Getting Ready for The X-Men 320
PedroReish writes "Here's the first review
of X-Men: The Movie, oddly
enough it's from Daily Radar. While
you're at it, have a peek at Senator Kelly's "Stop
the X-Men" commercial
(sorry, it's Quicktime) over at Mutant Watch.If you can't
get enough, browse over to Salon, they've
got a piece on The
queer world of the X-Men and a nice bio
on Stan Lee, father of the X-Men and some of Marvel's better superheroes.
" This is the movie I've been waiting for this summer. I can't wait for friday!
Re:ex-men (Score:1)
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Re:Haven't you people learned anything? (Score:1)
No, because building up your hopes excessively in one case turned out to be a bad idea, you might want to tone down your expectations and raise the chance that you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Y'see, the pessimist is disappointed less often =)
Re:another Katz article coming (Score:2)
Somebody get this done!
Re:Salon article (slightly OT) (Score:1)
Re:another Katz article coming (Score:1)
> take Jon to write a horrifically long article
> based on the similiarity of geek and mutant
> persecution?
All he needs to do is take the salon article and %s/gay/geek/g
There are many solutions. (Score:2)
And you refer to a boycott of plaintiff movie studios as a 'martyr campaign.' I hardly think it's martyrdom on a level akin to Gandhi to refuse to support movie studios that are doing things you don't like. Conscious consumption helps eradicate evil. "Inescapable evil" is person-to-person human nature stuff. I seriously doubt that we could never escape the major-studio apparatus and its evils.
As I see it, either you're fine with what the studios are doing wrt DeCSS, or you're ignorant of the situation (which seems implausible, since you read Slashdot), or you don't think it's right but you're not willing to lose a luxury or two to stand up for what's right. Hell, I never asked you to stand in a picket line, only to stop actively funding the oppression.
BTW, some of those internet-distributed films are pretty good. Have you seen "George Lucas in Love"?
Re:What about the sequel? (Score:1)
___
True, but isn't that the point? (Score:2)
Stop Senator Kelly! Visit Mutant rights.org! (Score:1)
MutantRights.org [mutantrights.org]
Re:another Katz article coming (Score:2)
That karma betting idea would rock. Another thing to bet on, how many new terms he tries to coin. Am I only one who has been desparately trying to work the word 'sensemaking' into casual conversation?
Re:What's up with all of the gay stuff in that rev (Score:2)
That's fine. That is one issue that will not be resolved any time soon. Even homosexual advocacy groups use the 10% figure. The anti homosexual groups use the 2-3% figure. I don't particularly care if it's 0.01% or 99.99%, that isn't what the X-Men is about.
I have no problem at all with my sexual identity, thanks.
All the better for you.
If you have a problem with my sexual identity, tough...I don't give a shit.
Aside from the Fred Phelps crowd, most of us don't give a good god damn about what happens in other people's bedrooms.
What you're doing is akin to when handicapped people get irate about being called handicapped.
LK
Re:Patrick Stewart (Score:1)
--
Re:What's up with all of the gay stuff in that rev (Score:1)
I agree that the main theme of the X-Men is more to appeal to ANY type of outcast, not just gays and lesbians.
However, I completely disagree that we're only "2-10% of the population", and we're certainly NOT with a sexual identity problem. I have no problem at all with my sexual identity, thanks. If you have a problem with my sexual identity, tough...I don't give a shit.
Bad in the sack (Score:1)
Speaking of Mutant Watch... (Score:3)
I have found that it is quite amusing to submit teachers (high school) to Mutant Watch and report symptoms that are in line with their appearance and personality. Specifically, "You feel a higher aura around them" and the like. And use fake email addresses.
Unfortunately, detentions are not amusing.
Thank God for the X-Men... (Score:2)
Why? Check out the results when you search for mutant watch special [google.com] on google.
This is almost as good as when we were ranked #4 for "whassup commercials".
-----
So everyone knows they can get tickets today? (Score:2)
Maybe someone should alert Iliad at userfriendly, though I suppose he thought it'd be funny to have Mike standing outside the theater for a week dressed as Cyclops. (And maybe he thought it'd be funny to give Mike huge pecs too :)
What about the sequel? (Score:5)
Re:well, the obvious solution... (Score:2)
Until the day comes when we're dragged off in manacles to watch Hollywood films, I won't be calling the MPAA inescapable. Nobody's forcing you to watch their movies, likewise, I'm not stopping you from going. Just be aware of who and what you're supporting when you pay your $9.50.
It's a sad, sad world when not voluntarily paying money to an MPAA member is considered equivalent to martyrdom. You're right on about independent film, though, except for the problem that most such films are distributed by MPAA member-affiliated distributors like Miramax (= Disney) and Fine Line (= New Line).
Why give up and roll over? It actually requires less work to resist!
-Isaac
Re:Chris Claremont (Score:2)
I would point out that, until recently, Claremont was the writer of Fantastic Four (ending an almost 2-year run on that title) and is, in fact, back writing both X-Men and Uncanny X-Men.
He also wrote Contest of Champions II for Marvel, a sequel to a rather novel crossover miniseries from the 1980's, and had a creator-owned book set in the DC Universe called Soveriegn Seven. He also did an interminably long Aliens Vs. Predator crossover for Dark Horse (12 issues, with the series going bimonthly about halfway through!).
Jay (=
Re:If only Apple had gambled like IBM (Score:2)
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
Can't we just enjoy a movie anymore...? (Score:3)
I'm going to stop reading reviews. Personally, I don't care if the X-Men represent any group (Gay, Black, Jew, etc.) Whatever happened to just sitting down in a theatre, getting involved in the story line?
I read the X-Men for years way back when (Rogue and Dazzler were fighting). In any case, I'm starting to think we overanalyze a lot of things. I'm glad to see that X-Men looks like it won't be another Batman-sequel-type movie, but who cares if they parallel with minority groups? That's not what I'm going there for!
I want to hear the *SNIK* (or whatever the sound was) of Wolverine's claws coming out. I want to see Rogue kiss somebody and steal their powers. I want the witty chatter and excellent writing that drew me to the X-Men in the '80s.
(end rant)
Okay, now that I've got that out of my system... the movie looks GREAT. I've only watched one trailer and only seen one of the commercials... I'm trying to limit my exposure so I don't ruin it for myself!!
Re:No Rational Counterargument? Invoke Hitler. (Score:2)
Actually, the Kansas State Board removed a requirement. All the commentary on Slashdot implies (or states outright) that they replaced the Evolutionary educational requirement with a religious one. I have not heard of a single public school that has opted to take advantage of the new loophole. Private schools were already doing whatever they wanted.
carlos
Re:What's up with all of the gay stuff in that rev (Score:2)
I suppose that's true if your definition of "sexual identity problem" is different enough from mine.
The only possible source of that is either gross ignorance, or listening to one to[SIC] many redneck preachers.
I don't have first hand experience at what a homosexual kid goes through. So I suppose that you could call that ignorance. That doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior.
I don't think that it's immoral, or wrong, or anything like that. In fact, as it relates to women, I find it rather erotic.
Why is it that the thought police don't want people to be able to form opinions that differ from the politically correct ones of the day?
LK
Re:Haven't you people learned anything? (Score:2)
[5 pack/day voice] Come on, Jub-Jub, and I'll microwave you a nice flat rock.[/Selma]
Re:What's up with all of the gay stuff in that rev (Score:2)
I don't believe that the movie or the comic book is in any way about homosexuals. I see it more as being about special people with special needs and special abilities who are persecuted simply because they're different.
Sure that may describe many homosexuals, but it describes many other different types of people.
BTW, please refrain from such idiotic remarks implying homosexuals have sexual identity problems. I have no such problem.
It is idiotic to hold an opinion which differs from yours?
You're picking a fight with the wrong person. I don't care what you do with your life, or how you live your life, or with whom you choose to spend your life. As long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care.
It's not me that you should be worried about. I'm not the one who'd beat you to death if I saw you walking down the street holding your SO's hand.
Perhaps I'm wrong in my thinking as it relates to homosexuals and homosexuality; perhaps I'm not, but that's what I believe.
I'm not going stop saying the things that I believe just because you don't like it.
LK
nah... the REALLY special sequel is gonna be... (Score:2)
maybe after that the ZZGO-Men
... i guess i'm showing my gaming age here...
Re:Whats interesting is.. (Score:2)
Which doesn't necessarily mean it'll suck ("Men in Black" was just as short and I thought it was great), but it does indicate where Fox's priorities lie. You'd think they would have learned from the negative reviews of "Phantom Menace" that story is king, especially for something with such a large and multithreaded backstory.
Re:Seen "Newsweek" this week? (Score:2)
Re:another Katz article coming (Score:2)
Re:Salon article (slightly OT) (Score:2)
As an (ahem) white person I take offense to your lumping me into a category so fricken broad that I am associated with murders, morons, and all sorts of different things. You have just become guilty of what you seem to want to fight.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Better make that target audience include some 40 year olds! I remember reading X-men back when I was in Jr HS.
Gonzo
No Rational Counterargument? Invoke Hitler. (Score:3)
(here I go, defending someone I don't really agree with)
Invoking Adolf Hitler anytime someone mentions the possibility of the species improving itself is intellectually bankrupt and foolish.
Evolution is about changing the species, adapting it to be better suited for survival under particular conditions and, contrary to popular myth (insert Kansas State High School curriculum here), evolution does occur over time, even to homo sapiens. Assuming we don't go extinct, someday the dreaded (and tabu to mention) homo superior will emerge. What would you rather have, complete stagnation of the species until the sun bloats red and consumes the earth?
Intelligence is one of the defining survival traits of humanity -- it is the one thing that allows an otherwise weak, poorly adapted tree-hanger ascendency over the rest of the animal kingdom and the planet (at least until the very ecosystem that sustains us collapses, taking us with it). It is arguably our most critical survival trait as a species.
Are we wise enough to direct our own evolution? The verdict is in and the jury has rendered its emotional, intellectually void decision in a thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction to the horrors of world war II and genocidal maniacs like Hitler. As with most irrational and emotional verdicts, the answer arrived at has no greater likelihood of being correct than if one were to simply flip a coin for the answer.
The truth is we are already directing our evolution, and will do so even more so in the future. Those with characteristics that give them decisive advantages over others could be termed "homo superior." Not the most politically correct terminology, perhaps, but certainly not a call to genocide as your snippity reply implies.
Human eugenics is a tabu subject because of perceived historical abuses (which actually had nothing to do with eugenics, other than using the concept as a propoganda point to promote very non-eugenic actions, eg crimes against humanity and genocide). What we forget is, making something tabu to discuss doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it simply means we have our head in the sand while other societal and natural forces replace conscious human direction.
Is this preferable? Perhaps. Certainly natural forces should be tampered with only with a great deal of caution (if at all). But what about societal forces, which are defined by our culture and economic system, and are therefor inherently artificial to begin with? As an example, economic disincentives in the United States lead many of the most intelligent and most prosperous people to have the fewest children (many having none at all), while at the same time our welfare programs provide monetary incentives for those unable to support their own children to have even more.
Whether or not you personally agree with the outcome, there is clearly an artificial form of eugenic breeding taken place, as undirected and unplanned as it may be.
Perhaps our inability to even ponder these notions has resulted in the opposite: our actively breeding "homo idiotus." The self-acclaimed geek you responded to may achieve the advantages s/he would have had had s/he become "homo superior," simply by remaining "homo sapiens" in a world populated by humans of ever decreasing intelligence.
The conspiracy theorists might go so far as to argue that some dark, evil government/business powerbase is deliberately breeding a slow, dimwitted, slave consumer class. I suspect, however, we are achieving that result more by accident, as a direct result of our unwillingness to discuss and cope with fundamental issues of human biology, breeding, and the social, political, and economic incentives we have built (consciously or otherwise) to encourage particular traits.
Re:If only Apple had gambled like IBM (Score:2)
Hmm, maybe you're right, I'm not sure. But there must be a good reason no one did this to Apple, or why Apple succeeded in being propietary and IBM didn't.
George
Re:Saw the sneak preview last night!!!! (Score:3)
Don't worry - no spoilers here.
It totally rocked!!!!!!!!!
I too had the good fortune to see a preview last night. And I too say - "it rocked!!!!!"
(for the Star Wars geeks - Anthony "C3P0" Daniels was at the screening I went to (at Fox Studios in Sydney))
The actor which plays Logan/Wolverine must have REALLY read the comics. He had the character down to a tee.
Nope! I read an interview with Hugh Jackman a couple of days ago, he said he'd never even heard of the comic until he heard the role was up for auditions! But damn, was he good! He looked absolutely perfect, and played the role just right, I reckon (taking into account that this was a less experienced Wolvie, not the veteran "I'm the best at what I do" Wolvie).
The special effects had me wanting more and more.
Damn right! Magneto and Storm's powers - all I can say is "WOW!!". That alone made me glad they decided to focus on a smaller group of X-Men, and do it right, rather than trying to hurl a dozen or so of them into battle.
So yeah, all you "can't wait until Friday!" folks - get set! I think you'll love it!!
Re:What about the sequel? (Score:2)
Re:well, the obvious solution... (Score:2)
Translation: I don't think an individual can make a difference.
Translation: Why try if you might not succeed immediately?
Translation: Who needs rights when you can buy all this cool stuff?!
-Isaac
Who is going to see a movie about GUI developers? (Score:5)
I mean, computing was exciting when the personal computer revolution broke out (see Pirates of Silicon Valey), and the Mac was revolutionary (see that famous commercial), but a whole movie about X11 developers?
Where's the drama, getting 600x800 on a new card, making anti-aliasing work? I guess I'm just not geek enough to appreciate this.
George
Re:Chris Claremont (Score:2)
Really? I did not know that! I quit reading the X-Men and Excalibur soon after Claremont left those titles for a career writing (so-so) novels. If he's back to comics again, I might have to pick up some issues. :)
I just wish Chris was getting more credit. I see Stan Lee written in bold letters everywhere, but Stan Lee is not the person who made the X-Men great.
Re:another Katz article coming (Score:2)
I'd wager you'd have more fun with a drinking game...
Take 2 drinks for every time Katz compares Something to Columbine.
Take 1 drink for every time Katz uses the word "Geek"
.. take 2 if it in reference to himself
Take 1 drinks every time he coins his own word
.. take 2 if is not completely defined
.. take 3 if it already exists in a dictionary, and he got it wrong.
Take a drink if an article is a "first in a series"
Take 2 when an article actually stands on its own (except reviews)
Take 1 when Katz declares something to be the biggest possible evil to come along in years
.. Take 2 when the theory behind it is worse than some Art Bell calls.
Take 1 when someone uses summarize on one of his articles
.. take 2 when the summary makes more sense than the article.
finally, take 4 when katz comes down on the troll's level and writes an article about hot breakfast foods, a certain actress, and the process of stripping and petrifying same.
Haven't you people learned anything? (Score:3)
If that's the case, I've just got one simple phrase to remind you of:
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Haven't you people gotten burned by these films more than enough times?
Re:Salon article (slightly OT) (Score:2)
carlos
Can we say "read the article"? (Score:2)
Erik Duserre made it excrutiatingly clear that this was just one comparison that could be drawn, and in fact made reference to the even-more-obvious geek reference. (Among others.) So you don't need to feel too left out 'cause an agenda other than yours happens to get a little attention.
Re:you upset the 12 year old mods (Score:3)
Moderators willing, Shoeboy (my young apprentice) and I are next.
Viva La Hot Grits!
Re:Ridiculous Salon article (Score:2)
I can guarentee I could put you in a room of 50% gay/straight people, and the results of you picking on the gay woulds would be no better than random chance.
I know you're just trolling, but too many people actually DO hold the ignorant bigoted viewpoint expressed here.
(for the record, I don't care much for Streisand or musicals or show-tunes, I can't stand fashion, I can't decorate, I don't lisp, I love professional football, and am a computer geek (naturally). I doubt you'd pick me out of a crowd as being 'gay'...)
- Spryguy
Re:Can we say "read the article"? (Score:2)
Have you read the X-Men? The author of the article didn't have to stretch at all. IIRC, there was at least one issue -- sorry, I don't remember which -- of X-Men that actually pointed out the similarities, I guess for people who'd somehow missed it.
One can easilly find a much more obvious tale of gay-bashing in the classic Alan Moore comic "V for Vendetta".
Um. And? If that ever gets made into a film, someone can write about that. Assuming, of course, that the story isn't "straightened up" by Hollywood.
I got past that part (Score:2)
Re:Drug use is not a genetic characteristic (Score:2)
Only if you mention Robert Heinlein in the same sentence ;)
ps: there is no cabal
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
Heh (Score:4)
Re:Seen "Newsweek" this week? (Score:2)
...
It's a parallel for all of them, plus the geeks, nerds, wiccans, Arab-Americans, you name it -- not one or two specific groups.
Wiccans? Sweet Jesus, nobody hates and fears wiccans. We may laugh at them, but it's the good natured laugh we use for special olympics contestants.
--Shoeboy
Chris Claremont (Score:2)
Stan Lee's a genius whose talents were tuned to the 1960's. Chris Claremont, although seemingly shunned by the comic book companies these days, is just as much a genius with a more contemporary talent.
Re:Drug use is not a genetic characteristic (Score:2)
Hmmm... most people have a "moral crusade" against the group of people that practice killing other humans for any random reason. I certainly perceive that type of person to be different.
I think you've got it backwards. You seem to think that someone brands another as "evil" as a consequence of non-normalcy. But more often, I think it's the other way around. Some person thinks that some other person's behavour is evil, and that the consequence for that evil behavour is that the practicer should not be considered normal.
The point that the previous poster was making is that persecution of someone due to a trait that they are born with, that they have no choice in having to deal with, is wrong. But when it comes to something that is a choice, it's not cut and dry. Some things we all agree are bad choices and should be stopped (e.g. murder), while others are legitimate choices and choosing them is not wrong, therefore, persecuting them is wrong (e.g. my preference for chocolate chip cookies).
I don't agree with murder. Does that make me a fascist? The answer might very well be yes. If it is, then there must be good fascism (the kind that forbids murder) and bad fascism (the kind that forbids certain skin colors). But if there is a good kind of fascism, then falling into fascism isn't necessarily bad.
Now, personally, I don't think there is a good fascism. So, consequently, I don't think that forbidding murder is fascist. Which means I also think that I don't think you're falling into fascism if you disagree with someone, and forbid their behavour.
The point that I'm trying to make is that if you truly believed that something was evil, you would do everything in your power to suppress that thing. I know that I would. Which means that we're generally agreed on what we should suppress: evil. But we're not sure that we agree on what is and isn't evil. So the discussion needs to turn not to how we react to evil, but what is or isn't evil and why it is or isn't.
I do agree with one of your points, though. How exactly to determine whether or not some traits are inherited can be difficult. Other traits are not difficult to determine that they're inherited. The color of one's skin is clearly inherited, whereas the best we can say with homosexuality is that it might be.
Re:Seen "Newsweek" this week? (Score:2)
Really? Thought he had a one-nighter with Vicki Vail (or what was her name... newspaper reporter that Michael Keaton banged in the first movie?)
ok... (Score:2)
So I agree with you when you say that there is nothing inherently evil by its nature, because evil has no nature.
THe way that evil has to be defined in this context is that it is the absence of a good that should be there.
The reason that I would say that Interfering with someones self-autonomy is that this is removing one of the essences of humanity.
From a philosophical standpoint, humanity is defined as possessing free-will and intellect. Both of these are "Good"
If you use your free will to interfere with my free will, you are doing an evil thing, because you are removing a good that should be there.
Of course, this interference has to be looked at in its own context. If you are interfering with me climbing up into a bell tower and shooting people, then the interference is probably a good thing (tm)
anyway... gotta love when the Jesuit schooling comes out to play...
Re:No Rational Counterargument? Invoke Hitler. (Score:2)
As every person on the planet capable of sentient thought has opinions, that might be a good idea.
If you were joking I apologize for not picking up on it. (In this case the smiley would have been helpful). To be honest, I found the initial post you replied to a little arrogant, and his choice of terminology (homo superior) left something to be desired perhaps, but
There are so many knee-jerk reactions of the kind your post (imitated?) that seek to silence discussions of controversial topics (and there is little that is more controversial, or stirrs up emotions more, than eugenics). I dislike it when subjects are made taboo for discussion, and invoking Adolf Hitler is a very common means of doing just that.
As in this case, when that happens I often find myself arguing a point of view I may not agree with, simply to counter the tendency in our society to not discuss or argue the point at all.
Seen "Newsweek" this week? (Score:5)
One caveat about the salon.com article, however. The X-Men have always been about prejudice and living in a world that "hates and fears" you for being different. This has long had an appeal for teens and young adults who have felt like they were out of the mainstream for any reason, but the article seems to suggest that it's intended specifically as a parallel for Jews, or blacks, or homosexuals. It's not. It's a parallel for all of them, plus the geeks, nerds, wiccans, Arab-Americans, you name it -- not one or two specific groups. If you've ever felt like people didn't want "people like you" around, for any reason, then you can relate.
Re:If only Apple had gambled like IBM (Score:3)
"... That probably would have sounded more commanding if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas..."
-Buffy Summers
Goodbye Iowa
Re:While we're at it --The X-Men page (Score:2)
Another (Better Written) Review (Score:2)
James Berardinelli has his review [colossus.net] available on the Reelviews [reelviews.net] web site.
For those not familiar with Berardinell, he's one of the internet's finest and most prolific film critics.
another Katz article coming (Score:5)
I give hime a week.
Re:What about the sequel? (Score:2)
Starring Jane Y-Man?
No inspiration? (Score:2)
So whats the matter anyway? Aren't the cartoons suddenly not good enough for them anymore? If they really cared that much for the whole cartoon concept these people would finance the work for a major cartoon, movie like, of this issue. Instead they setup a complete cast with life actors hoping to make a small fortune with IMVHO other peoples ideas and work. And yes, IMHO this sucks.
I don't like my nephew humming the 'flintstone song' then I mean Hanna Barbara, I don't like to see Dr. Claw's face because Disney smelled money and I certainly do not like to get reminded to Captain Picard when I want to see and experience Charles Exavier.
hmmm... (Score:5)
Hmmm... replace "Mutant" with "Drug User", and you pretty much have the drug war.
Or Replace "Mutant" with "Homosexual"
Or for "Violent Video Gamer"
This movie is shaping up to be a large socio-political statement. I hope that people can see the insanity in the movie and apply it to real life.
Look at this list of warning signs [mutantwatch.com] that your child may be a mutant. They seem to mirror the warning signs that your child may be using drugs, depressed, violent, whatever...
I am always amazed at the deep social commentary that is intentionally placed into art that most people overlook. What better way to raise awareness on how we treat our kids than in a comic-book styled movie? Seems harmless enough, but the messages are there, just slightly hidden.
Re:Salon article (Score:2)
Well, my reflexes are abnormally dull because I was never allowed to practice kickball with the other kids during recess, and as a result I nearly rear-ended an SUV on I-94 last summer. The driver of that vehicle was clearly of the stick-the-lawyers-let's-resolve-this-here-and-now variety. Does that count?
I don't understand... (Score:2)
Jack
Can we say "prism"? (Score:4)
I think it is a safe bet that sometime next week Jon Katz will be writing another "Hellmouth" type story where he tells us that the X-Men mutants are really computer geeks.
Re:Can't we just enjoy a movie anymore...? (Score:2)
However, I also think you'll find that things are more entertaining when they do have some sort of deeper meaning. This doesn't mean you have to overtly look for it. And, in fact, it is often better if you don't. Fiction is aimed at intuition, not intellect, and should be appreciated as such.
Re:No Rational Counterargument? Invoke Hitler. (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, evolution must be presented as an "unproven theory among other theories".
It's not as if Kansas bio teachers are standing in front of the class quoting Genesis, but don't dismiss how important the ruling is.
-B
The comic tv series (Score:2)
On a note about the trailers, I feel like I have seen half the movie already. THere are 4 or 5 trailers out there and they show some hot action. Never the less, my team is going to see the X-men this friday when it opens :-). I really wonder how many copies of this movie area already floating around on the net bootlegged even though the movie is not out yet.
send flames > /dev/null
Cypher (Score:2)
Re:Patrick Stewart (Score:2)
jar jar? (Score:5)
maybe they will make wolverine talk in baby talk or something... please, PLEASE dont mess this up
-thinkpol
Appealing to all the mutants (Score:3)
This is great from a marketing perspective. We can all grasp on to our own alienation (whatever the reasons) and feel close to the X-men. Then, we can imagine ourselves with super cool mutant powers =D How can you beat that?
I wonder if the movie managed to capture this sense. I haven't seen it yet, I hope it appeals to geeks and queers.
On a last note....I still wonder what happened to Cypher of X-Factor. I stopped reading shortly after he died. For those who don't remember, Cypher's mutant power was the ability to speak any language. This included the ability to communicate very well with computers. He died, but there was always a hint that he might be resurrected, through the alien man-machine Warlock. Cypher was a mutant hacker geek, anyone know if he ever came back?
Truffle
Re:Haven't you people learned anything? (Score:2)
-B
Re:What about the sequel? (Score:2)
Right, he should have said the sequel would be called
NeWS-men
George
Thank you for illustraiting my point (Score:2)
I am extremely well educated, thank you.
Perhaps you should polish your reading skills. I said that there were economic incentives built into the welfare system that encourage those unable to provide for themselves to have more children, I did not anywhere in my post say that people on welfare were the only ones having more children. Taking various demographic groups, Mormons and Catholics are two other groups with prolific breeding habits which come to mind. Welfare recipients are a third group which does, on average, have more than the national average of 2.x children. AFAIK they are the only group receiving active, finanical incentives to do so.
This is exactly the kind of stuff that resulted in millions of cripples/gays/gypsies/jews being killed because they were considered to be weakening the gene pool by breeding faster and being a burden on society.
No, it isn't. Racial, ethnic, and social hatreds and prejudices led to the barbarism and genocide of world war II. Eugenics were merely a rhetorical point used in propoganda to promote the notion that such abominations were OK.
I'll say it again.
Breeding != Killing.
Eugenics != Genocide.
Thank you though, for illustrating my point about "taboo subjects for discussion" so brilliantly. Your use of ad hominim attacks and comparisons to Nazis, as well as your predictable invocation of the holocaust, in an effort to silence even the discussion of Eugenics and human breeding patterns, implying that the very concepts and discussions themselves led directly to such an atrocity (which coudn't be further from the truth) couldn't have made a better example if I'd written it myself.
(And yes, once again I'm arguing a stance I don't really agree with, because I agree with your effort to silence it even less.)
Re:Can't we just enjoy a movie anymore...? (Score:2)
If you'd really been paying attention while
reading the X-Men, you'd know that this kind of
aspect has pretty much already been there,
certainly since Chris Claremont started
writing it. Myself, I'm glad that the people
making this movie played up the "oppressed
mutant struggle" jazz a bit, rather than just
doing another action flick.
Character, plot and action are only parts of
the storyline.
Re:No Rational Counterargument? Invoke Hitler. (Score:2)
IBM stuff was inherently open... (Score:2)
Add in that the peripheral and software markets were open, meaning that the necessary interfaces were documented, including every function of the BIOS. So now you've got the CPU, the OS, the peripherals, the firmware, and the specifications for how it connects to everything. Reverse-engineering is too strong a term for most of what the people had to do to clone the PC.
Basically, you just had to recreate the motherboard chipset (for which you practically had the functional spec already) and you could buy the rest of the components on the open market for the same price IBM pays, and then your computer could take advantage of all the software written for the IBM PC.
If you wanted to clone an Apple, you had to clone everything, and to get your hands on the specs, you had to sign agreements not to use it for anything nasty like cloning (not quite as nasty as some other agreements, though, like Nintendo's infamous agreement that NES developers couldn't make games for competing systems).
While IBM took the grab-bag approach of "we'll make it so if we screw anything up, you can swap in a better part", Apple (with the Mac series) took the tightly-integrated approach of "we'll make it right the first time". Basically, it's the original computer example of the Cathedral vs. the Bazaar. Actually, though, there were a dozen different "Cathedral" models (Apple, Amiga, Atari, Commodore, TRS, etc.) vs. one basically unintentional "Bazaar" (IBM figured they were good enough to smother all competition, so they felt confident that they could bring their half-assed entry up to speed with a modular upgrade approach, after they decided whether people really wanted these newfangled "micro-computers").
Re:Salon article (Score:2)
Nerds and geeks get picked on because they refuse to play along with the popularity game. They still bang away on their computers, video games and scifi collections. The same old tape-on-hornrim-glasses and high-water pants reappears in movies and commercials like a bad joke that just isn't funny anymore but won't go away.
When was the last time you picked up a copy of a newspaper, national news magazine, i.e. Newsweek or Time, turned on ABC or CBS and saw a Jewish person depicted as a hook-nosed, moneygrubbing, shylock? Or a black person as an ignorant, babbling pickananny? Or a homosexual as flaming, flamboyant swish? 20 years? 30 years? Longer?
And when was the last time you saw an ad depicting a computer friendly individual (geek) as wearing plaid pants, a pocket protector, broken hornrim glasses and a big stupid grin? I received an ad for some telecom magazine with that very character on the cover just last week.
See, the other groups who to this very day scream about being victims at the slightest provocation fail to realize just how much power they have. Power in both the media and politics as players and as an audience.
Geeks on the other hand do not stand around calling themselves victims and demand "fair and greater than equal rights". Rather, they are steadily building a new society in which they have jumped from the lowest strata to the highest simply through accomplishment.
Am I a geek? I hope so. We are quickly becoming the real "homo superior" and those other "victims"? Unless they drop their pretenses and get on board, they will be left behind with the 20th century like corsets were in the last.
Re:another Katz article coming (Score:3)
You're on to something with the betting thing. I think you should be able to wager karma points on the word count over/under and be able to place side bets on the occurence of phrases like "Post-Columbine".
-B
ALERT: Rebellion timetable! (Score:2)
Now that CT has foolishly announced his schedule, you all know what to do. ;-)
Re:Seen "Newsweek" this week? (Score:2)
Did you read the article, or just scan it?
I believe the author isn't going overboard with his assertions about the X-Men being a good allegory for the discrimination that <insert-minority-here> faces in the world today. He states, rather clearly, that he is looking at this from a gay perspective, and also states that it also works as a statement for all sorts of violence and hate aimed at those that are different.
I do take a little umbrage at the "Open Secret of Batman and Robin" crack, though.. Bruce Wayne had plenty of girlfriends.. He just never slept with.. Erm.. Hm.. There are some things you just wish you could unhear.. Now I can't help but think 'Bruce Wayne, pedophile'.
Re:White King? (Score:2)
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
While we're at it --The X-Men page (Score:4)
Well, everybody's been to the Mutant Watch [mutantwatch.com] site, but I wonder how many enrolled themselves at the Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters [x-men-the-movie.com].
I did back when it was first announced. (Warning for those with less than lightning-fast net connections: this is a resourece-hog flash-heavy site). The quiz was cool, and I got a mutant ID and everything (I have enhanced physiology, enhanced senses, rapid healing, and possible structural implants - I wonder which X-man that was templated from). However, when I got to the "training" portion, I can only do the first exercise. Levels two and three tell me "Insufficient training to receive clearance. Your mutant abilities need time to develop. //Try to gain access again next week."
Am I a tremendous lamer, or have they just not fully implemented the site? Has anyone else gone further? For that matter, did we all get the same mutant ability, or did they actually bother to vary it. I know the Mutant Watch site id's you as a potential mutant no matter what you reply.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Unless the demographic you're talking about is 23-year-old computer geeks with no girlfriend. We seem to have a lot of money lying around.
In addition, due to X-Men's age as a comic, I suspect that the target audience spreads up into the thirty-year-olds.
Cypher... (Score:3)
They buried him, and when Warlock died in the beginning of the X-Tinction Agenda (I think) they placed his T-O ashes on Doug's grave.
And that was fine.
Then Marvel couldn't leave well enough alone, and brough Douglock into being, as a concatenation of Doug and Warlock, made into a new techno-organic being.
It's a long, sad, painful story, and not one of Marvel's brightest ideas.
Redhawk, X-fan.
Re:Appealing to all the mutants (Score:3)
I hate to be a pain in the ass (okay, that's a lie) but if they said it was all about queers and it's really about everyone disenfranchised (which I agree with) then they missed it by a fucking mile.
As someone said above, it's a prism effect, or polarization more like; You only see the light coming in that passes through your filter. In this case, it was rose-colored, but to the computer geeks, it's raytraced and volumetric...
The thing about X-Men that I think made it so successful is that it has such a broad range of characters which actually went through some serious development. I mean, every comic book these days has characters who come from a broad range of backgrounds, but they usually feel like the same person, copied and deformed into different shapes, and then with a new background story. Big whoop. X-Men ran long enough to where it had to spend time on character development, because even comic book geeks get bored with a series that's one big fight scene.
I'm praying that that stupid review which needed spoiler warnings (I don't know the X-Men stories all that well, at least not over the long time span, so I'd prefer not to have too much of this stuff told to me before I go see it) was correct and that the movie does come off well. I doubt that they'd cast a complete bozo to play Wolvie, so there's some hope there. And of course, there's always the Tit Factor to fall back on.
Re:Patrick Stewart (Score:2)
You didn't think Christopher Walken could handle a sword and axe like that, did you?
MPAA makes me want to smoke crack... (Score:5)
I'd say supporting the major studios this way would be "selling out", but we're actually paying cash money for the chance to piss away our fair use rights (and maybe, possibly, get 2 hours of escapist amusement).
Have fun at the movies!
-Isaac
Saw the sneak preview last night!!!! (Score:5)
Only problem, it was too short. I clocked it at around 1.5 hours. I didn't really notice that it was too short though, which is a testament to how great this movie was. The actor which plays Logan/Wolverine must have REALLY read the comics. He had the character down to a tee. The special effects had me wanting more and more. Best way to describe them is 'The Matrix' but, as hard as it may seem, I felt these effects were usually more believable.
Rogue runs away from home to Canada after draining a dude that kissed her. He was in a coma for a week. She heads up north and runs into our favorite Canadian mutant (at least mine that is) Wolvie. Wolvie's fighting in a bar (presumably to make some cash) and kicking everyones ass of course. Rogue seems drawn to him and warns Logan of a guy who's about to stab him. Wolvie cleans up shop again and heads down the road (with an uninvited Rogue hiding in the trailer pulling his cycle.)
Rogue begins to lecture Wolvie that he should be wearing his seatbelt when they have a little encounter with Sabretooth. Fight ensues, Wolvie gets knocked out. Storm and Cyclops show up and kick Sabretooth's ass. Wolvie wakes up in the Mansion. He's a little disoriented, since he's waking up in a strange place and almost takes Jean Grey's head off. Xavier guides him into his office using that old TP ability of his. That's telepathic of course. Xavier encourages Wolvie to join them, at least for 48 hours, and he'll help Wolvie find out about his past. Wolvie takes him up on the offer.
That night, Wolvie has a nightmare about his past. Unfortunatly, Rogue decides to try and comfort him. You see, she has a big crush on him. Well, as one can imagine, you don't go waking up a guy with adamantite claws unless you want them poking through your chest and out the back. To save herself, Rogue touches him and drains his healing factor for a few minutes. So, while Wolvie's knocked out again for a while, the sexy blue babe Mystique shows up in disguise. She wires Cebrero up the wrong way (to take out Xavier) and poses as a VERY young Iceman to convince Rogue that she's not wanted there by the X-Men. Of course, she leaves crying for the train station.
At the train station, Magneto and Toad and Mystique clean up shop and kidnap Rogue. Time to mount an offensive and get her back. But where can she be? Let's use Cerebro and find out! *ZAP BAM* Xavier's gone, at least temporarily. Jean fixes Cerebro back and uses it to find Rogue at the Statue of Liberty. Magneto's gonna use her to power a machine he built which induces a mutation in non-mutants. Unfortunatly, it would kill Magneto to use it so... he'll just give his power to Rogue and kill her instead.
X-Men can't let this happen of course, so they're off to the statue. Toad intercepts them when they arrive and pretty much single handely mops the floor with them for a good 15 mins or so. Well, Mystique is there too but she's busy with Wolvie. Wolvie decides that a few well places claws through her stomach should probably do the trick. Mystique's out for the count. Meanwhile, Storm wakes back up and is extremely pissed off. She zaps Toad with lightning and we get to see him learn how to fly... well, at least for about 15 seconds. Just when it looks like the heros are gonna have an easy time of this, Magneto decides to step in. Wolvie warns them to run, because he finds himself suddenly stuck to the floor. Unfortunatly, they didn't head his advice and they all (yes all) got pinnned to the inside of the Statue's torch. Just to make sure that Wolvie didn't try anything, he positioned his claws pointed at Wolvies neck. Of course, Magneto then leaves to start the mutant weapon.
Meanwhile, Wolvie has promised Rogue that he'll watch after her. So, he does what anyone with an extremely fast healing factor and adamantite claws would do. He slits his own throat but breaks out of the bonds holding him to the Torch. In the time that it take him to recover, Magneto get his ability passed off to Rogue. She cries and screams of course but she can't escape her bonds. Sabretooth and Wolvie have a huge battle and Wolvie wins with Cyclops help. Wolvie frees the rest of the X-Men and gets flown up to the weapon with Storm and Jean Gray's help. Big struggle with Magneto using the fact that Wolvie is mostly metal against him. Cyclops and the rest of the X-Men are still in the Torch but he's getting a bead on the machine. Just as the mutant evil ray beam is about to hit Manhatten, Cyclops blows it up and Wolvie frees Rogue, who develops a white streak in her hair to match the comic. There's much rejoicing as Rogue drains Wolvie again to heal her wounds. They head back to the mansion.
Xavier is back to normal, and tells Wolvie of a military base up in Canada he should check out. Wolvie leads and gets a sad farewell from Rogue. He hands her his dogtags which say 'Wolverine' on them. Xavier makes a visit to Magneto who is now in a plastic jail.
The end!!!
A quick question for the die-hard fans.... (Score:2)
Garth's Review (Dark Horizons) -- 9/10... (Score:4)
Neat-o interviews at CountingDown.com (Score:2)
Ham on rye, hold the mayo please.
What's up with all of the gay stuff in that review (Score:2)
The X-Men aren't so great because of any thinly veiled homosexual persecution metaphors. They are so big because they're entertaining. They appeal to many types of kids (and adults), not just ones with a sexual identity problem.
At one point or another ALL people have been on the wrong end of persecution. I think that is a part of the appeal.
LK
Re:Haven't you people learned anything? (Score:2)
The Sequel (Score:3)
Don't even get me started on the rumored conclusion to the trilogy: The X11 Men where the mutants take on the evil Microsoft Empire.
Kevin Fox
Don't watch the X-Men Movie if you support DeCSS! (Score:3)
X-Men: 20th Century Fox, plaintiff in DeCSS lawsuit
I wish I could see this movie, but I don't think I will, not paying money, anyway. If I do, it will be with a sad heart. It hurts to be a conscious consumer sometimes.
Maybe I can make up for it with my DeCSS page [fortunecity.com]. Or maybe not.
Re:Drug use is not a genetic characteristic (Score:4)
The comparison is not to the genetic characteristic, it is the comaprison to the "moral crusade" against any group of people that is perceived to be different.
That includes Homosexuality, Drug Use, Violent Video Games, whatever... Society as a whole has decided to brand these people as "EVIL" because they do not fit in to the norm of society.
There is NOTHING inherently evil about any of the activities that there are insane movements against. Nothing. Drugs are Drugs.. they arent good or evil, they just are. Video games are just games.
But once you start persecuting a subculture because they are not normal, or doing things that you simply do no agree with, you are falling into fascism.
It could be easily said that being "Jewish" isnt hereditary, and that you could consider this a "changeable human property", but that didnt stop 7 million people from being slaughtered.
Damnit... I've brought up a Nazi comparison... according to Usenet rules, that makes this thread pretty much dead, doesnt it?
Re:ex-men (Score:2)