Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1246706" data-attributes="member: 151">It gets worse.  My wife and I just sat down last night and watched X2.  Immediately after the movie, we browsed the extras disc, to see what goodies were there.  One of them was 'Nightcrawler REBORN!'.  Since Nightcrawler has always been one of my favorite characters, I immediately made a beeline for it....to get a long, LONG interview with Chuck Austen.  No history of the character, no discussion of the difference between comic and film versions, and no analysis of challenges of bringing him to film.  Instead, the interview primarily focused on Austen's Nightcrawler movie-prelude comic and Austen being 'the writer on the X-men'.  He was quite proud of how he was 'fixing' Nightcrawler and 'bringing him back to his roots'.   Interspersed with the interview are twirling, constantly rotating pictures of the line art from the comic...mostly scanned pictures of Cockrum and Byrne art, clearly scanned from the Marvel Masterpiece collections...and all evoking memories of much better writers and stories, when they aren't giving you motion sickness.  He explains how "they" made Nightcrawler more and more involved in his faith, eventually making him a priest, and how he got him away from all that.  Ironic comments, considering how Brian Singer emphasizes all that in the movie.  The glimpses of the comic that we do see don't seem to even notice or mention Nightcrawlers tattoos, or really have much to do with anything, other than a weak connection to the movie. Feh.  Who knew a time would come when a movie adaption would be more faithful than the comics, themselves?</blockquote>

Verification