X-Men First Class trailer debuts on Facebook!

[Admin]

Ladies and gents, discuss!

[Strafe Prower]

[Morpheus]

At least the trailer seems better than the pictures.

[ckal]

I was going to update the X-Men: First Class thread with this trailer but I've been busy all day. Eh what the hell I'll post it anyways.

On the trailer...this actually doesn't look terrible, but I remember being really excited for Wolverine and we all know how that turned out.

[jakefury]

Looks surprisingly awesome.

[Power NeXus]

Guys, Matthew Vaughn is going to die some time within the next week.

If the police ask, I had nothing to do with it.

[jakefury]

Feb 10, 2011 20:36:13 GMT -5 Power NeXus said:

Guys, Matthew Vaughn is going to die some time within the next week.

If the police ask, I had nothing to do with it.

Why the murderous rampage?

[Power NeXus]

Reasons from the trailer alone that make me hate this movie:

1) Michael Fassbender looks nothing like Ian McKellen

2) Angel Salvadore

3) Why is Darwin a black guy?

4) Ridiculous looking costumes

5) Beast looks like he just stepped out of a 1990s B movie

6) Emma f**king Frost

7) Havok's blasts are a total rip-off of Scott's, except they come out of his chest.

8) It's bad enough that they included a character as minor as Azazel. But teleporting? Really? They just made Nightcrawler with a different color scheme. Even the smoke effect is the same. It looks like they're implying that Azazel is Kurt's father, but how will that work when the X-Men Origins Wolverine video game already hinted at Kurt's father being John Wraith?



The only remotely redeeming quality this movie might have is the special effects.

[jakefury]

I thought that was Chamber and not Havoc.

[jakefury]

Don't wanna clog up the thread but here's the cast list from IMDB:


Cast

Jennifer Lawrence ... Raven Darkholme / Mystique

January Jones ... Emma Frost

James McAvoy ... Professor Charles Xavier

Rose Byrne ... Dr. Moira MacTaggert

Nicholas Hoult ... Hank McCoy / Beast

Michael Fassbender ... Erik Lehnsherr / Magneto

Kevin Bacon ... Sebastian Shaw

Zoë Kravitz ... Angel Salvadore

Jason Flemyng ... Azazel

Lucas Till ... Alex Summers / Havok

Oliver Platt ... Man in Black

Morgan Lily ... Young Raven Darkholme / Young Mystique

Edi Gathegi ... Armando Muñoz / Darwin

Ray Wise ... Secretary of State of the United States

Bill Milner ... Young Erik Lehnsherr / Magneto
Caleb Landry Jones ... Sean Cassidy / Banshee
Laurence Belcher ... Young Charles Xavier
David Crow ... Weasley MIB Agent
Tony Rich ... Thomas

Russell Balogh ... Russian Soldier (uncredited)

Graham Curry ... Oxford Student (uncredited)
Duncan JC Mais ... Nazi Soldier (uncredited)

Johnny Nguyen ... (uncredited)

Rebecca Walsh ... (uncredited)

[ckal]

Feb 10, 2011 20:45:46 GMT -5 Power NeXus said:

Reasons from the trailer alone that make me hate this movie:

1) Michael Fassbender looks nothing like Ian McKellen

2) Angel Salvadore

3) Why is Darwin a black guy?

4) Ridiculous looking costumes

5) Beast looks like he just stepped out of a 1990s B movie

6) Emma f**king Frost

7) Havok's blasts are a total rip-off of Scott's, except they come out of his chest.

8) It's bad enough that they included a character as minor as Azazel. But teleporting? Really? They just made Nightcrawler with a different color scheme. Even the smoke effect is the same. It looks like they're implying that Azazel is Kurt's father, but how will that work when the X-Men Origins Wolverine video game already hinted at Kurt's father being John Wraith?



The only remotely redeeming quality this movie might have is the special effects.

1) I've gotta say bluntly...who the hell cares. That is such a minor detail that rarely ever will work out perfectly in any movie. Never sacrifice acting quality for someone who might look slightly more like a younger Ian Mckellen.

2) Agree. See #6.

3) I don't know the character, couldn't say.

4) Obviously being a fan of the comics such as yourself, wouldn't you applaud the use of the original costumes? They are far superior to the incredibly horrible and unimaginative black leather costumes from the previous movies.

5) Eh, idk yet. We only saw just his face for a split second.

6) Agree. The whole cast for that matter. The only one from the original first class (aside from Prof X) is Beast.

7) Agree.

8) Agree somewhat. It is like they thought Nightcrawler was an awesome character and wanted to do him again, but didn't want to use the same mutant from another movie. Idk how it is in the comics, but you are nitpicking continuity on an already fucked to the max Fox Studios X-Men continuity. Complaints about continuity at this point is one of the last things to worry about.

I'm not supporting this movie in any way, by the way. I'm just responding to your points. Parts of the trailer looked decent, but like I already said, I was hugely excited for Wolverine, and that was a rancid movie. I'm sure First Class will turn out pretty poorly, even though I expect it to be of higher quality than Wolverine was.

[ckal]

I do have a good feeling about Magneto in this movie though, looks like he is going to be bad ass. I think he (Fassbender) will be the bright spot of this movie.

[Power NeXus]

Feb 10, 2011 23:30:08 GMT -5 ckal said:

Feb 10, 2011 20:45:46 GMT -5 Power NeXus said:

Reasons from the trailer alone that make me hate this movie:

1) Michael Fassbender looks nothing like Ian McKellen

2) Angel Salvadore

3) Why is Darwin a black guy?

4) Ridiculous looking costumes

5) Beast looks like he just stepped out of a 1990s B movie

6) Emma f**king Frost

7) Havok's blasts are a total rip-off of Scott's, except they come out of his chest.

8) It's bad enough that they included a character as minor as Azazel. But teleporting? Really? They just made Nightcrawler with a different color scheme. Even the smoke effect is the same. It looks like they're implying that Azazel is Kurt's father, but how will that work when the X-Men Origins Wolverine video game already hinted at Kurt's father being John Wraith?



The only remotely redeeming quality this movie might have is the special effects.

1) I've gotta say bluntly...who the hell cares. That is such a minor detail that rarely ever will work out perfectly in any movie. Never sacrifice acting quality for someone who might look slightly more like a younger Ian Mckellen.

2) Agree. See #6.

3) I don't know the character, couldn't say.

4) Obviously being a fan of the comics such as yourself, wouldn't you applaud the use of the original costumes? They are far superior to the incredibly horrible and unimaginative black leather costumes from the previous movies.

5) Eh, idk yet. We only saw just his face for a split second.

6) Agree. The whole cast for that matter. The only one from the original first class (aside from Prof X) is Beast.

7) Agree.

8) Agree somewhat. It is like they thought Nightcrawler was an awesome character and wanted to do him again, but didn't want to use the same mutant from another movie. Idk how it is in the comics, but you are nitpicking continuity on an already fucked to the max Fox Studios X-Men continuity. Complaints about continuity at this point is one of the last things to worry about.

I'm not supporting this movie in any way, by the way. I'm just responding to your points. Parts of the trailer looked decent, but like I already said, I was hugely excited for Wolverine, and that was a rancid movie. I'm sure First Class will turn out pretty poorly, even though I expect it to be of higher quality than Wolverine was.

1) Hey, I was looking through the trailer looking for the stuff I didn't like. That was just the first thing I noticed :/

3) I don't think anyone knows him very well. However, judging by his name (Armando Munoz, I think) I think he should be Hispanic or something.

4) They're better than the black leather, but they still just look really really weird. They don't look like any kind of regular clothing (even as far as superhero costumes go). If anything, they look like some kind of skydiving jumpsuits. Every time I see them I expect to see a bunch of straps and carabiners.

5) Between that shot and the promo picture, I just can't stand how he looks.

6) It's bad enough that they're not going with the actual first class, but I honestly can't understand why they're bringing in characters like Darwin, Azazel, and Angel Salvadore. Even most comic fans don't know who those people are.

7) He just seems to be TOO similar. From what we've seen, it looks like they just took Nightcrawler and then changed his skin color (and possibly his morals) and called it a day.


Honestly, I'm really hoping this movie will turn out to be better than I'm making it out to be with these complaints. But, as an X-Men fan, I just can't help but be irate about all these stupid things I'm seeing.

[mavfan626]

Meh!....











but I'll watch anyways..


in 3D..


three times..


in one day..

[Lord Barbatos]

I just dont know what to think.

[Power NeXus]

I had never really noticed this before, but this movie is going to make Beast pretty freakin old in X-Men 3. This movie is supposed to happen in the 60s, and McCoy looks to be somewhere around 20 years old. Because of that, he'd have to be at least 60 years old when he appeared in X-Men 3.

[Morpheus]

Feb 11, 2011 15:12:57 GMT -5 Power NeXus said:

I had never really noticed this before, but this movie is going to make Beast pretty freakin old in X-Men 3. This movie is supposed to happen in the 60s, and McCoy looks to be somewhere around 20 years old. Because of that, he'd have to be at least 60 years old when he appeared in X-Men 3.

Is this film even in the same continuity? X-Men Origins: Wolverine also depicted a young Emma Frost, and it certainly didn't take place in the 60s.

[Power NeXus]

Feb 11, 2011 15:15:29 GMT -5 Morpheus said:

Feb 11, 2011 15:12:57 GMT -5 Power NeXus said:

I had never really noticed this before, but this movie is going to make Beast pretty freakin old in X-Men 3. This movie is supposed to happen in the 60s, and McCoy looks to be somewhere around 20 years old. Because of that, he'd have to be at least 60 years old when he appeared in X-Men 3.

Is this film even in the same continuity? X-Men Origins: Wolverine also depicted a young Emma Frost, and it certainly didn't take place in the 60s.

I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be the same continuity. They even used clips from the orignal X-Men films in this trailer.
Emma Frost's name was never even used in Wolverine Origins (and wasn't she supposed to be Silver Fox's sister or something?) so I guess they'll just retcon her identity from that movie and just credit her as Diamond Girl or something.

[ckal]

I wish people would stop frustrating themselves by being up questions about Fox Studios' x-men continuity for two reasons:

1) their x-men continuity is already so fucked up nothing can make it make sense
2) fox just doesn't give a fuck about continuity

Morph- yes. I believe it was matthew vaughan that actually came out and said it is not a reboot, but a prequel. If anything, the trailer solidifies that because it shows clips from the previous x-men movies.

[Morpheus]

Feb 11, 2011 15:24:54 GMT -5 Power NeXus said:

Feb 11, 2011 15:15:29 GMT -5 Morpheus said:

Is this film even in the same continuity? X-Men Origins: Wolverine also depicted a young Emma Frost, and it certainly didn't take place in the 60s.

I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be the same continuity. They even used clips from the orignal X-Men films in this trailer.
Emma Frost's name was never even used in Wolverine Origins (and wasn't she supposed to be Silver Fox's sister or something?) so I guess they'll just retcon her identity from that movie and just credit her as Diamond Girl or something.

And how about Cyclops? He was also seen at the end of WO. They can't retcon him into "eye-blast boy".

The clips from the previous films are a good point and I thought it myself, but the timeline just isn't working.

Morph- yes. I believe it was matthew vaughan that actually came out and said it is not a reboot, but a prequel. If anything, the trailer solidifies that because it shows clips from the previous x-men movies.

That's good and all, but it stretches disbelief beyond acceptable levels. Do they want to say the films are in the same continuity? Sure, it's their right. But there is no logical way to pull that off.