Mutant X--A poor man's Generation X

[BlackAngel]

hey people have this is BlackAngel aka  T. A. F. K. A.  N. E. Moses and I got a gripe.

Last Saturday I was watching this dismal show Mutant X.  John Shea must be thinking of killing his agent.  And the sad part is, it's "based" on the Marvel comic.  Question:  How can a show be based on a comic and yet have characters who are not even associated with the comic?  First of all these "mutants" are not even born, they're made!  What kind of s**t is that?  You have guy who is like Vision (intangeable to phase through objects and have the density to stop bullets).  A girl who has Spider-Man like agility.  And another girl who can manipulate people through their feelings. Who thought this bulls**t up?   Where's Havok?  Where's the Goblin Queen? Where's the Fallen? I thought those were the characters in the Mutant X comic.

[Thom Langan]

I can tell you it is so craptacular.  Marvel adn Fox worked together to make the X-Men movie, thusly giving Fox complete control of all X-Men related licencing.  Fox isn't making the series so it can't be totally X-Men related.  As why it's not the cool comic Mutant X, the only title from Marvel I read, because Marvel desided to make the X-Men all leather clad Watchmen wannabes and fired the Editor of the title, Jason Lebig (guy I actually know).  So basically the reasons for it are.. Marvel made a bunch of crap flikcs long ago, inorder to make good ones they give away creative control of the license and then the studio becomes evil with it and forces Marvel to put out crap once again..

But it could be worse.. they could be teeming Mutant X with Nightman

[The Bard]

I think Fox has had the rights to X-Men since the Cartoon was on the air on Fox.

Plus why would the new cartoon "based" (I think) on the movie (which had almost nothing to do with the comic) be airing on WB instead of Fox?

Marvel isn't exactly being raped here, just selling out. Its Stan Lees favorite past time.

[BlackAngel]

But let's compare Mutant X with Generation X in quality and faithfullness to their books:

Generation X, at least, had some of their characters from the comic.  Jubilee, Skin, Banshee, White Queen, Monet, and Mondo (they didn't have the budget to let him do what he actually do). But you also have a fifth rate Cyclops and a girl (they named her Buff, I think) who, I think, has strength and looks like a normal girl, but one scene she took off her shirt and her back look like that of a man.  Those are the only two I've never seen in the comic.  The setting was relatively in the present as was also in the comic.  AND,  AT LEAST, THSES MUTANTS ARE BORN!!!!!!!

Mutant X has none of the consistantcy and continuity the above, at least, had.  In the comic, the characters were Havok, Goblin Queen, the Fallen (a. k. a. Archangel), Bloodstorm (a. k. a. Storm), Beast (who now has the mind of a child), and Ice-Man (who, once touched will freeze you to death).  And the setting was in an alternate futuristic universe.  Will you find anything like that on the the tv show?  HELL NO!!!!! Give it a different title and not refer to them as mutant and the show can be a little bit believable.

My point is, I hate it when the tv and movie "big wigs" have the balls to greatly deviate from what the the norm in each comic book.  Besides George Clooney, why Batman and Robin was bad, from a fan's point of view, is its inconsistantcy and lack of continuity. Batgirl is Alfred's niece?  I'd like to find the guy who thought of that and shoot him in the nuts with a shotgun.

[The Bard]

If you thought the only thing wrong with Batman and Robin was the continuity and inconsistancy, then you weren't watching the same movie. Bad Directoring, Bad Casting, Bad Acting, Gay Icecapades, Horrid Editing, to name a few.

And if you ever heard of the World Wide Web Grudge Match, Joel Shumacher with Batman and Robin decemated the rest of the challengers for Worst Director in a movie. The others if I remember right where Kevin Costner "Waterworld", Ed Wood "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and I can't remember the last one. Its just not the "Dark Knight" without the darkness.

[Chris1]

I thought it sucks too it's just  like what I said last time on this site. Marvel makes really bad movies that go straight to video and really  not to good TV movies that was gonna to be a future TV show( aka Generation X). Both should never been made in the first place. On theTV movie Generation X  why did they made a mutant name Buff a girl instead of a boy because that was sick and twisted when she rips out of her clothes and have a body of a man it was just awful and nasty to watch.  I like to see women to look like women not  like a male body builder Yuk.. As for Mutant X  a  bad mistake gone to far. I watched two diffrent episodes of it. One on Saturday and the other on Sunday to have seen the mutants and even the bad guys  having that" I'm better than you are "attitude I don't like and they are so annoying I hope this won't last too long because it's just a mess up show to watch.

[BlackAngel]

I give it a month

[BlackAngel]

I also thought the movie was s**tty cause of the directoring, the writing, the casting(if they were going make us believe that Alfred's "niece" is from England, at least give Ms. Alicia Silverstone speech lessons) and everything.  But I was pointing out the these writers think the veiwing public (us) are idiots.  And the Batgirl/Alfred situation is a perfect example of that.

Another example of this is the upcoming Spider-man movie.  From what I heard, is that director is switching to organic webbing which, technically speaking, is ok.  But every movie/comic fan know since the 60's that Spidey still have the mechanical web-shooters.  The writers must be thinking that we won't know the difference or we won't care.

And if that particular grudge match is still there, what is the address?  I'm putting in my two cents in.

[Chris1]

I agreed with you they never go by the book what they supose to do . That why their movie sucks really bad.

[Stupid Jacob]

I saw this on Satureday and boy, did it stink.

I'm looking forward to the Spider-Man movie. Yes, the organic webshooter thing is kinda lame but the rest sounds pretty good. I think Maguire will make a good Spidey. And hey, no matter what it'll never be as bad as Batman and Robin (whoever had the idea "It's a hockey eam from hell should die a horrible and bloody death. Bastard).

P.S. Mutant X the crappy show isn't supposed to be like th kickass comic of the same name. The names are just the same.

[Hairzilla]

 I am SO glad that I missed the debut of MUTANT X, and, thanks to you guys, I won't be drawn into checking it out any time soon! I also have NO intention of catching the premier episode of "Clark's Creek".... otherwise known as SMALLVILLE! Who wants to see an entire series centered around a young Clark Kent discovering and learning to use his powers, without the payoff of ever actually seeing him become Superboy? [Clark didn't become SuperMAN until later.] Thank God that the proposed BRUCE WAYNE series, which was essentially the same concept, never got past the idea stage!

As for some of the other comics-to-film related comments that were brought up, lemme just hit you all with a few quick thoughts, cuz it's late and I'm zoning fast....

I felt exactly the same way you did, BlackAngel, when I first heard about the changes that Sam Rami would be making to Spider-Man, especially since I'm as big a Spider-Man fan as I am of The Batman! However, as time went by, Rami did make some concessions that many fans, myself included, find to be an acceptable compromise. [And the fact that he was willing to make 'em at all is pretty bloody admirable.] Rather than go into detail here, check out my comments in the "Sam Rami Sells Out" thread for what I'm refering to.  

And speaking of "The Bat"....As much as Joel Schumacher's BATMAN AND ROBIN was a traumatic experience for us all [I, personally, still have vivid memories of repeatedly muttering "...make it stop..." when I saw it in the theater.], I think that credit should be given where it is due for his previous entry, BATMAN FOREVER.  While the film definitely does have it's share of flaws, and a timeframe that I STILL can't figure out, with this one entry Schumacher managed to correct a few of the glaring mistakes made by Tim Burton:

Batman's proper origin was restored. The killer of his parents was now just a common thug that Bruce Wayne didn't know, and NOT the Joker.

Bruce was shown playing the role of the wealthy, socializing, public figure, as he does in the books, [To further throw off any idea that he could possibly be Batman.] and was not just the brooding, solitary character of the first two films...."Vale, I think your friend Wayne is really screwed up".

Batman, true to the established character, never takes a life in this film. Unlike the first two movies in which he is directly responsible for a number of deaths. [While Batman did, in fact, carry a gun - and use it - when he was first launched, the idea of Batman killing his adversaries was soon abandoned, and he has since developed into the character of today who will absolutely not cross that line.]

There are other things that Joel Schumacher did more right than wrong in this entry, [However, I will be the first to admit that where it was wrong, it was WRONG!] but I wanted to specifically point out the main differences between his take on the Batman mythos and Burton's.... And Burton's films aren't actually bad, otherwise I wouldn't own 'em both. I take them the same way I do the American Godzilla movie tho' - entertaining films in their own right, but not the character.

And on that note, despite whatever grammatical or sentence errors I may have commited, I need to grab some sleep.

                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                  HZ