[trebleshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUCKYDUBE

Uhh, I dont know maybe by putting at least 2 out of 5 founding members? and some accurate relations between characters or accurate age differences would be a good start.

Since it's already been covered why Bobby, Scott, Jean and Warren cannot be in First Class, I'm not going to go over it again.

My point about judging the level of a movie's comic-accuracy is that it's rather subjective and you could easily do an X-Men movie that doesn't have any founding members in it but is still at least 50% comic-accurate. But based on your posts, it probably still wouldn't work for you. Which is fine, of course. I'm not about to tell someone that they should or shouldn't like a movie. I'm just saying "comic-accuracy" is a poor method for judging whether a comic-based movie is good or not.

Let's take the first X-Men film, for instance. Jean and Scott are not founding members. Hank isn't even mentioned. Bobby is a fairly new student and joined after Ororo. What percentage does that cover?

How about things in the film that are accurate? Wolverine joins after the school and team are well-established. Hell, Wolverine's practically ripped right out of the comics. Logan, Jean and Scott all have comic-accurate relationships with each other. Bobby is basically a modernized version of his comic debut (one of the youngest members, bit of a jester). So how much are we up to now? Ten percent? Twenty?

See, it's all relative.

Don't get me wrong, though. I have my own biases, too (see my "Deadpool" comments earlier), but I try not to judge a film solely based on how well it matches the source material. If that were the case, I would only enjoy nature documentaries or original films.