X2 - Treatment of Violence

[fuzzy_nolan]

I'm noticed a bit of a trend beginning with X2. In the past, it's been the norm for the grunts in comic books adaptations to be humanely disposed of, usually by being humorously knocked unconscious. For evidence, look no further than the training montage in Spider-Man. It's the same case with Daredevil and even the first X-Men to some extent, where Singer couldn't even bring himself to kill off bad guys that weren't returning e.g. Sabretooth & Toad. I supposed that the rationale goes that the 'grunts' mercy' will make the ultimate destruction of the arch-nemesis that much more powerful. It also allows no feelings of sympathy for the bad guys, a la the steamrolled henchman in Austin Powers.

Yet all this appears to be coming to an end with X2. Within the film, we see Wolverine brutally (and I mean brutally) despose of a goodly number of bad guys with his adamantium claws when Stryker's force invades the X-Mansion. Similarly when Magneto 'pulls the pin' on the soldier blokes guarding the Bizarro Cerebro. It this sort of brutality that's going against the trend.

On the other hand, when Pyro goes berserker in Boston after Wolverine gets shot and blasts a couple of cops, Singer carefully includes a shot of one of the cops peering over a hedge with an intact, albeit singed, head. Is this a sign of indecision on Singer's part? Is Wolverine with his 'boiling kettle' routine the only one allowed to kill people?

Any thoughts?

[Ilker81x]

I think it has to do with people's expectations of certain characters. In the X-Men comics, we are repeatedly treated to signs of Wolverine and Magneto killing people, albeit mostly implied in shadows and darkness. The blood is kept to a relative minimum. I can't say this about Pyro because I've only read some of the comics and I don't know whether Pyro was as brutal, but in the comics those two characters demonstrated a distinct primal instinct to kill.

I think in "X2" the director realized that for people to truly accept Wolverine as a dangerous animalistic, yet human (mutant, but still human) character, he had to treat us to what we always wanted to see. Wolverine is known to be a kind soul at heart, but when it comes to getting the job done, he cuts right to it (no pun intended). The children are threatened, the mansion is under attack, there's no reason to suggest that Wolverine would be careful to leave them alive. His animal instincts came into play, and it's a quality in the character that was always implied but never fully revealed until now. As for Magneto, I think it's a similar dilemma...his drive towards self-preservation and the preservation of his "race" was always strong in the comics, and he never had a problem killing...here, we finally see it in full swing. If the guard has too much iron in his blood, Magneto will not pass up a clear if brutal opportunity to use that to his advantage. Same with the guards' grenades...why pass up the advantage if you have it? Wolverine and Magneto are two characters with a clear set of morals that deviates from that of the rest of the characters. Xavier's message is that of peace and harmony, thus Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm, all of them are taught that life is precious and that violence will solve nothing unless it is absolutely necessary.

In the case of Pyro, I think for the movie's pacing, Pyro was shown more as a rebel on the road to becoming a villian, but without demonstrating that primal instinct to kill yet. Plus, he's only a teenager in the movie...it does not bode well with audiences to have a teenager killing people. There's also the argument that he was still a student of Xavier's, so that moral sense against killing was still prevalent in his thinking, even if he was somewhat rebellious to the authority. I don't think it was Bryan Singer's indecision, I think it was recognizing what kind of characters he's dealing with. Pyro's character is a young arsonist, but he's not a killer...yet. Wolverine and Magneto ARE killers...and we get to see that finally.

On the issue of violence in movies based on comic books, I think it's admirable when a director takes it upon himself to up the ante and make it more violent than it was ever allowed to be. Case in point, "The Punisher." Granted a bad B-movie, but Dolph Lundgren was the perfect Punisher, and the movie I think actually captured the essence of that comic, a one-dimensional killer with a narrow view of justice. Bigger guns, more bullets, lots of blood...just as The Punisher was meant to imply, but never really had the chance to be in the books...but in the movie, he didn't think twice about killing, and in the most violent way possible. It feeds the sense of bloodlust that is inherent in certain audiences, and it satisfies the comic afficionados who like to believe that the comic is more mature than it is.

I find myself hoping that if they did make a movie about "Ghost Rider" that they would not play it safe and they would allow Ghost Rider to be as brutal in the movie as we always imagine him to be in the comics. That's the issue of comics...there's only so much violence that can be shown, thus giving the sense of more, but without seeing it. People WANT to see it. They want to see their characters kicking some severe ass! I've always wanted to see Wolverine just slashing away at a brigade of soldiers, showing no mercy...in "X2" I was very satisfied.

[tabuno]

With today's world as it is, too much violence and blood-letting is an unfortunate sign of the times and our brutal American society. But as with any country struggling to grow up, our global world has only been around a few thousand years. But it seems that is what men still respond to best (see how Iraq and Middle East and Korea are playing out). I would have preferred to see Hitchcockian approach to indirect, implied horror like Psycho but such direction is far too difficult nowadays for the fast action crowd (though it would probably save millions in production costs).

[Ilker81x]

I will agree tabuno that there is too much violence and it's a sign of the times, and it would be far more stylish and psychologically horrific to approach the violence from a Hitchcockian standpoint of not showing everything, but implying it. Good point that it would save money...but one must also remember that is a comic book movie, thus it is an action movie. I've yet to see a comic book movie that isn't inherently an action movie (with the exception of "Road to Perdition" which was basically a drama with some action). While it would be a good artistic touch to apply the implied violence instead of the explicit, it would defeat the purpose of the movie as a comic book action movie. If "X2" was brand new, from scratch, not based on a comic, I'd agree...but comics are basically just drawn action, so...I don't mind that "X2" had quite a lot of violence. If we're talking about something else like "XXX" on the other hand, I'd definitely agree.

[HorseradishTree]

Here we go again on comics...

While a comic-book movie should be able to throw in some new ideas to the fray, there are still some concepts that really should not be violated. Wolverine's killing sprees were a shock to me, as even though the guy has always been a killer, he usually just won't go berserk on anyone and everyone like the scene at the mansion. *sigh*, Just thought I should insert a fanboy's input.

And by the way, Fuzzy, the actor that played Sabretooth in the first film has signed a contract for not one, but TWO more X flicks.

Mr. Ilker sir, your comments were a little hasty on non-action comic books. From Hell was a graphic novel written by Alan Moore. Ghost World was a fairly successful little film, originally a comic mini-series. American Splendor is out now, about a depressed file clerk writing comics. And let's all not forget George Lucas' ill-fated Howard the Duck, a Marvel comic line.

Coming Comic Pictures:

Ghost Rider is currently being written by writer/director Mark Steven Johnson (Daredevil).

Hellboy is being shot in Prague by Guillermo Del Toro (Blade II) and stars Ron Perlman and Selma Blair.

The inevitable Spider-Man 2 is currently being shot. Once again, Sam Raimi is directing and Alfred Molina will be portraying Dr. Otto Octavius.

There's a big rumor that I'm pretty sure is true about another Batman flick. It will apparently be directed by Christopher Nolan of Memento fame and Guy Pearce is in the running to play the title character.

Superman is going all over the place. Directors are stepping in and stepping out, and countless scrawny celebrities are jumping in and out of the running for the part of Superman. However, this baby's going to get out eventually.

Finally, Iron Man (incidentally my favorite Marvel character) is being written by Smallville creators Miles Millar and Alfred Gough. Apparently Miramax really wants to go ahead with this sucker.

Wow, that was a long rambling. I'll just shut up now...

[Ilker81x]

First of all, "Superman" HAS been done, and very well I might add. Christopher Reeve WAS Superman. He had the look and the height (if not the build, but really...who does have that build AND acting ability?). Okay, so Gene Hackman for all his bravado and his "greatest criminal mind of our time" bantor was the best Lex Luthor, but it was still a great movie. Hell, even the second one was good. "Batman," has been done too many times, and I don't wish to see it butchered anymore. Tim Burton got it right, that was enough. I don't wish to see Christopher Nolan attempt to make a new version of it, nor do I wish to see Darren Aranofsky try it either (the other big "Batman" rumor). And even then, both were action-oriented, it just depends on which series you read, but both are very much in the frame of action comics. One has a more humanistic side to it, "Superman" always fighting for truth and justice, while "Batman" has a morbid gothic quality to it, but both inherently have a lot of action in them. At the time the movies were made, there was not so much emphasis on action as much as having a story. As for "From Hell" and the other titles you mentioned...I've heard of "From Hell," and that was not action-oriented, but violence-oriented. That was a horror comic, not an action comic like "X-Men" or "Batman." Okay, yes I was a little hasty, but I've never heard of the other titles you mentioned, comic or film (so I'll have to check them out, but last I checked they're not on the top list of Hollywood blockbusters...that's what I'm talking about). And then there's the film version of "30 Days of Night" being worked on, which will be all about violence and horror since it's just about one of the bloodiest vampire comics ever done, so I hope it's done right. These days, action sells, and since most famous comics are inherently action-based, that's the element that will sell. As for Wolverine, what're you nuts? I've read almost EVERY Wolverine comic out there, from his placement in X-Men to his solo series, to quite a few guest appearances. Part of his nature is to go berzerk when needs be. What, you never read the "Omega Red" series, X-Men issues 4-8? He went berzerk quite a few times in that series, killing away and slashing a few people, Jim Lee even drew one dead guard with slash marks all across his scalp. It was shocking to me to see it in the movie because it was what I always wanted to see from Wolvering, and it was done quite well. He was NOT violated, he was given his just due. That was EXACTLY as Wolverine should be, and if you don't think so, I recommend going back and rereading every comic Wolverine's ever been in. God knows if it weren't for The Comics Code Marvel adhered to, Wolverine would be as bloody a comic as any indie book ever made. As for "Ghost Rider," as long as they do justice and don't pussy him up. He's a rather brutal character, even though he doesn't always kill, between that penance stare of his and his method of punishment, he's still very brutal. If they do make a movie of him, I'd hope that they do NOT back down. "Hellboy" I know nothing about. And "Howard the Duck" is a stupid comic anyway, so the movie was just as stupid, and even THAT was action-oriented. Lets face it, the climax of that movie is him fighting a giant alien demon overlord with a laser cannon, I think it was called "The Neutron Disintegrator," if I remember correctly (which I'm sorry to say I do). I'm sorry, but if that doesn't scream action, I don't know what does. As for "Iron Man," I never read him, so I don't know anything about him either. All I can say is in this day and age, comic book movies are going to emphasize more action and violence than they used to when "Superman" and even "Batman" were being made. Back then, they cared about good stories. These days, they still do, but it seems secondary to the action. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of "X-Men" and "X2" it works exceedingly well because that is what was always implied in the books but never shown, and I'll bet you almost half the time it wasn't shown not because of a respect to the Hitchcockian method of implying violence but because they simply were not allowed to. As for story-based comics without action, even then they have a share of violence...and if they don't, they're probably very cheesy. I mean, who honestly wants to see a movie about Archie? And I eve heard they're making a movie of Garfield, which...I would love to see because Garfield was my hero as a kid...but at the same time, what could the plot of th movie possibly be without making it just a campy kid's movie? Family movies are one thing, but these days most people's idea of a family movie is something dumbed down to a five-year-old's intellectual level, to the point where it's funny to the adult not because it's enjoyable but because it's bad. That's just my opinion though, but...whatever.

[HorseradishTree]

Hmm, I guess you're right about old Logan. I used to collect his series, but recently it's just gotten dumb and dramatic. That's why I'm mostly reading DC and CrossGen now. Oh man, I realized there's even more comic movies than I mentioned, so here's some more:

Catwoman will star Halle Berry, and Ed Solomon is the latest to pick up the script.

I'm sure you've all seen the teaser trailer for The Punisher , with Frank Castle's character played by someone I can't remember. John Travolta will be in it, as well as Stanley Bumpo and possibly even Rebecca Romijn Stamos.

Francis Lawrence will be directing Hellblazer , a comic of the Vertigo line originally written by Alan Moore. Unfortuneately, Keanu Reeves is to star.

Mark Frost is writing a script for Fantastic Four , which in my opinion is too old-school for today's audience.

Ack, Dad's heckling me to get off, so I'll continue my ramblings tomorrow.

[tabuno]

Garfield will be a cynical as well as grown up humorous, entertaining movie that will attract both children and adults. It has that indirect, dry humor that can capture the basic, adult intellect and still provide the childish glee of man's lazy nature...who wouldn't want to go see something that really has its pulse of the real American male. Women will gloat over its simple minded asses that men and male cats can be.

[Ilker81x]

The new Punisher is going to be played by Thomas Jane, who was most recently seen in "Dreamcatcher," he was the one who survived (not the one who got possessed). I hear he's gained a lot of muscle in order to play the Punisher, but I'm still skeptical. I've seen him in two of my favorite B-movies as a wimp who got beaten up and ultimately killed (those movies being "Nemesis," as a horny LAPD spy, and in "The Crow: City of Angels" as a horny wig-wearing perverted voyeur). Muscle or no, I just can't imagine this guy as Frank Castle. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong, but I say it's useless because Dolph Lundgren's portrayal was perfect, that movie for all its B-grade action and violence was perfect because that is essentially what "The Punisher" is about. I just think there's no point, but...it's a franchise that's selling well, so let 'em.

As for "Hellblazer," I'm curious to see that, even if Keanu Reeves is in it, I really have nothing against him, just when he does British accents (a la "Bram Stoker's Dracula"), then I want him dead. Otherwise, I think a comic book movie is right up his alley of not being the most intellectual of Hollywood actors. I also just recently saw previews for "Underworld." Looks like your typical Matrix-inspired violence-and-action-fest with an ultra-hot oddly dark and gothic female lead. Hey, if it sells. i'll certainly see it, I'm just not going to expect too much intelligence. I'll agree "Fantastic Four" is a little old, but I think there's a good percentage of fans who will want to see it for nostalgic value, and some of the newer fans will want to see an updated version of that series. Maybe, maybe not. I personally am not interested, nor am I interested in a movie about "Catwoman." If you're going to do a movie about her, I say The Joker should get his own movie and Jack Nicholson should star.

As for "Garfield," I've always loved the cartoon, but a good amount of its appeal is also Lorenzo Music's voice. Sadly, I've just found out that he has passed away some time ago, but the man had that wonderfully cynical and strangely monotone voice. It seems weird to think this, but I have a weird feeling Stephen Wright would be cast (or at least considered) as the voice of Garfield if there was a live action movie. I love "Garfield"'s humor and yes it does appeal to both kids and adults, but as a live action movie? I don't see the point. And I don't think it's a male thing either. Most of my friends who are women LOVE Garfield and have made statements that if he were human, they'd date him. Then again, I have some psychotic friends, *shrug*. I dunno, I'll still see it, but I'd rather they keep "Garfield" animated.

[tabuno]

A real live Garfield without animation? Hm...risky. If they can somehow transform this movie into a Who Framed Roger Rabbit maybe it could work. If we could only get the real cartoonist in the movie now that would be something. I wouldn't mind seeing real lasagna.