Scoobert wrote:

...So I will not thank you, for tring to turn more people into mindless zombies, ready to buy anything just because it has a certain logo, no thanks to you.

meh- i just watch them for the special effects. :p no zombie-mode here.

Scoobert wrote:

X-men was a good cartoon, but the movie is nothing but a way to sell merchinice. It really isn't that entertaining if you sit and think about it. The only reason there is a third movie is because the other two where profitable, but no other reason. I am sorry, but I don't like movies like that, where entertainment is just seen as a way to make you buy stuff, rather than a way to convey a message or even feeling on a subject. So I will not thank you, for tring to turn more people into mindless zombies, ready to buy anything just because it has a certain logo, no thanks to you.

Er... what the hell are you talking about? I don't believe I've ever even seen any X-Men movie merchandise, let alone any particularly blatant attempts to hawk it. It's just a fun movie (series). Get over it.

Scoobert wrote:

Oh, but how many cups where they on? What about the cartoon show that followed the first one(Yes, I know it was not the first x-men cartoon), and the toys off of that.

It's X-Men. Of course there are going to be cartoons and toys based off it. The cartoon had little to do with the movie. It wasn't a spin off in the sense that the cartoon they made for Godzilla was.
It was a legitimate X-Men series. The characters didn't sit there spouting catch phrases from the movie and it's safe to say that it was created from the X-Men universe and not the movie.
It was probably encouraged by the movie's success (although I could have sworn it was before the movie), but it clearly stands on it's own as a decent cartoon series based on a comic series.
That said I didn't care much for that particular X-Men series.

All the posters, the hype, the lots and lots of ads. Do you think they do that just because they think it will be a great movie? They want you to see it, even if it sucks.

It's called promoting a movie. They all do it. If they think a movie is going to be successful enough to cover it they do it more, but putting so much money into a movie that might not be successful is a huge risk.
Of course they want you to see it. That's how they make money to make movies. If it sucks then you've wasted $10, not a big deal. If you're expecting to see a cinema masterpiece everytime you enter the theater you're going to have to pay more than $10.
I don't think anyone who ever released a movie like X-Men has ever thought their movie sucked. Movie producers don't sit around with Dracula and Dr. No plotting to create utter garbage then trick people into watching it.
They're not trying to trick you with ads, they're just trying to highlight stuff you might like so you'll go see the movie. Despite what you may think drawing in as many people as possible can really hurt a movie.
You get the first three screenings packed with people who aren't going to like your movie and you're in trouble. The negative publicity from people complaining it sucked will kill the movie.
This holds true mainly with over-hyped movies because people plan on seeing hyped movies and usually talk about it with their friends first. As opposed to a movie that hasn't been hyped, where people tend to just pick it when they're at the cinema. If their friends have heard it sucks, or seen it and thought it sucked, they tell the people planning on going and they usually change their plans.
Having a bunch of goons in the cinema screwing around because they aren't enjoying a movie can ruin it even for those who would normally enjoy it.

If it was truly a great movie, it would draw a crowd without all the hype.

Have you ever considered that a good movie will generate hype? Hype doesn't make a movie bad anymore than it'll make a movie good. Not seeing a movie because it's hyped up is much stupider than seeing a movie because it's hyped.
People want X-Men 3 because X-Men 1 and 2 were sweet movies. A lot of the hype is generated by the fan communities who are so desperate to see this movie made.
They make those drink bottles and hats because people buy them. They're well aware that as far as advertising goes those things don't do squat.

Why does he expect us to thank him for sharing an advertisement with us?

Because he enjoys it and expects us to enjoy it too? Sure we could find it ourselves, but I know I wouldn't have. I'd completely forgotten about X-Men 3 and I'm glad he reminded me.
He's obviously excited about the release of X-Men 3 and wants to talk about the trailer. Would you have had a problem if he brought up X-Men 3 without mentioning the trailer?

When it is released, I will see the ratings, and decide if it is worth my money then.

So you'll make your choice based off ratings as opposed to trailers and teasers? To me that doesn't make sense. Sure I'll take ratings into account if they're extremely postive or negative, but by watching the trailer I can see if it looks like the sort of movie I like.

AZ0123 wrote:

The timing was just about right, technology-wise. You couldn't have even tried to make an X-men movie before then and expect to satisfy the fans.

I'm noticing that more and more lately. I've always been annoyed by computer animation because it's used in a lot of situations where there are better alternatives, but I was watching something on Kong tonight and I realised that we're at the point where provided you put the right amount work into it you can use it for almost anything.

I have to admit, I was disapointed when they cast Haley Barrey as Storm. Storm was a large, very dark African woman. Heley is, like, not. She doesn't come off right.

I suspect there may have been a reason for this. If Storm was cast as a large, dark African woman I think she would come off as too strong. I've always thought one of the key elements of Storm is that she's sort of soft looking until she 'unleashes the storm' so to speak. It's then she becomes the dark Storm.
I don't think Haley Berrey really pulls off 'dark Storm', but she gets the most screen time as the soft Storm. So I could understand if they felt it was more important to get that right.
But that's just my theory.

Well, the problem with the trailers is that they normaly show all the good parts of the movie, when you go and watch it, then you have seen the best parts already. Waiting for the reviews is a good thing, these people do nothing but rate movies for a living, and waiting for the reviews gives you a better idea of how the movie really is rather than watching the trailers, which only show you what the advertisers want you to see. War of the Worlds is a good example of that. It was way over hyped, I went and saw it in the theaters, second day I believe. And, although it was close to the original storyline, it really was not entertaining, or action packed, which is what the trailers led you to believe. I did not get what was advertised, and feel I wasted $10 and 3 hours(drive time included). Even now, as it gets released on DVD, the ads make a big deal about it, like it is the best movie since sliced bread. You simply cannot trust the hype and advertisements, which include trailers. Ever. My main point is, he just pointed us to an advertisement and asked us to thank him, like we should be greatful that he made us look at at something that is little more than movie propaganda, reguardless of the movies entertainment value, trust me, we will all know X-Men 3 is coming, what with the posters/cups/labels everywhere. And you don't think they work? Well, why do they do it? It costs a lot of money to pay these food companys to put thier logo on the cups(I assume), and they would not dish out money without some return. Perhaps I am just being grupy, but I don't like people turning hype into overhype. If I would have never heard of the movie, and it would have otherwise slipped right by me, I might, maybie, thank him for bringing the movie to my attention.