Saw a midnite of it. I am not an avid comic book fan, so I have to say it was a GREAT movie. I loved it. There was a little less plot and character development than the first and I was significantly disappointed that NightCrawler wasn't in it.

It is definitely worth the money for a theater viewing. No question.

One thing I don't get is why huge comic fans go and see the movie versions of the comics they love. They, without fail, complain about how it sucked because it wasn't anything like the story. I want to slap them because they are also the freaks that dress up like characters from the story. It's as though they go just to complain about it. I'll put this into the category of things I will never understand(also in this category are things like Built To Spill lyrics).

Whether it's graphic or not, the book is usually better the movie based off it. This is the general rule, but exceptions (LotR) certainly exist. There's always a hope that the next book-based movie you see might be an exception.

Liked X-Men comics back in the day (Mutant Massacre/X-Factor time frame) and love the first two movies.

X2 is my favorite comic book movie of all time. I'm one of the huge comic fans who is sensible enough to realise that, when you're making a two hour movie based on a series that has been around for forty years, there's going to have to be some liberties taken. They're going to want to modernize the story. They're going to want to pare down certain characters who might have been huge back then but were written off twenty years ago.

I'll admit that there's certain things that will still irk me. When I read that Venom might be in Spider-Man 3, I was so pissed off but it still hasn't been officially confirmed yet. And things like the Goblin's costume in the first movie but that wasn't even because of the difference between it and the comic book version. That was just because it looked so ridiculous.

That said, I'm hyped for X3. Angel, Beast, Shadowcat, Callisto, Morlocks, Juggernaut, Sentinels... I don't see why it won't be awesome.

can't wait to see this.

You, sir, are fucking insane.

Tolkien creates a rich, deep, and incredible world but is a clunky storyteller. First half of Fellowship crawls. EDIT: or am I insane is thinking the book is usually better than the movie... or did you not like the LotR movies that much?

Even though LOTR is some of the greatest literature ever, Sketch is right. Tolkien is deep and rich, but his detailed descriptions of everything, everyone and all events is off-putting to some people.

Certainly The Hobbit moves along briskly, but The Simarillion is next to impossible to get through without tearing your hair a bit.

Oh yeah. And I forgot. I saw previews for both Superman and Ghost Rider. Superman looks like it is going to be a really good movie. Plus, I loved the way Synger directed the first two Xmen, so hopefull he will do just as well with Superman. Also, I think Kevin Spacey is a kickass choice for Lex Luther (John Malkovich could have been awesome also, IMO).

Ghost Rider has the potential to be awesome. You can't quite tell from the preview but some of the graphic stuff is really awesome. I watched those previews and got stoked. Plus, The Omen looks pretty damn good. Although, I am a preview whore. I could watch a movie of previews.

the over/under on this weekend is 80 mil, which would be like the 6th most ever or something. i took the under. so everyone please wait until after monday to see it.

you can bet on movie opening over/unders?

yes my son, yes you can. I also won $100 on Taylor Hicks the other day. It's like finally putting your cynicism to something worthwhile.

Unfortunately a friend of mine won ~$35k on hicks, so i was more annoyed with my hunny than anything else.

What?



I'll chalk this one up to the growing illiteracy of modern readers. Sure The Hobbit is an easy read - it was more of a children's book. Certainly The Silmarillion is unreadable - it's basically an academic appendix to the mythology behind the world that Tolkien created. But to say that LoTR movies (albeit great) were as good or better than the books is a little bit stunning - these are some of the only fantasy novels that will always be regarded as Literature.

I'm excited to see this.
I loved the other ones.

BUT do you love bret ratner?

I'm looking forward to X3, by the way, and not trying to come off like

Comic Book Guy. Awesome.


This is due to Tolkien's influence on future fantasy writers, which is hugely substanial. Most influential does not automatically equate to best. It may be an important component of it, but it's not everything. I'm not saying Tolkien's bad; I'm saying he's overrated as a writer.

IMHO, there's a huge anti-fantasy (and sci-fi probably) bias in the literary community. Is there a lot of fantasy/sci-fi crap? Of course, just like every other genre. The question is how often does the best fantasy receive apporpriate recognition compared to classic works of the same period?

I never once read Tolkien with the thought "wow, I wish I could write prose like this." I make that comment with Gene Wolfe in almost every sitting.

I'll be seeing this sometime next week when I'm on vacation...I'm not fuggin' around with the weekend stampede.

I'm cool with it being more of an action flick - there was enough character stuff in the 1st 2 for me. Ebert gave this one 3 stars, so it sounds like Ratner didn't screw the franchise up too much.

Nowhere in my post did I say the movies were better than the books, that the books weren't great literature, that The Hobbit was not mostly a children's book, or that the Silmarillion is not purposefully an appendix designed to be archaic and complicated.

I'll tear up my english degree in disgust at my lack of reading comprehension.

The Colins come to loggerheads. It was bound to happen at some point. My dad read me the trilogy and the Hobbit when I was a kid. All of it. That probably explains a lot.

I love how the principal hero and anti-hero of the X-men franchise are 66 and 67 years old, respectively.

Rockin' the old dudes.

Two of my fav actors.

Since Mr. Mean Bone has seen it, there's something I have been wondering ever since I read about it.

Is Kelsey Grammer any good? I mean, I love him as an actor and Frasier is one of my favorite sitcoms of all time and, vocally, he seems perfect for the role.

But physically... He's a real tall kind of guy whereas Beast is supposed to be real ape like and more like a football player.

- Loved X3. Loved all the characters and everything they did. Beast was great, even Storm (who licked bag for the first two movies) was great.

- I'd say it's as good as X2. Since all the backstory/character intros were done in the now-forgotten X1, this movie, like X2 is more like an episode...but with a very EPIC story that covers a lot of ground and does a lot of ass kicking. No complaints except minor comic nerd ones.

- Also, I heard there is something to watch after the credits, but I missed it...so stay til the end of the credits and get back to me!

He actually didn't stand out as being bad at all. I thought he was actually quite perfect for the role. If they can make Sylvester Stallone look tall, then they can make Kelsey Grammar look shroter.