It's twenty years ago today since the first X-Men movie premiered.
Here's a little treat; an insight into how comic fans viewed the oncoming movie at the time. This is a discussion verbatim from the tcj.com bulletin board in the lead up to the film's release.
Topic: that new x-men movie
Matt Silvie Member posted May 01, 2000 05:15 PM
I justed want to announce to the comic book journal message board forum that I have downloaded the new x-men trailer, both versions, about ten times. sure, it looks stagey and sucky: the leather, the club scene look and soundtrack, etc, typical comic adaptation bullshit. But the 13 year old pot head inside of me is pretty damned psyched. that subject matter is too pro-wrestling to be suited for the comics medium anyway and I'm happy to finally see this stuff where it belongs. I know I'm just psyching myself up for a big let down, but at least it'll be sort of fun, two hours of garbage for six bucks is better than a 15 minute read badly drawn for the same amount. so fuck you.
Timothy J Miller Member posted May 01, 2000 09:57 PM
...and suddenly the Comix 2000 hate thread becomes MUCH clearer to me...
DSR Member posted May 02, 2000 07:48 AM
I always suspected Wolverine's hairdo would look ridiculous on screen but it actually looks alright.
KThor Jensen Junior Member posted May 02, 2000 09:14 AM
A significant portion of my new job entails voraciously sucking the dick of this movie, so I don't know whether this is a sign of too much sperm in my brain or just the general weakening of my critical faculties that comes with age, but I'm actually gonna step out and say that from everything I've seen it'll be a competent to good action/thriller, probably spawning a sequel or two. Junk, sure, but "entertaining junk." Now I'm waiting for the Comix 2000 movie.
eric hess Member posted May 02, 2000 09:38 AM
quote: I always suspected Wolverine's hairdo would look ridiculous on screen but it actually looks alright.
yes, surprisingly, the hair looks fine.
the guy wearing it, however...
aw, i'm just kiddin' around. have to admit, it looks like it's going to have its moments.
Matthewwave Member posted May 02, 2000 03:47 PM
Do you happen to know the film's budget? From the previews I've seen, it looks pretty cheap, all in all, to me. I wonder if that will reflect in the film and keep it from becoming popular enough to warrant sequels.
I can't get too excited about the film, even as throwaway entertainment. Since 91 I've been bound by a contract with myself to not give my money to Marvel -- excepting the out of The Joe Kubert Clause -- and except for eight individual issues that fall under that clause, I've kept to it. And I plan to continue doing so. Thus I didn't even see Blade, which apparently was a decent, fun junkfood movie. Plus I like Snipes, Kristofferson and Dorff.
But Kubert they ain't, and so...
Oh, and I've seen Hugh (Wolverine) Jackman in non-X Men photos -- he's quite fine.
Austin English Member posted May 02, 2000 03:54 PM
The real question: will it be better then Spawn?
Nick Mullins Member posted May 02, 2000 04:07 PM
That was a joke, right?
Matt Silvie Member posted May 02, 2000 06:00 PM
Timothy J Miller raves: "...and suddenly the Comix 2000 hate thread becomes MUCH clearer to me..."
yeah, I hated it cause it didnt have wolverine in it, you stupid prick. you got me
Matthewwave groans: "Since 91 I've been bound by a contract with myself to not give my money to Marvel."
Aw, shit man, you didnt quit till you were 91 fucking years old?! I was 15 when I quit reading that shit. sucks to be you.
KThor Jensen shares: "This will be the greatest movie ever made."
I dont know about that, KThor. It does look cheap and stagey, as noted by old man Matthewwave. It looks like the whole thing was shot in one dark as shit studio. The sets look cheaper than the shit they got on tv. I'm 100percent sure this thing will suck hard, the question is, will it be cool and nostalgic to see those old comic book characters up on the screen, or will it be as dismaying as last years star wars, or the batman movies. I'm guessing the latter. but I'll still see it.
Austin English Member posted May 02, 2000 08:27 PM
Nick: Of course! Although, I must admit, I did see Spawn, and it had a few guilty pleasures in it. John Legquizamo (sp?) was funny as The Clown.
Matt Silvie Member posted May 02, 2000 10:09 PM
I couldnt stand spawn. the directing was such a mess I had no idea what was going on, it had no sense of linear narrative. it was like just these jerky shots of random scenes strung together randomly. it gave me a headache.
DSR Member posted May 03, 2000 08:46 AM
I was about to write that I've never watched Spawn, but I realised I've never read a Spawn comic either.
I've never liked McFarlane's artwork. It's just not to my taste. It looks messy to me.
Nick Mullins Member posted May 03, 2000 10:12 AM
Austin: I saw Spawn also. I liked the compuyer graphics in the cape. But the devil was so bad I laughed in the theatre. Also, all the other spawns in hell were just the same CGI put into a perpetual loop. It looked like Jazzercise in hell.
And yes, the directing was horrible. The fight scenes made absolutely no sense.
I can't remember why I saw the move, because I've never read the comic.
KThor Jensen Junior Member posted May 03, 2000 11:54 AM
Matt Silvie drooled: "I suck dick in rest stop bathrooms for quarters."
Don't put words in my mouth, shitstain. We just finished up the summer movie preview bullshit here and after sitting through hours of crapola it's looking more and more like it's going to be this year's one big summer blockbuster, akin to Independance Day or what have you, only Bryan Singer isn't quite an Emmerich-level hack. And you fucking started this thread so what the holy hell are you complaining about? As for the budget, it is cheap (comparatively) at $75 million - a drop in the bucket compared with, say, uber-shitheel Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor." As for "stagey," I will agree that the locations are not great, and that will probably work against it, but I can't see the leather costumes or the fuckshit soundtrack causing any problems. As above: entertaining junk. "Cecil B. Demented," the new John Waters flick, however, looks mighty fine.
Austin English Member posted May 03, 2000 04:25 PM
Well, I hope this film fails miserably.
j. todd dockery Member posted May 04, 2000 01:23 AM
didn't singer direct "usual suspects"? I mean, it wasn't a bad film so...
however, more leather clad bunk does not excite me.
we are living in a post "matrix" world and unfortunately I am not a post "matrix" gal.
t edward bak Member posted May 06, 2000 03:02 PM
What the hell is an "X-Man" anyhow? I don't read read those books. They're like "super champions", right? Isn't there supposed to be a "Superman" movie with Tim Burton?
Jesus, I'm sorry I have to do this, but remember when Mr. Rogers used to take everybody off to Never-Never Fairy Land or whatever the fuck it was off in the Trolley and there were those weird puppets in that castle? And there was that one old hag puppet. Remember that? Well, the guy sitting at the computer a couple down from me sounds just like that character. He keeps talking to his computer and snickering.
I'd like to break something over his head BUT I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE ANGRY ANYMORE, DAMN IT!!
DSR Member posted May 08, 2000 09:40 AM
Remember years ago when they were first talking about making this movie and Wolverine was going to be the crazy guy from "Hill Street Blues"?
krisstacks Junior Member posted May 09, 2000 02:26 PM
Matt Silvie Member posted June 08, 2000 05:19 PM
word up, bitches
I cant believe how unpopular this thread was. it was my baby and now I have resurrected it.
anyway, there's yet another version of the x-men trailer up now, at the link below. someone tell Pete Bagge
Jon Zajdel Member posted June 08, 2000 10:38 PM
I see. So there is an evil force that threatens the world and these "X-men" are some sort of heroic group of "go-getters" who are going to intervene on behalf of humanity. Sounds interesting. I hope they win.
Matt Silvie Member posted June 10, 2000 12:57 PM
So do I, Jon. But who can say? In the preview there is a cryptic moment where Wolverine questions the legitimacy of fighting the evil mutants instead of the racist humans. So I guess the story could go ANYWHERE
does anyone think Halle Berry's miscast as Storm (Ororro? Oreo?)? I aint bitchin that I'm gonna have to ogle her hot ass for two hours, but in the comic isnt Storm alot older and wiser? Halle Berry's a feisty little sex kitten with big titties. On second thought, I guess she's the perfect comic book bitch. nevermind. my bad.
Matt Silvie Member posted June 21, 2000 10:48 PM
yo. so I've been watching this x-men preview about two or three times a day and I'm kinda diggin that little chick from that movie, The Piano, that Anna Pauquin (sp?), she's the little chick with wolverine and shes got that hood on and shit. but I dont know what character she's supposed to be. I'm guessing Kitty Pryde/Shadowcat. but who knows? does anyone know? do YOU? also this friend of mine says the bitch that plays Rogue is all that, but I dont remember seeing anyone looking Rogue-ish in any of the three previews. who here on the comic book message board forum will help me?
Matthewwave Member posted June 21, 2000 11:13 PM
I believe Panquin plays Rogue.
Sean Medlock Member posted June 22, 2000 09:44 AM
If you ask me, Angela Bassett would be perfect for Storm. But then, nobody asked me.
I just hope they spin off a whole series of Wolverine movies so I can relive my 7th grade revenge fantasies.
cian Member posted June 23, 2000 04:30 AM
Need. Alcohol. Now.
Eli Bishop Member posted June 29, 2000 08:17 AM
Cian- for God's sake, get off the computer and go to a liquor store before it's too late! We can't help you here!
Sean- I agree, but she's too classy for this thing and anyway she has pupils in her eyes.
Silvie- if there's a 13-year-old pothead inside you, better keep it to yourself- statutory rape laws don't make allowances for who's on top. Though "the 13-year-old pothead inside of me is pretty damned psyched" might make a good blurb for the movie ads...
All- I must admit that I read the silly promotional material on the "mutantwatch.com" site and I'm wondering who the ghostwriter was for some of this stuff. Some of it is kind of funny, but not much compared to some of Alan Moore's throwaway bits in Top Ten. In one of those, Mayor Genovese complains: "I mean, some kid who lives on your block gets hit by some weird meteorite, next thing you know he's flying, he shoots death-rays out of his ass, whatever"-- which latter detail made me hope against hope that they got Moore's permission to borrow that character for the movie; Hollywood logic requires that Logan go up against Sabretooth, but who will represent the dark side of Cyclops, if not that kid down the block? With today's special effects, it can finally be done!
Matt Silvie Member posted June 29, 2000 12:42 PM
Oh, Eli, you ol whip. You know that I didnt mean that I had a 13 year old pot head's dick inside my asshole. I meant that I still have that spirit of youthful vigor, anticipation and propensity for fantasy. But thanks for asking, as your post allowed me the opportunity to clarify for others who might have been confused.
As for who the writers for this masterpiece are, I have attached a list of the geniuses needed to craft this fine work:
Yes, Eli, THAT Joss Whedon, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame.
[This message has been edited by Matt Silvie (edited June 29, 2000).]
Ludwig Member posted June 29, 2000 04:41 PM
That would be Joss Whedon.
[This message has been edited by Ludwig (edited June 29, 2000).]
Well, now you've fixed it, so this post makes no sense. I hate this edit-the-message-after-the-fact thing...
[This message has been edited by Ludwig (edited June 30, 2000).]
Matthewwave Member posted June 30, 2000 01:40 AM
Bassett is reported to have actively campaigned for the role of Storm.
And I read once in The National Inquirer that she actually *doesn't" have pupils.
Sean Medlock Member posted June 30, 2000 06:15 AM
How could she have pupils? She's not a teacher, is she? Ha ha ha!
Speaking of dorks like me, I was reading somewhere that Whedon has publicly bitched out the producers of the movie for not using his ideas. Oh, and John Byrne is disappointed that they're not using Wolverine's "real" costume.
Tim Lockwood posted June 30, 2000 12:02 PM
That comment by Byrne,if accurate,is par for the course for that guy.I think that the odds are in favor of the X-men movie being as crappy as the Batman movies were and using the comic book costumes would just be another negative point. I always thought that the costumes/uniforms thatsuperheroes wear was one of the genres' worst traits and continues to this day.
Matt Silvie Member posted June 30, 2000 12:40 PM
I was at Target the other day and saw the x-men toys. the Wolverine toy isnt called Wolverine, he's called Logan.
Matt Silvie Member posted July 05, 2000 03:08 PM
speaking of wolverine, what is his origin? I seem to recall this really murky Barry windsor-smith issue of Marvel Comics Presents, that lame assed anthology thing, that had wolverine in a lab with millions of tubes sticking out of him, and he kills all the scientists and runs out in to the snow. but that's all I remember. does anyone know the truth?
Eli Bishop Member posted July 05, 2000 05:13 PM
Matt- Well, maybe someone does, but you won't know unless you read this. Aren't you sorry you asked?