes the whole plot.

It's been a while since we had a contender for Worst Movie Poster; studios might not be particularly adept at making excellent films, but it doesn't lack skill at selling them. Thus, it's a pleasure to witness the bafflingly ugly "X-Men: First Class" posters, featuring young Professor X and Young Magneto, which feature the Photoshop skills of an orangutan. Negative reaction from film sites was near-instant, with JoeBlo.com calling them "ridiculously amateurish" and "truly awful" and Slashfilm wondering if these are the worst studio-released posters of the year. (You can see the contrast with recent, far more attractive efforts for "First Class" here, which somehow managed to emphasize the characters' origin stories without harming your eyes.)

The reason these posters are truly terrible is because you can understand the lazy logic behind them. Well, we have to get across that these are characters from the earlier films, only younger. So! Let's have the silhouettes of the past characters ... but hmm ... how to get our current actors' faces on there, we have to show our big stars! Oh, just cut and paste their heads in there. That'll work!

Which is how you get to these, with their, ahem, interesting face-placement.

ymoviesblog-229447706-1299671291.jpg (29.43 KiB) Viewed 2426 times

"Oh look, it's a talking crotch!"