Brett Ratner is a douche. News at 11.

By On September 16, 2009 · 10 Comments

Wolverine hates Brett Ratner, too.

Wolverine hates Brett Ratner, too.

Anyone who’s ever heard me rant about how absolutely terrible X-Men: The Last Stand is knows that I think Brett Ratner is a hack. He took a great movie franchise with a lot of potential, stuck it in his pie hole, chewed it up, and then crapped it out onto celluloid. I emphatically do not like what he did with that series. The third movie was poorly written and badly directed, and other than the Wolverine/Jean Grey stuff (which I occasionally watch without watching the rest of the film), I for the most part like to pretend that movie never happened. (I do the same thing with the sequels to The Mummy.)

Ratner gave an interview to Starpulse in which he bitched, moaned, and whined about how mean the “comic book geeks” are, and how we’re rabid fans who don’t understand his genius, etc, etc. Lucky for me, Screen Rant already ripped his interview to shreds and called him on all of his bullshit rationalizing as to why fans of the franchise which he was supposed to extend hate his movie.

My favorite bit of Ratner bleating: “Mine was the one that made the most narrative sense. And I’m not knocking Bryan’s movie but he just does a certain thing; Bryan uses his brain and I use my eye and my instincts more. It’s a whole different approach to making a movie. I’m not saying my movie wasn’t smart; I just wasn’t intellectualizing it. I was just looking at it as pure entertainment value which is what it was.”

Yours was the one that made the most narrative sense? Really, Ratner? Because from where I’m sitting, as a fan of the comic books and the movie franchise as well as someone who’s trained to analyze narrative, yours was the one that made the least sense. You tried to cram two completely separate comics-based storylines into an hour and forty-five minutes. The narrative sucked. While I can admit that killing Professor Xavier was a bold, interesting move, killing of Cyclops was just ridiculous. I’m not a Cyclops fan by any stretch, but for god’s sake, what was the point in that?

Singer’s two X-Men films were miles above Ratner’s precisely because he used his head. Singer knew that the storyline was ripe for comparisons with modern events, and by using his brain, as Ratner puts it, he was able to create a superhero film that wasn’t just explosions and BIFF! POW! and hot chicks in leather suits. Ratner’s film wasn’t particularly smart, though he did want to give it the veneer of intelligence. The cure storyline, taken from Joss Whedon’s run on the Astonishing X-Men title could have dealt with very serious emotional issues for mutants. In the comics, Hank McCoy really struggles with the decision to use it or condemn it, because he’s had to live most of his adult life in a less than human form and faced even more fear and hatred from humans for it. What did Ratner do with it? He gave Rogue some teen angst and then depowered Magneto, OMG!

Yeah. It’s so smart my brain can’t handle Ratner’s dizzying intellect.

And this comment: “When I was a kid and used to watch that cartoon it was just fun. It wasn’t a deeper meaning for me when I watched the cartoon as a kid. I didn’t read the comic books but it doesn’t matter, the cartoon is the same f*cking thing.”

I… I… I’m sorry, my brain just exploded. The cartoons were certainly not the same thing as the comic books, dude. Saying this pretty much cemented the opinion that you were the absolute WRONG person to direct an X-Men film. The cartoon was silly and fun, therefore I don’t need to use an ounce of intelligence when I make the third movie!

I’m beating my head on the desk right now.

While yeah, the fans are pretty harsh on Ratner, I say it’s justified. He inherited a project that two directors had already backed out of and then screwed the pooch with it. So he can piss and moan all he likes, but the fans are going to keep ripping him a new one as long as he stays on our radar. Honestly, he should probably just shut up about it and go back to making Rush Hour 18 or whatever his new project is.

The All-New Nook! The Simple Touch Reader just for $139 - Buy Now at BarnesandNoble.com!
Tagged with: • •
 
About The Author

TDF Pamela

The Discriminating Fangirl, who is more likely to answer to Pamela if you shout it at her, is the proud owner of an MA in English, focusing on children's/young adult literature and popular culture. She's now not using that degree to work as a project manager for a mobile app company. She reads voraciously, loves geeky movies and tv shows, reads comic books as long as she's not pissed off at Marvel, and when she's procrastinating, she enjoys playing video games. She can be contacted at t.d.fangirl @ gmail.com and followed on Twitter @tdfangirl.

Visit Authors Website →
  • Emily

    I can’t click on the link, that’s how mad at him I am right now from just reading the bits you posted.

    “Mine was the one that made the most narrative sense.”
    I mean, that’s just ridiculous. Even if you exclude all the previous narrative that was started in the first two (which was not really connected AT ALL to the third) his movie still made no sense. The two characters that he added to the group, Beast and Angel, had no narrative impact on the film really. Beast COULD’VE been used really well as you point out, but all he was given was two throwaway bits about shedding on the furniture. There was never any conflict for him–even though he was part of the government (he just gives it up to fight) and even though he sympathizes with Rogue’s wish to be rid of her powers. And Angel really could’ve been written out entirely because he wasn’t really part of the “narrative” he just showed up shirtless. And I’m not even mentioning the fact that he’s first seen in San Francisco, then he disappears for a good chunk of the movie. Then he reappears in New York, and the next day he’s suddenly in San Francisco again. I mean, he can fly so maybe you could swing that. But Iceman also appears in San Francisco to find Rogue in the crowd, then goes back to New York for the suiting up scene and then is back in San Francisco for the fight.

    And what is the narrative of the third movie exactly? I mean, the cure storyline is about saying “Oh hey, you can get rid of your powers and it’ll be fine [Rogue]” but the Jean story is like “Nope, you can’t. Powers will control you and you’ll have to die.” Does he think this is a neat counterpoint? That it was some arty thing? Because it was just muddled and stupid.

    And, my blood pressure is rising so I’ll have to stop, but how dare he slam the cartoons. If you had Hugh Jackman and the rest just read the lines from the cartoon, it would be way better than his stupid movie. GAH.

  • http://www.jessicafritsche.com Jess

    What a total d-bag. TOTAL D-BAG. I am 100% with you on this…but I’m pretty sure we have the same opinions about the movie for the same reasons, so that’s not a shock. :-)

    I still want my good Phoenix Saga movie, followed by a Dark Phoenix saga movie. Grrr.

  • WereGeek

    Cyclops died for one of two reasons:

    1. Ratner is secretly a Redshipper and wanted to have a plausible way for Wolverine to be the one to have to kill Jean in the end rather than the possibility of Cyclops talking her down, or
    2. He did it to prove that, in his X-Men, anyone could be killed at any time (sort of like Wash in Serenity.)

    And wow. I hate it when directors use their brains to make a film with substance. Y’know, Michael Moore uses his eye and his instincts to make his movies, too.

  • Emily

    Cyclops died because James Marsden left with Singer for “Superman.” I think they should’ve just have Storm turn to the camera and say, “I know you thought Cyke was the leader but the director is mad Mr. Marsden him so they’re killing his character off.” At least that would’ve been believable.

  • Lady-T

    I think, possibly even worse than Ratner’s utter incompetance is his monumentally over-inflated ego. The sad thing about X3 is that it was kind of fucked from the get-go, when Fox decided a script could totally wait until ten minutes before it was actually required. They didn’t start writing the damn thing until it was almost due to film. That wasn’t entirely Ratner’s fault, he was just the only person willing to take over at such short-notice. You could tell it was going to be in trouble when Vaughn jumped ship so close to the start of filming.
    Ratner’s total inability to craft a coherent movie certainly accounts for a big steaming pile of what was wrong with X3, but if the powers that be had pulled their finger out a little earlier, Ratner’s presence would never have even been an issue.
    I think that’s the biggest problem I have with Ratner. He wants to be lauded for a huge-assed movie when he joined so late in the day the whole big mess was already rolling along without him, and then he managed to somehow make it cheesier.
    X3 was basically a whole big mess, from inception to completion, and Ratner was just one part of it. Though I will admit I’m not entirely convinced it’s fair that he gets pretty much all of the blame as Rothman, Fox and bickering writers are just as much to blame, when Ratner starts complaining that he’s such a misunderstood genius my sympathy severely wanes.

  • http://www.unboundblogzine.com hagelrat

    Douche seems kind. I prefer Ass Clown. The Last Stand was totally f*cked. The comics offered a wealth of awesomeness and storylines to play with and he chose to what, piss on it all? Grr.

  • http://corbeau.livejournal.com Renee

    Holy crap. He’s such an asshat. I just watched Last Stand again the other night because I’d forgotten how much I hated it and needed a reminder. My beau, who has not watched any of the X-Men movies since the first, watched it with me and was shocked at the balls of Mr. Ratner. First for killing off Cyclops and then fucking with the rest of the characters too. Mystique. Magneto. Rogue. It seems to me that Ratnards wanted to make everyone human and forget the mutants.

    I don’t know. I really hope if they ever manage to go back to that thread they will pick up again where X2 left off and forget Last Stand ever existed.

    I for the most part like to pretend that movie never happened. (I do the same thing with the sequels to The Mummy.) OMG – so do I! And oh how I LOVE the first Mummy. Geez. It’s amazing how much I hate the rest of them.

  • YopiQ

    bravo entry el. ratner ruined the integrity of the series. so comic books are not suppose to be treated with intelligence. Christopher Nolan’s revival of the batman franchise embodies intelligence as well as summer movie entertainment. I really dislike his dismissal of comic books and graphic novels. They are very much a significant contribution to literature in general. X3 could have shown even more character development…and they just made it into crap. They did not treat one of the most important storyline in the universe with respect. I just don’t understand why singer left the project, or why they couldn’t wait for singer.

    It just really irritates me …u know what, just plain pisses me off that he has such disrespect for the material and have his head up his ass.

  • http://www.thediscriminatingfangirl.com TDF Pamela

    @Emily: YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES. The narrative structure of the third movie is a joke. It’s like Michael Bay Light: lots of action, lots of fake emotion, not a lot of substance. And yes, that is exactly why Cyke got killed. Ugh.

    @Jess: I’m sure we do have exactly the same opinion of this movie, and I’m sure we’ve bitched about it together before, haha.

    @WereGeek: I do think that the studio or someone did want Wolverine to have to mercy kill Jean at the end, and in the context of a film (especially one that was as rushed and choppy as this one), they needed an easy way to explain why Cyclops didn’t/couldn’t do it. Shoddy storytelling.

    @LadyT: I definitely don’t hold Ratner solely responsible for the movie. The studio holds a big chunk of responsibility for putting the script off, and the writers get some blame for writing the thing. It’s not just Ratner’s fault, and I might have even felt sorry for him for having to handle that clusterfuck if he wasn’t such an arrogant dickhead about it. His movie was by far the worst of the three, but the way he talks, it’s cinematic genius. And instead of shouldering some of the blame for how it turned out, he brags about how much money it made (yeah, many movies with built in audiences DO make lots of money even if they suck; see Star Wars new trilogy) and how all of the comic book geek fans won’t STFU and bask in his genius. Ugh. On top of that, he’s generally a repulsive, arrogant human being and… my sympathy has disappeared.

    @hagelrat: Assclown is a good one, too. It really does make me angry that he has no respect for the source material. Adapting anything to film is difficult, and I understand that. It’s when the guy says that there’s no difference between the cartoon he watched a few times as a kid and the comics that I get pissed.

    @Renee: I’m with you, I wish they’d wipe X3 off the map and keep going. Make a good Phoenix movie, damn it. Or reboot the whole thing (keeping Hugh Jackman, of course, heh). Hollywood’s got such a hardon for rebooting franchises now… why not X-Men? And the 1st Mummy movie was fantastic. The second? SUCKED. It made me a very sad fangirl.

    @YopiQ: Ratner does seem dismissive of the comics, doesn’t he? He’s probably buying into the wider belief that comics are kids stuff and are therefore unintelligent, which is completely untrue. But then again, Ratner’s movies in general don’t lead me to believe that he’s all for intelligent filmmaking.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.