Brett Ratner saved the X-men franchise?

[KCJ506]

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/09/09/qaamp_a_brett_ratner_on_beverly_hills_co

He's not a huge fan of the comic book community, to say the least. Says he "saved the franchise." Sheesh! Also says he never read the comic books and the old cartoons were "the same fucking thing." Interesting.

However I do agree with Bryan Singer's advice to him.

[Smiert Spionam]

Y'know, I always find myself defending Ratner (despite not being a huge fan) for not being the one soley responsible for the trainwreck that was X-3. And after reading that, despite still being an arrogant, fat, fucking coked up asshole, the man still has somewhat of a point. Rapid fanboys are impossible to please and his film did gross the most money. La-di-fuckin-da.

[Jig Saw 123]

First to address Brett Ratner and his ridiculous claim. It would be understandable if he was going into a series that left with a bad taste in everyone's mouth and flopped at the box-office, but on the contrary he came into a franchise that was expanding finically and philosophically. X-Men 2 was the best of Singer's attempt at the X-Men mythology. When Bryan Singer warned Ratner not to take advice from fans he probably didn't realize that Ratner was a fan himself just as bad as all the other fanboys who wanted Gambit as the main character and the link between Mystique and Nightcrawler to be further explored. Instead he introduced dozens of characters that weren't necessary in anyway other to add to the continuous tensions the characters faced.

Second about Bryan Singer not listening to the fans on the internet. This is agreeable to an extent. Of course your not going to listen to fans suggestions when it comes to plot and overall character design because most of the time fans are too quick to judge (The Dark Knight). Its obvious Singer didn't listen to fans when he was working on Superman Returns because he did nothing but relive the childhood he had back in the 80s and introduced it to the wrong era of viewers. Instead of making it his own he was too committed to paying homage to the original two films.

So overall Brett Ratner didn't save the X-Men franchise. Instead he was the first spot of a dying fire setting up for future failure with films like X-Men Origins.

[moose1132]

I don't see how the X-men franchise needed saving in the first place before Ratner did X3. X2 was probably the most liked by critics and crazy fans alike and it made $214 million or something like that. Sure Ratner's made a few million more, but he makes it sound like X2's $214 million was a bomb.

[Silverload]

X-Men 3 was going to make bank no matter what. It was riding the success of X2. It would have been impossible to have fucked up X3's box office. What Ratner did was knock the franchise off of its pedestal. No one think highly of the X-Men movie franchise anymore, not like they did after part 2.

[Frosty_86]

The X Men franchise never needed saving I dont care if X3 was the highest grossing out of the three its also the one thats most panned across the board. What he did (with Fox's help I might add) is took what was becoming one of the best movie franchise in recent memory and completely fucked it up. Fuck they even made Kelsey Grammer seem like a shitty Beast and he was always a top choice for me. They took an up and coming actor, Ben Foster, and did absolutely nothing with his character he's in like three scene and they shitty scenes. They turned Wolverine in to a little whiny bitch. There were way too many fucking characters they did not develop them at all because there was too much damn action (Im an action man but fuck youve also got to develop your characters), in the end it felt like it was too much but not enough at the same time. Dont even get me started on them killing Cyclops, they couldve worked around Marsden busy with Superman they didnt have to fucking kill Cyclops.


Bryan Singer did the first two damn near flawlessly and he smart about how he did it. He had a limited amount of characters in the first one and he developed those characters and in the second he continued to develop those characters and added a few. In the third one there were new mutants galore and no development of those new characters it was just one action scene after another. Ratner and Fox took the first two movies and pissed on them with X3. They took Singer's franchise and killed it.

Ratner can talk all day about the money X3 made but at the end of the day the quality of the movie is what counts, and Bretty boy your movie was absolute shit.

[drc5145]

That's a load of crap. Considering the way the 3rd movie ended...the question now is...What's left from what Ratner "saved"?

[labialover]

The X Men franchise never needed saving I dont care if X3 was the highest grossing out of the three its also the one thats most panned across the board. What he did (with Fox's help I might add) is took what was becoming one of the best movie franchise in recent memory and completely fucked it up. Fuck they even made Kelsey Grammer seem like a shitty Beast and he was always a top choice for me. They took an up and coming actor, Ben Foster, and did absolutely nothing with his character he's in like three scene and they shitty scenes. They turned Wolverine in to a little whiny bitch. There were way too many fucking characters they did not develop them at all because there was too much damn action (Im an action man but fuck youve also got to develop your characters), in the end it felt like it was too much but not enough at the same time. Dont even get me started on them killing Cyclops, they couldve worked around Marsden busy with Superman they didnt have to fucking kill Cyclops.


Bryan Singer did the first two damn near flawlessly and he smart about how he did it. He had a limited amount of characters in the first one and he developed those characters and in the second he continued to develop those characters and added a few. In the third one there were new mutants galore and no development of those new characters it was just one action scene after another. Ratner and Fox took the first two movies and pissed on them with X3. They took Singer's franchise and killed it.

Ratner can talk all day about the money X3 made but at the end of the day the quality of the movie is what counts, and Bretty boy your movie was absolute shit.

Pretty much my thoughts. Did anyone else find it funny that he bashes Beverly Hills Cop 3, calling it the worst in the franchise. But then praises his work on X-Men 3?

He says he protected himself by putting scenes in from the comic books. Well guess what Brett, things from comics/books don't always translate well to the movie you dumbfuck. He didn't save shit, X-Men 3 was a terrible movie. I haven't seen Wolverine, but from what everyone says that's terrible too. Yea, they made money. And that's the problem, Fox made money off of two shitty movies, and now they care nothing about the quality of the franchise.

[KCJ506]

T


Bryan Singer did the first two damn near flawlessly and he smart about how he did it. He had a limited amount of characters in the first one and he developed those characters and in the second he continued to develop those characters and added a few. In the third one there were new mutants galore and no development of those new characters it was just one action scene after another. Ratner and Fox took the first two movies and pissed on them with X3. They took Singer's franchise and killed it.



Well most of the development in the first two went to Wolverine and Rogue. Cyclops and Storm were just....there. Cyclops is the biggest victim here. He's barely seen in X2 because he gets kidnapped and we don't even see him again until near the end and killing him off X3. Not even thirty minutes into the movie.(Possibly the biggest WTF moment of 2006.)

[Buck Turgidson]

However I do agree with Bryan Singer's advice to him.I wish Bryan's advice to him had been to eat a bunch of lye.

[Frosty_86]

Well most of the development in the first two went to Wolverine and Rogue. Cyclops and Storm were just....there. Cyclops is the biggest victim here. He's barely seen in X2 because he gets kidnapped and we don't even see him again until near the end and killing him off X3. Not even thirty minutes into the movie.(Possibly the biggest WTF moment of 2006.)


Really Wolverine and Cyclops should've been the main characters in X3 not Wolverine and Storm. The movie shouldnt have been made until Singer could return to direct it and also when could Marsden devote his full time to that instead of Superman because he shouldve had a greatly expanded role for X3 not the killed with in the first 30 minutes (I think it was more like 15). And really they should not have even put Beast in X3 because they had already had Nightcrawler and he had good base to his character that they couldve added to that in X3. Their excuse for not putting Nightcrawler in the movie was just lame, too many blue people WTF. They shouldve really had Gambit in there instead of putting Beast, Angel, Colossus, and Kitty Pride and not developing them. The Rogue/ Iceman/ and Kitty storyline was lame. They completely fucked up The Phoenix storyline which really shouldve been a trilogy in itself or at least carried on for two movies. They didnt develop the Phoenix story for shit because they were juggling the Raise of the Brotherhood or whatever you want a call it with so many damn mutants I cant even name them all and stupid ass teen love triangles. And really the end to Rogue's story was absolutely horrible, that's not the Rogue from the comic books fuck that's not even the Rogue that came out of the second movie. The whole fucking ending was horrible, it hurts my head thinking about it.

If Brett Ratner thinks that all people did was bitch at him for killing Professor X (which I knew they do it eventually that was inevitable that theyd have to that) then he needs to wake up because he fucked the whole movie up. At least Ive still got the first two and that sin on film known as X3 doesnt taint them. I find it hard to believe that Tarantino praises him in this documentary.

[razgriz21]

Ratner is full of shit.

The fun of "Rush Hour," the fun of "X-Men" and all these movies I've done. I'm in them. My personality and my tenacity are in those movies.

It shows that he is incompetent. X-Men was not supposed to be "fun". It was supposed to be intelligent and suspenseful. He ruined what Bryan Singer accomplished.

My advice Brett, stick to music videos and take McG with you.

More idiocy from The Rat.

If I buried the franchise how the f*ck did they make a "Wolverine"? I mean, that's ridiculous. And they're making three other f*cking "X-Men" movies. Mine kept the franchise alive!

By the way, **** you Fox and Ratner for *** f******* the X-Men name on film.

[Frosty_86]

This is what the thought of X3 is like

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/20/Jokermagictrick.gif


Having a god damn pencil jabbed in my eye

[jolanar]

Brett Raetner may not have been the best director choice, but as far as I am concerned it was the SCRIPT that ruined X3.

[BubbaStrangelove]

I don't know he would think Chinatown would be a personal film. It's not like The Pianist or something. Aside from the twist, there's nothing really... you guys know what I'm saying here right. It's a pretty straight forward film, and just don't get why out of all Polanski's films he said, "...that one must have been personal for you."

Then he goes on to say...

"Every film doesn't have to be personal, it doesn't have to be an important subject about the Holocaust or about someone dying of cancer, it should be something that I'm interested in. That's what I've been doing and that's why I've been picking these big commercial movies because that's just my sensibilities ... I think my optimism transpires through my work. The fun of "Rush Hour," the fun of "X-Men" and all these movies I've done. I'm in them. My personality and my tenacity are in those movies."

Wait, what? He is saying he doesn't make films personal, but is saying he's "in" his movies? Not at as actor or anything, just that his "personality" and "tenacity" are in them? How is that not personal? And why the heck would he bring up the holocaust and dying of cancer to follow up a story about him being surprised to find out Chinatown wasn't a personal film for Polanski - the guy who's most acclaimed film was The Pianist.

Then when asked about a segment for an upcoming short anthology...

"It's funny, that is my most personal film."


I have no issues with the dude, and haven't seen X3. He's probably a decent guy and seems to love making films. I'd think that he seems to be somewhat more affected by his reputation than he lets on. Between the interview and the documentary he seems to be in public relations mode.

[Buck Turgidson]

Time after time this asshole is handed plum assignments, great casts and foolproof concepts and time after time he produces a pile of turds.

[ilovemovies]

I've enjoyed most of Ratner's movies. That said, while I don't think he ruined the X-Men franchise like a lot of people have said (X-Men 3 was actually the most ambitious of the X-Men flicks the problem was instead of having the script go for another rewrite or two, they rushed it into production the result was an entertaining but hollow movie that could have been SOOO much more) I don't understand how he can say he saved it. That is just ludicrous.

The 3rd film pales in comparison to the first two.

[Balboa6]

The ideas and overall concept of X3 should have been spanned throughout at least two, if not three films. My biggest problem with it was the fact that there was so much to digest within a two hours time span--not to mention condensing the entire phoenix/dark phoenix saga into about an hour/hour and a half within the movie. It was just too much in too short of time. I also didn't understand the significance of killing off Cyclops--especially like that.