Kath and I saw “X-Men II” today and, yes, it’s that rare animal: A sequel better than the original. It’s no longer the “Wolverine and a Buncha Guys” show. This time around, we get a real sense of the true emotional depth and breadth of the Marvel Mutantverse. From the pure “Cabaret”-esque showmanship of Nightcrawler to the ticking timebomb of Pyro, to the sure-to-provoke-cheers cameos of Colossus and Hank McCoy, this one’s got it all.
And more than anything, it has real-world resonance. There are some who have called being a Mutant a metaphor for being gay. Never seemed more convincing a take than when one teen mutant “comes out” to his family. And then, of course, there’s the concept of curtailing freedoms, midnight raids, a police state…all in the name of security. However much it was featured in the first film, it seemed more abstract; now it sends chills down your spine. Unless, of course, you’re one of those who cheers the loss of personal liberty in the name of “security.” Then…well, I’m not sure.
There’s many “little” moments, including a devil-may-care encounter between Mystique and some pursuing soldiers, and–oh yes–Cyclop’s part. Easily the X-Man least served by the script, he disappears…as they said in “Shakespeare in Love”–for the length of a bible. Storm, however, has a better wig and appears to have abandoned the arch delivery of the first film. The way she was talking this time out, she could have sold the “What happens to toads when they’re struck by lightning” line.
Film did have some pacing problems, plus I kept waiting to check in on a group of fugitive mutants led by Colossus. Odd to say that the film seemed long and yet they could have added at least half an hour to it with an entire additional storyline.
Great stuff.
Talk amongst yourselves.
PAD
• 
I am a bit overwhelmed at the various points made above. I found myself nodding at some and shaking my head at others. But this is one I haven’t seen yet:
Did anyone find the Deathstrike/Wolvie battle horribly anti-climactic? I mean, she’s dead (presumably?) and we were never even told that she was Deathstrike. I was expecting a really hug, knock-down, drag-out battle … and it was all those things except huge. I think it was literally about 2 minutes long! I felt a little cheated after the big lead-up in the various previews I’d seen.
However, in general, I loved the film … fuzzy logic, unanswered questions and all!
Louise
am I the only one who thinks there was something wrong with the audience being 50% little kids- some of them as young as 5 and 8? seems to me it was a little too violent for such young eyes…
Jason,
I’m referring to the original story from around 1979, and I might point out that to depict a woman, young or old, as a cruel killer, (and I’m not forgetting Cruella DeVil) that whole idea is taken from a ludicrous stereotype that’s existed in the Brothers Grimm fairy tales and some other would-be folktales in Europe. It’s tasteless, and it’s a shame that it’s been going on for so long as to become considered de-riguerre in North American showbiz. The stereotype became particularly de-riguerre during the 1970’s, and while the film industry for one may have refrained from such PC lunacy in the past several years, there’s still been more than a few movies out there that’ve used it.
I suppose maybe that’s just my opinion, but, ask yourself this: can the theme of “power corruption” truly be done at ease if you’re going to resort to using a sterotype in order to write it up?
So Avi, you seem to be saying one should NEVER have a woman be a killer? Cause you know there are female killers right?
:starbase dental
I took my 3 year old. He really liked the part with the planes. Except the scene in magneto’s jail, I didn’t find the movie that violent. Yeah there was a lot of violence, but virtually all of it happened in the dark, behind closed doors, and in thick smoke. Unless they were older, they really haven’t a clue that people got killed.
Did anyone find the Deathstrike/Wolvie battle horribly anti-climactic? I mean, she’s dead (presumably?) and we were never even told that she was Deathstrike. I was expecting a really hug, knock-down, drag-out battle … and it was all those things except huge. I think it was literally about 2 minutes long! I felt a little cheated after the big lead-up in the various previews I’d seen.
I felt the same way except I wasn’t remembering the previews as much as the battle in the novelized version that I mentioned earlier. After reading the part in the book I was completely satisified. When I saw it on screen it seemed to fall flat.
I felt the same way after reading PAD’s novelization of the movie Spiderman, except it wasn’t as pronounced as with X2 because I had read Spiderman after seeing the movie. When you get a good, established writer, who knows the subject matter better than the screenwriters, it really makes a difference.
am I the only one who thinks there was something wrong with the audience being 50% little kids- some of them as young as 5 and 8? seems to me it was a little too violent for such young eyes…
I saw this movie during the 10pm showing and the kids weren’t present in the numbers that they were probably in the earlier shows. Yes, I feel the same way, Singer and company should not have to angle their movie any differently because they are afraid that might happen. It is PG-13 for a reason. The parents who brought their kids under 13 should care enough to notice the rating on the movie and not bring them. I feel this is a parental thing and the movie industy should not be viewed as a babysitter. Ages 10-12 would probably handle the movie alright – especially if they are reading the comic book already.
X
Avi – I’m still not understanding your point, really. Or rather, I don’t agree.
“Women shouldn’t be depicted as cruel killers”… why, exactly? Sure, men more often *are* cruel killers… but is it stereotyping men to have a fictional character, who is male, kill a planet?
If you’re at all familiar with Marvel comics, you’ll know of Galactus… who isn’t human, but is conceptualized as “male”. He kills and eats planets, too.
I would have to say that some humans are cruel killers, and it’s hardly stereotyping to suggest that a particular person (male, female, pick your religion, pick your ethnicity) could in fact be a cruel killer.
Or “power corrupts” … is it only okay in your view if power corrupts men?
Because women are incorruptible?
On the subject of Phoenix… one thing I liked is that this movie alluded to her further “activating” based on the mutation device from X1. After all… Magneto didn’t really *know* it couldn’t affect mutants, now did he? He just assumed. Just as he didn’t realize, presumably, that Senator Kelly was going to die from his mutation… or just didn’t care.
Secondary mutation by device seems more reasonable to me, given the fact of secondary mutations like Beast’s transformation from big, smart, acrobatic strong guy to blue-furred, stronger, faster, acrobatic strong guy… than “she bonded with a cosmic entity”.
Of course, the “cosmic entity” thing still may come to pass in X3 or later.
I mean that women shouldn’t be depicted that way if it’s in a stereotypical manner, that’s what I mean! Not that should be obligated to specify it, though.
You must understand that stereotypes are usually based on some very racial and chauvinistic notions and were often conceived – yes indeed, out of precisely those intentions.
Are there women in this world who’re capable of savagery? Yes. But that doesn’t justify depicting them the way the Phoenix story does, which was outrageous. And suffice it to say that the whole thing gives me the creeps.
Is it possible to do it without resorting to stereotyping? Sure! But otherwise, well, I should hope that noone feels that it’s the end of the world if women aren’t depicted as cannibals, and no such thing was needed in order to make the whole story work. In fact, if they hadn’t done it, then let me ask, would you have complained at all? Well obviously, no, you wouldn’t have said anything, so I don’t see why it should concern you if anyone finds the Phoenix story offensive.
If there’s any female crooks in comics whom I found impressive in contrast, it’s Star Sapphire(from Green Lantern) and Golden Glider(from the Flash), one of whom was brainwashed by aliens and the other who was chiefly interested in revenge against the Scarlet Speedster for supposedly causing the death of her boyfriend, the Top. From what I could tell, they were far from being stereotypical, and I give kudos to John Broome and Cary Bates for coming up with them.
One sure thing, I’ll bet nobody ever expected anyone to be against the Phoenix story, but now, as you can see, someone is, and came along and smacked it in the kisser! Whatever you think, you may have to admit it, it’s just simply amazing that someone could do it.
Okay, lord knows I shouldn’t be doing this. Every instinct I have is telling me not to. But…
Avi.
Please answer this for me: What is the stereotype you keep referring to? Don’t answer, “It’s the same one you see in 101 Dalmatians,” or, “It’s the stereotype that was started with Grimms’ fairytales.” I’m not asking you where else you see the stereotype; I’m asking you to define, succinctly, what the stereotype is.
Some examples, to help you:
* Stereotype: All Irishmen (or Scots, take your pick) are drunkards.
* Stereotype: All Republicans are evil.
* Stereotype: All black people can play basketball well.
And etc.
To further help you, I’ll provide this, courtesy Merriam-Webster:
ste-reo-type
Pronunciation: ‘ster-E-&-“tIp
Function: noun
1: a plate cast from a printing surface
2: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment [emphasis mine]
So please, for the elucidation of all, express in simple terms what the “oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment” you see reflected in the “Dark Phoenix” storyline.
Wow, Avi… your logic is all over the place.
1.) No, you’re not obligated to explain yourself. However, if you don’t want to look like a reactionary fool, explaining yourself seems like the only option.
2.) What, precisely, made the depiction of Phoenix in issues 129-137 “stereotypical”? Is it the fact that she killed an entire planet? If it had been limited to just the Shi’ar starship, would that have been less “outrageous” and therefore less stereotypical? Was it okay when Wolverine and various members of the Hellfire Club were running around killing people, because they were male?
4.) You’re flipping the argument again, Avi. “I should hope that no one feels that it’s the end of the world if women AREN’T depicted as cannibals.” You seem to be trying to make some sort of base equation: women who aren’t cannibals = good story; women who are cannibals (or planet killers, or whatever you want to call it) = bad, creepy stereotype. One does not automatically lead to the other. Indeed, I already pointed out the fact that there are lots of other women in the story who are heroes — including Jean Grey herself for over two thirds of the overall arc.
5. You wrote, “ask yourself this: can the theme of “power corruption” truly be done at ease if you’re going to resort to using a sterotype in order to write it up?”
There are a couple problems with this, and it’s the same thing you’ve done in the past, Avi.
First of all, you’re taking the issue at hand and making it a given: the issue as to whether or not the Phoenix story was “using a stereotype.” You haven’t proven to anyone’s satisfaction that it did, so using it as a given here is ineffectual.
Second, the question of whether the theme of “power corrupts” can “truly be done at ease” (nice syntax there, buddy) is not at issue. Whether it’s a theme that can be explored “at ease” is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
6.) You’re again arguing beside the point when you switch the subject from Phoenix and stereotypes to yourself. This weird compulsion to glorify yourself for stating a minority opinion is a little creepy, frankly… but it’s not the point anyway. How “amazing” it is that you disagree with people is beside the point; it’s not important; it’s completely irrelevant. The fact that you waste space on glorifying yourself instead of answering specific points brought up by those who disagree with you only points up the overall weakness of your arguments.
Maybe it is just a problem of definitions, or inability to agree on terms, but I too am confused by Avi’s comments. I’m not sure he knows what he is talking about, or at the very least, I am not sure we are talking about the same things.
Did I say you had to like the Dark Phoenix storyline? Like it or dislike it, makes no never mind to me. I just don’t understand your reasoning behind finding it offensive. I think I’m not the only one.
Would you have been comfortable with it if it had been a man cast as Phoenix, but are creeped out because it was a woman?
Or would a genderless, clearly nonhuman alien have been acceptable?
If, on the other hand, you are creeped out at the idea of something even remotely human eating a planet… I’m right there with you. Except she didn’t eat a planet.
The death of the star D’Bari was *intended* to be horrifying. Remember, however, that Phoenix didn’t eat the planet at all – the Phoenix ate the *star*, the deaths of all the people on one of its planets was “merely” (!) fallout. Terrible fallout to be sure, but it was a result of her action, not the action taken.
The human portion of her was properly horrified when she realized what she’d done, if I recall correctly.
Now, pray tell, how is eating a star cannibalism?
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/5981/phoenix2bio.html
I don’t object that it was a woman who caused it, I wouldn’t have objected that it was a man either. It’s hypothetical fiction.
Could they have left out the eating of the star? Probably – but it demonstrated what a serious threat Phoenix was to life, the universe, and everything. (42! Anyway… )
Do whatever you want, it just doesn’t seem like you’ve made a very convincing case for *what* stereotype star-eating women possessed by cosmic entities are exploiting.
If anything… the fact that part of her (the human part, one presumes) was willing to kill herself to save the universe… should be considered a good thing, surely?
After all… there’s been traditions of sacrifice of one for the good of all in much of religion and literature.
I think it is safe to say that Claremont and Byrne (together and separately) were among the first and most consistent proponents of strong, non-stereotypical female characters in mainstream comics.
My next statement may be controversial but… they took Jean Grey, what may be considered a secondary not-too-interesting character, and made her a full fledged pillar of the marvel universe… not quite A-List but pivotal. To do this required dramatic arc. What better drama then the clich
…but there was an abrupt noise when he retracted his claws, and an already-nervous police officer reacted instinctively.
I saw the movie twice, and Wolverine does not retract hi claws. When the officer tells him to drop the knives, he responds that he can’t and then tells him to look and very slowly raises his arm, at which point the cop shoots him. When he goes unconscious his claws automatically retract.
SPB
I’m not even getting into the what-is-a-stereotype argument.
Just chiming in to say that this movie was not only head and shoulders above the first, it made me go out and buy the Dark Phoenix Saga. Which I then read in one long session last night. Now I want to see the movie again.
Also, only nitpick I have that (as far as I can tell) no one’s mentioned yet – when Stryker goes to interrogate Magneto, he’s wearing glasses with metal frames. Oops. Hey, they’re allowed one screwup.
OK. You want to know what I mean by stereotypes? In the case of the Phoenix story, the stereotype used there is one of that all women have brutal murder on the mind for no good reason, or that they’re supposedly all evil.
Or, in the case of blacks, that they all have exaggerated southern drawls, or, as depicted in Tintin in Congo, which was never published in English, that they supposedly don’t know what white people are.
Or, in the case of Jews, that they’re obnoxious for no apparent reason, or that they supposedly don’t drink whisky and vodka.
Or, in the case of the French, that they’re all just hypocrites, swindlers and criminals.
Or, in the case of gays, that they’re all good-natured, whereas lesbians are one-dimensionally nasty.
So, you PC advocates who say I’m all over the place with logic never studied what stereoypes are? Ever? Well in any event, if you don’t get it, then I don’t ask you to. You apparently don’t have a care in the world if stereotypes are insulting and don’t bear any solid grounds to justify their existence. They’ve already come to be considered de-riguerre in many European countries and in the US as well, so much that how could you figure it out anyway? For now, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t care to learn even a drop of morality. Good-bye.
Quoth SPB:
I saw the movie twice, and Wolverine does not retract hi claws.
Uhh, “thank you” three times, SPB, for the correction: I’ve only seen it the once so far (yay, work!), so for the time being I’ll be delighted to take your word for it.
Not that this alters my original perception that Logan was doing the “bodyguard” routine, trying to shield those behind him, and a very tense officer reacted on the side of caution.
The lovely thing about movies, though, is that we cannot really know motivation for every individual action unless it’s spelled out for us. That being the case, I can live in sated confidence that my analysis remains correct, and others can believe differently if they so please, and we’re none of us harmed by it. Does anyone else have a perspective on that scene that hasn’t already been outlined here?
And! How much BETTER could the third movie be than if it were written by the Ultimate Scriptwriting Teamup: Peter David and Joss Whedon???
I like this idea. I think it deserves further exploration. Is everyone with me?
What?
Avi, what are you talking about? WHAT stereotype of women who ‘have murder on their mind and are all evil’? And which character(s) in X-Men (1 or 2, or even the comics) are portrayed in this (stereotypical) way? I have never heard of the female gender being referred to in this way, and it seems that you are projecting qualities and attributes onto characters that just aren’t there.
Yes, some fictional characters are evil, some commit murder, and some are women, but just because you have an evil, murderous female character (and I don’t think there is one here) does not make her a stereotype just because you say so.
One more thing: I did not know that Jews are stereotyped as being “obnoxious for no apparent reason, or that they supposedly don’t drink whisky and vodka.” I’m not even sure drinking (or not drinking) whiskey or vodka can be a stereotypical quality in anyone (well, maybe the Russians). I also think that several of your other examples are similarly flawed.
Just trying to get my head around your argument.
Apparently Mastermind made Avi Green say:
OK. You want to know what I mean by stereotypes? In the case of the Phoenix story, the stereotype used there is one of that all women have brutal murder on the mind for no good reason, or that they’re supposedly all evil.
followed eventually by:
For now, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t care to learn even a drop of morality. Good-bye.
Well, Mr. Green, of COURSE it’s obvious: we’re all, both male and female, evil stereotypes who have brutal murder on our minds for no good reason.
That’s why we’re so enthusiastic in our appreciation of a stereotypical movie in which a collection of minorities overcome terrible obstacles (set forth by the stereotypical WASP majority) in order to save not only themselves — not only their fellow minorities — but, in fact, and at extra risk to themselves, to save the advantaged Majority who fear and hate our protagonists.
Of course, our stereotypical evilness is also why we don’t put as much enthusiastic effort as we could into mocking a stereotypically opinionated, self-important, morality-dictating fanboy such as yourself. It’s all a plot, a worldwide plot, aimed specifically and solely against you, Mr. Green. And we’re all willing conspirators.
Hey! If I’m stereotypically evil, brutal, and without reason, does that automatically mean that I”m a lovely young woman? Quick, someone define “lovely” and “young” for me in the context of this stereotype! Or do I get to define that for myself, as part of the stereotype?
Just a note about “Why Bobby didn’t use his powers to stop the water”.
1 – He doesn’t have that kind of control yet (neither does Storm – she causes the tornadoes but doesn’t seem to be ‘controlling’ them).
2 – Even if he did freeze the water – that wouldn’t stop it. Instead of millions of gallons of water rushing towards them, they would have millions of pounds of ice rushing towards them.
Avi,
Your ignorance has just leapt from annoying to truly astounding. Gosh, where to begin?
How about with A.) YOU never defined what a stereotype is. Not once. You’ve given examples, and you’ve said that they all come from German fairy tales (ooohhhh-kayyy). But what is it?
But okay, let’s extrapolate… your definition of what a stereotype is. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Stereotype = a mass characterization applied to a large generality of people (defined by gender, skin color, ethnicity, or sexual preference, etc.) that is inaccurate at best and at worst insulting and ruinous.
Fair enough?
Okay. Now. From there… prove, just prove that the Phoenix story perpetuated some sort of female stereotype. You’ve got a woman possessed by a cosmic force, driven mad with power.
Yep. You’ve also got an ultra-powerful woman who can control the elements who is moral almost to a fault and who is characterized as a hero throughout the story. You’ve got a brilliant, enthusiastic teenage girl who saves all of the X-Men. You’ve got a talented singer who also manages to help save the X-Men. You’ve got a brilliant geneticist. You’ve got the White Queen, granted — I’m not going to turn a blind eye — but, she’s one of a multitude of women who appear in the story, and she’s the only truly malicious female character in the book. Hëll, you’ve even got Jean Grey herself, who for a majority of the story acts heroically, saves the lives of her friends, fights off the effects of all those forces conspiring to make her “evil.” And in the end, she even sacrifices her life to destroy this evil.
So. Explain how this story, in spite of all of these aspects, does nothing but convey a nasty stereotypical view of women. Draw the line from A to B, buddy. If you can’t do that, then maybe you should keep your sanctimonious judgments about morality to your self.
Y’see, if your thesis is “The Dark Pheonix story perpetuates a negative female stereotype,” then you need to back that up. You haven’t. Not once. Instead, you’ve set up straw men, argued points that had nothing to do with your thesis, and now — I should have guessed it was coming — you’ve resorted ad hominum arguments.
Of COURSE we don’t get your arguments. We’re immoral and apathetic to the plight of minorities. It couldn’t possibly be because you are incapable of backing up your thesis intelligently. Nah, that’s impossible. It must be our fault, because we’re such flawed individuals. Right?
So, the next time you feel compelled to lecture on morality, consider this: You’ve just taken a group of people — your opponents — and insulted us, claiming that we don’t possess even a “drop of morality.” In spite of the fact that you know virtually nothing about any of us. In short… you’ve stereotyped us.
Congratulations.
William:
So you still don’t understand, or don’t want to? Stereotypes, I will say one last time, are taken from all sorts of exaggerated notions and perceptions of various groups in real life, that are often written out of spite. They can go in all or any directions, up, down, left, right, slantways.
And from what I can determine here, you and others of your camp are trying to act as if I didn’t try to explain anything at all, which is exactly why I see no further reason to continue this by now redundant discussion. It’s clear that you made up your mind already.
I will however, leave you with but one question to ask yourselves: how would you feel if anyone came up with a sterotype based on any personality traits of yours personally?
“how would you feel if anyone came up with a sterotype based on any personality traits of yours personally?”
You mean such as you telling us that none of us possessed a drop of morality? For someone so down on stereotypes, you were pretty quick to deploy one.
One last time for you, dear sir:
Yes, there is alas, a stereotype of women as being power-hungry to the point of murder, something that Cruella DeVil in 101 Dalmatians was also based on. And that, alas, is a stereotype that Phoenix is based upon too.
End.
Does anyone else find it strange or ironic that people are complaining about lack of realism towards things like cats licking coffee or liquid metal filling up a person to exit from their mouths…in a movie where demons teleport and people can shoot beams of energy out of their EYES?
X men 2 was some of the most fun I’ve had at the movies in a long time. I loved it.
You’ll excuse me if this is a little less than coherent:
For now, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t care to learn even a drop of morality.
Oh, yes, Avi. Of course. How could I have been so blind. I should have known that only you, of everyone in this grand cosmos, has the true insight into morality and goodness. Only you can teach us — the great, unwashed masses that are the rest of humanity — what it means to be moral by being offended when lovely young women are cast in anything other than a virtuous light. (And here, before the scales fell from my eyes, I felt your repeated use of the term “lovely young women” was wrong-headed and practically sexist; what a fool I was!) Please, Master Avi, teach me what the mindless throngs of the entire Western world have hidden from them; that which you alone can see. I’ve thrown away the false gods of logical arguments and substantiated points, and am prepared to welcome your message with open arms.
Feh. In the past, Avi, I’ve read your diatribes with little more than amusement that one man could be so dense. But this statement of yours, that you would have the arrogance, the unmitigated gall to suggest that you lord the posession of a true sense of morality over those who disagree with you — it sickens me.
Your statement dismisses everyone else like children banished from your wisdom, but we’re not children, Avi: We’re adults (well, most of us, anyhow), with life experience and knowledge and strong senses of morality, and I’ll be dámņëd if I’m going to sit here and stay quiet while you suggest that I need to learn my morals from you.
You’re a self-important little man, Avi, and every self-important little statement you make just guarantees more and more that you have nothing worth teaching, whether it be morality or anything else.
I think it’s safe to say that Avi is off his meds again….
My question is, why are otherwise intelligent people wasting time countering him with logic?
When I read stuff like his, though, and there seems to be one in every posting site, I always wonder if they’re as ignorant and deluded as they seem or playing with our minds in some kind of brilliant “Ali G”-way?
Ouch.
Since this is my first time on Peter’s board, I won’t say anything to that.
I will say that it seems as though Avi has an issue with fiction portraying women as anything but moral. His examples earlier of “acceptable” portrayals of female supervillians only included ones who were portrayed as not being in full control of their faculties when they commit crimes.
This almost smacks to me of a type of sexism that says that women cannot choose to be corrupt as men can, cannot choose to be criminals as men can… but are only “acceptable” as criminals if they are not in control of themselves. Which seems rather odd to me. I think sometimes both men and women choose to do things that society would rather they didn’t, and often have internally compelling reasons to do so.
I don’t see how that’s a stereotype, but I’m not Avi. (Darn.)
Avi – you must have preferred Lady Deathstrike to Mystique… Mystique in X1 and X2 actively chooses to act as a criminal, while the Lady Deathstrike in X2 has no choice thanks to the mind-control drug secreted by Mastermind. After all, Mystique is played as a murderous, albeit brilliant, female character in full control of her faculties.
That must cause you trouble, too, if you dislike the Phoenix saga that much because Phoenix is portrayed as evil at times.
But wait… Dark Phoenix comes out as a result of manipulation by the Hellfire Club, so it’s really not Jean’s choice to act that way. Shouldn’t that absolve the character of all wrongdoing, if you are to be consistent in the above position that “mind controlled criminals are okay, becuase it’s not their choice”?
Just curious…
**…but there was an abrupt noise when he retracted his claws, and an already-nervous police officer reacted instinctively.
I saw the movie twice, and Wolverine does not retract hi claws. When the officer tells him to drop the knives, he responds that he can’t and then tells him to look and very slowly raises his arm, at which point the cop shoots him. When he goes unconscious his claws automatically retract.
SPB**
I saw the movie two times as well (although I’m only going to post this once…) and I disagree with you.
Wolverine pops his claws, goes through the bit with the cop about how he can’t drop the knives and then says, “Look.” I believe he’s saying, “Look, you’ll see me retract my claws.” Which he does. But the cop shots, presumably startled by the noise or movement.
Sorry, but in this version, Greedo didn’t fire first.
Avi, being “power-hungry to the point of murder” is not a stereotypically female characteristic. If you think it is then I believe you have bigger problems than trying to defend your point of view.
Just because a fictional female character commits murder does not create or perpetuate a stereotype. And unless an author is writing about alien species or hermaphrodites, he/she is fairly limited to the choice of gender for his/her murderer: Man as a murderer or woman as a murderer…neither is a stereotype.
But I am probably missing your point…again.
Pack – eh, I’ve got nothing emotionally invested, so it’s kinda fun thinking out a logical argument in the face of … somewhat questionable logic.
It’s an exercise in thinking on my part, not any true desire to persuade. So… ehhh.
Pack: I gotta vote “ignorant and deluded” here, with a flavoring of “I AM TOO important!!!”
But you do make a most excellent point regarding the use of our resources.
And, anyway, Avi “I Said It So It Must Be True” Green already said “goodbye” to us. Back to the proper topic:
What else can we say about this movie that’ll inspire the nincompoops to prejudge the X2 movie in such a light that they refuse to actually watch it, thereby freeing up more seats for the rest of us?
Wait, that’s the SECRET topic! Oops! Sorry. I’ll try again.
Original topic: X-2: The actor playing Colossus is a HUNK!!! (pun intended) I hope he returns for more shenanigans in the next installment.
Whew. Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest…
Word, Jason. You’ve expressed almost exactly what was on my mind, but somewhat more eloquently than I would have. Thank you.
Now, on to some other stuff that Avi’s argued since my explosion above:
Stereotypes, I will say one last time, are taken from all sorts of exaggerated notions and perceptions of various groups in real life, that are often written out of spite. They can go in all or any directions, up, down, left, right, slantways.
Yes, you’re right on this. Absolutely, 100% right. That’s exactly how stereotypes come into being. The problem is, that has bûggër-áll to do with your argument. I could say there’s a stereotype that all white men are closet arsonists and secretly crave to burn things. I could further this by citing Beavis And Bûŧŧhëád and even X2, and even pull up the story of Prometheus (the bringer of fire) to add some classical credence to my argument. But my saying so, my providing sources where I see this stereotype, doesn’t prove the stereotype exists. The disproof can be found in any of a number of ways: The presence of abundant white males in said pieces who don’t have a fire predilection, numerous works (that don’t depict white males in said light, etc. Now, I could further butress my position with sociological studies or citing enough works to prove a significant trend (and three works out of a body consisting of hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of works is hardly significant), or through other forensic and didactic techniques.
That’s what it takes to demonstrate a stereotype, not the say-so of one angry young man (and, yes, I know you’re 28; believe me, that still makes you a young man) sitting at his computer in Israel.
And from what I can determine here, you and others of your camp are trying to act as if I didn’t try to explain anything at all, which is exactly why I see no further reason to continue this by now redundant discussion. It’s clear that you made up your mind already.
Avi, you didn’t try to explain anything. Or, to be fair, you tried, you just failed miserably. I just went through and re-read everything you’ve posted in this entry: You’ve said that you see a stereotype, you’ve said where you think that stereotype comes from (Grimm’s tales), you’ve said why you don’t like stereotypes, but you’ve never said why you think “Dark Phoenix” reflects this stereotype, or why you think this stereotype even exists.
It would be one thing if even one other person piped up and said, “Yes, the women-as-cold-blooded-killer stereotype has really gotten out of hand,” or even, “Well, I agree that the women-as-cold-blooded-killer stereotype exists, but I don’t see it in this story.” Or if, say, any women’s group anywhere protested the presentation of women as cold-blooded killers in popular media, but none of this has happened. And, yes, that puts you at the unenviable position of having to substantiate your argument, but that’s what happens when you take an uncommon or unpopular view (actually, it should happen even when you’re taking the majority view, which is why I and others are going through such pains to substantiate our points, as opposed to saying, “Avi, you’re wrong,” and leaving it at that).
And I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve nowhere near made up my mind. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to change my mind and accept something I just don’t see, just because you said so. You want me to see something, then grab my head, prop open my eyes, and shove my face in it. Drown me in details; don’t just say, “I see it but you don’t want to so I’m not going to bother trying to show you.”
I will however, leave you with but one question to ask yourselves: how would you feel if anyone came up with a sterotype based on any personality traits of yours personally?
What?
I’m sorry, I mean… What?
So, like, you mean if someone said all white men were quiet and contemplative just because I’m quiet and contemplative? Well, I’d feel sorry for them for being ignorant and short-sighted, but that’s as far as it goes, really.
Oh, wait! I get it now. This is your way of telling us that you’re really a cold-blooded, murdering woman, and you’re offended that that trait is being purloined to represent all women everywhere. I hope that doesn’t upset you too much; wouldn’t want you to consume the sun, therefore inadvertently — oops, I meant maliciously and cold-heartedly wiping out our entire planet.
Seriously, man, that quesion made no sense.
Yes, there is alas, a stereotype of women as being power-hungry to the point of murder, something that Cruella DeVil in 101 Dalmatians was also based on. And that, alas, is a stereotype that Phoenix is based upon too.
Hey, wait! No fair changing the rules! Is your stereotype
a) “all women have brutal murder on the mind for no good reason, or that they’re supposedly all evil”
or is it
b) “women … being power-hungry to the point of murder”
because those are not the same thing. As a matter of fact, the latter more or less contradicts the former, since being power-hungry could be conceived as a good reason, thereby eliminating the “no good reason” clause of the former.
Avi, seriously: If you don’t know your thesis and can’t support it at least marginally well, please stop wasting our time.
End.
Promises, promises…
I give the movie a big thumbs up too but I think it raises some issues that you could really debate (as opposed to whether the Dark Phoenix is a plot against the image of all saintly women that only Avi Green is moral enough to have in his non-stereotypical brain…)
For instance, Bobby says that his parents think he’s at a prep school and for that to be true, I think Professor X would clearly have to be involved in the deception if not the source or necessarily in approval of it. Mutation seems like an awfully big thing to keep from a parent. Not to mention that the school must be a somewhat dangerous place. (They had an escape tunnel in place so they must have had some about the potential threat.) Does Professor X have that kind of right? If he does, that would sort of imply that mutants are mutants first and members of the larger community second especially in the case of Bobby. Unlike, say Rogue, who you could argue needs to be at the school so she’s not an unintentional threat to others, Bobby could “pass” in the larger society.
There’s no real sense at all of the lives of these kids. Rogue ran away in the first film. Do her parents know where she is? Are they involved in her life. We’ve seen this a little in the comics (In fairness, they’ve had much more time and space to devote to it.) but wouldn’t you think that there’s got to be some version of PFLAG for mutants in the Marvel Universe? (If you’re not familiar with it, Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays is a support organization and advocacy group for just what it’s name implies.) I think it would interesting to know how supportive parents interact with the school. And for those parents who don’t know their kids are at a school for mutants, well, let’s say Jubilee was one. What would Professor X have told them if they had not been able to rescue her from Stryker?
Going back to the Drakes for a moment… What now? For one thing, the cops are definitely going to investigate what happened and how could Bobby’s name not be involved? (The cops on the porch must have seen him clearly so the Drakes couldn’t claim it was just a break-in committed by strangers.) Wouldn’t that lead back to the school? Or back to the morality involved in training and teaching a young mutant without his parents knowledge, what does Professor X do if the Drakes call and say, “Uh, needless to say, we’re withdrawing our son from the school where he hangs around with the boy who firebombs cops and the art professor with the Freddy Krueger manicure”?
I was disappointed that they made a point of making Nightcrawler a Christian but didn’t really address the larger issues there either. It wouldn’t have helped the pace of the movie but it’s the same thing I thought when Buffy brought in a villain wearing a collar (if I might mix popular topics on this board…) Buffy has rarely addressed the issues of religion. Crosses seem to have an affect on vampires but there’s no real talk of God or the Devil or any of those things. Now in X2 we know that Kurt has religious faith but where does the church stand on mutants? Are they God’s children too or an aberration in the church’s eyes? (This goes to the point, and the very title of, “God Loves, Man Kills”…) Where did Kurt get his faith? Did he have a religious upbringing or did he find the Bible on his own? Would there be underground churches, of all faiths, for mutants?
I just think figuring out the society that would develop as a result of mutants would be an intriguing mental exercise.
“One last time for you, dear sir:”
Aw, darn…
“Yes, there is alas, a stereotype of women as being power-hungry to the point of murder, something that Cruella DeVil in 101 Dalmatians was also based on. And that, alas, is a stereotype that Phoenix is based upon too.”
That’s your interpretation. An interpretation defied by every shred of text in the entire bloody book under discussion. Jean Grey is portrayed as a fully realized three-dimensional character who — under the influence of power so intense that it acted as a drug — *still* acted heroically until mind-controlled by one (male) evil character. That screws up the balance that she had established in her mind, and allows the power in her to take over.
There is no message in that book that all of womankind is power-hungry to the point of murder. That is never implied. Ever.
If you can prove me wrong, and can actually bring up examples from the text that imply that this story is suggesting that all women are power-hungry killers… If you can find something besides the one panel potraying Phoenix at her most extreme point of depravity, to counter-act not just Uncanny X-Men 129-137, but EVERY story featuring Jean Grey that Claremont and Byrne produced, starting at issue 108, which constantly had her as the hero (you do remember when she saved the life of the entire universe, don’tcha?)… if you can do SOMETHING to back up your point besides calling other people immoral or amoral, or bringing up Cruella DeVille, as if she had any relevance whatsoever… if you can address any of my conveniently numbered points above arguing that Dark Phoenix is not a sexist piece of text… go for it.
But if you can think of nothing better than to insult those who patronize and insult those who disagree with you… well, then, go for it.
“End.”
That’s fine with me.
Alan: “Word, Jason. You’ve expressed almost exactly what was on my mind, but somewhat more eloquently than I would have. Thank you.”
You’re welcome, Alan. And thank you; I genuinely appreciate the acknowledgement.
But, hey, your arguments are at least as eloquent as mine, if not more so. So there was really no “thanks” necessary. (But I appreciate it nonetheless!)
But, hey, your arguments are at least as eloquent as mine, if not more so. So there was really no “thanks” necessary. (But I appreciate it nonetheless!)
Aaaaah, why don’t you two get a room…?
🙂
**I saw the movie two times as well (although I’m only going to post this once…) and I disagree with you.
Wolverine pops his claws, goes through the bit with the cop about how he can’t drop the knives and then says, “Look.” I believe he’s saying, “Look, you’ll see me retract my claws.” Which he does. But the cop shots, presumably startled by the noise or movement.
Sorry, but in this version, Greedo didn’t fire first.**
Hmmmmmmmmm that’s an interesting take, I guess I’ll just have to go and see the movie again to be sure.
**Uhh, “thank you” three times, SPB, for the correction: I’ve only seen it the once so far (yay, work!), so for the time being I’ll be delighted to take your word for it.
Not that this alters my original perception that Logan was doing the “bodyguard” routine, trying to shield those behind him, and a very tense officer reacted on the side of caution.
The lovely thing about movies, though, is that we cannot really know motivation for every individual action unless it’s spelled out for us. That being the case, I can live in sated confidence that my analysis remains correct, and others can believe differently if they so please, and we’re none of us harmed by it. Does anyone else have a perspective on that scene that hasn’t already been outlined here?**
I agree totally about the body guard idea, I was more referring to the cops overreacting out of fear, that he shot first.
Heh, now I’m feeling discriminated against, because people are making fun of me for posting three times.
Sniff! It’s not my fault the computer got hung up.
SPB
Okay, I hate to be the logic police, but did anyone else see the flaw in Stryker’s plan that I did. When Profesor X starts to concentrate on the mutants the all fall over in pain and are unable to do anything except for Magnito who is protected.
This being the case, why didn’t Jason Stryker slump over in pain as well. He is a mutant after all, and Prof X was told to find ALL the mutants and concentrate on them.
Oh well, just a plot hole I guess. I didn’t even think of this until a few hours after I had seen for the second time. I was too busy whooping it up the first time and looking for all the little things I missed the second time.
SPB
Jason wasn’t affected for the same reason Xavier wasn’t. They were shielded in the core of Cerebro (At least that’s my fan-boy excuse. We’re awefully good at comin’ up with them, aren’t we?)
And I know it’s WAY off topic, but I wonder just how Avi’s delecate sensabilities would react to The End of Evangelion (or the Evangelion anime series as a whole, for that matter… Just curious.)
I was disappointed that they made a point of making Nightcrawler a Christian but didn’t really address the larger issues there either.
I think they made a point of making Nightcrawler a Christian because that is a defining point of his character. Nightcrawler was always written and a very spiritual person (a nice contrast to his outward appearance). I kinda wish they’d stuck more closely to GOD LOVES, MAN KILLS so they could’ve explored that idea more.
Now in X2 we know that Kurt has religious faith but where does the church stand on mutants? Are they God’s children too or an aberration in the church’s eyes? (This goes to the point, and the very title of, “God Loves, Man Kills”…) Where did Kurt get his faith? Did he have a religious upbringing or did he find the Bible on his own? Would there be underground churches, of all faiths, for mutants? I just think figuring out the society that would develop as a result of mutants would be an intriguing mental exercise.
Intriguing yes, but unnecessary. Kurt happens to be religious. That’s all that needs be said.
Help me out. Where did Jubilee show up? What about Beast?
JK
Jubilee was one of the kids that Stryker captured at the mansion. Beast was visable on the TV screen for a few seconds (non-blue, fuzzy, Beast, that is. His name, Dr. Henry McCoy, is visable under him while he is taklng.) Hope that helps.
OK. I guess I missed the Hank McCoy TV spot, but I’m trying to recall the Jubilee capture. Does she pop fireworks? Or was there just a young Asian girl standing around that we’ve decided was Jubilee?
OK. I guess I missed the Hank McCoy TV spot, but I’m trying to recall the Jubilee capture. Does she pop fireworks? Or was there just a young Asian girl standing around that we’ve decided was Jubilee?
I missed it the first time I saw the movie but when Storm and Nightcrawler are trying to rescue the kids (right before Nightcrawler teleports into their cell), Storm calls the girl Jubilee.
Intriguing yes, but unnecessary. Kurt happens to be religious. That’s all that needs be said.
I disagree. It is a defining point of his character so it bears some exploration. Where I think it’s interesting from a story point of view is first, whether Nightcrawler was raised by a family or by the members of the circus.
I would also like to know if Nightcrawler came to religion, in some way, because of human prejudice. Then there’s that whole “In His image” thing.
Here is a more complete list of all those little Easter Eggs from X2.
http://cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=38527
SPB
Look for Hank McCoy on the TV in the scene where Mystique looks like Rebecca Romjin-Stamos.
I’m glad we got to see her w/out the blue paint briefly in this one.
I would just like to thank whoever SPB is. I love that site.
With all the “God Loves, Man Kills” references, was I the only one struck by the graffiti that said “Nature Laughs” outside the church where they found Nightcrawler? Just wondering.