f13.net

Kelsey Grammer is Beast in X-Men 3! (http://superherohype.com/news/featuresnews.php?id=3023)
Source: Superhero Hype!
May 18, 2005

ComingSoon.net/SuperheroHype.com got a chance to talk to Marvel Studios President and CEO Avi Arad on Tuesday afternoon about X-Men 3 and he revealed new details about the anticipated third installment.

"It's about to go," Avi says about the film. We asked whether it would build on the first two films. "In my opinion, X3, from a story and script perspective, it's bigger than one and two. It's the concept behind the movie that's bigger than one and two. It's building on our world, building on the world of mutants. In movie one you got to know what a mutant is and had to deal with it visavis humanity and the brotherhood. The second one was actually sort of a continuation but we were able to have more fun with it."

Which brings us to the big news. "And movie three features Angel, Beast, Kitty Pryde and Juggernaut. Right there you have worth the price of admission. And there are more, those are just the ones we can talk about. Juggernaut you had it already on your site, that is [Vinnie] Jones. That was accurate. Angel is not done yet, we're looking at a few guys, but it's a big role, so... we are very close, a few more days. Angel is a great emotional story. It's a very big role in this movie and so is Kitty Pryde, where we have some high choices that are great but it's just not locked up yet." Lost star Maggie Grace is in talks for the role.

Then we got to Beast. "It was the best man for the job. The name is... Kelsey Grammer! If you would have seen his read. It is kinda weird when you think about it for a second, and the key was with the X-Men movies is get the best man for the job. He blew us out of the park. Yeah, yeah, and he's also my neighbor..." As we laughed, Arad reassured us that the "Frasier" star is the right man for the job. "When you look at it you see how again we are continuing with inspired choices."

So what can we expect Grammer's Beast to be like? "Super intelligent. A pacifist Ph.D as he should be. I cannot tell you what he does in the movie because it's an amazing... it's a very big role in this movie. The subject matter of this movie, we don't take Beast lightly. It was someone that we didn't take into one and two because we were busy with other characters and Beast needs to be a centerpiece... and so is Angel, they had to be centerpieces. Too much going on within the story, the origin."

We asked Avi whether Grammer will be wearing a suit like The Thing, played by Michael Chiklis, in Fantastic Four. "You will see Beast like you've never seen him before. It's going to be very true to the comic. Of course we're building a suit and hair, you name it. Without going into detail, he's a very central character here in the movie and very much within what Hank McCoy is, Dr. McCoy."

Layer Cake director Matthew Vaughn is taking over from the first two films' director Bryan Singer. "I'm glad that 'Layer Cake' came out to help people understand who this guy is," said Arad. We've known him for a long time, but once we saw Layer Cake... You know he produces movies and he does understand the role, the sets and writing. There's a lot of functions. Some producers are lucky enough to take the plunge, to say 'that's it, I'm going to go for it'.

Asked whether anyone from the first two movies is not coming back, Arad said that "they're all coming back." Is there anything we can expect for Dark Phoenix or Gambit? "Well, just saying that Famke is coming back, we'll leave it to people's imagination to figure it out. And no comment on Gambit."

Avi added that 20th Century Fox expects to start shooting at the end of July. "We've been in active pre-production, costuming and all these things for quite a while. It's not starting at ground zero."

While we also asked about the other projects in development (click here for his answers), we got a few brief update on the other possible films in the "X-Men" franchise. Arad said that the Wolverine spin-off is "being written, you know David Benioff is writing it. We'll look at it and at the end of the day, if the script gets everybody excited... if David just knocks it out of the park, we want to make it. The when will be answered when we read it." He just said that the Magneto spin-off is in development.

Regarding X-Men 4, Arad said they'll have to wait and see. "You have to look at it. You say, 'Yeah I want to make X-Men 4', but let's see what we can make fresh and exciting that warrants making another one".

X-Men 3 is currently scheduled for a May 26, 2006 release.

X-Men > X-Men 2 > Spiderman 2 > Spiderman > Hulk >>>>>>> Daredevil. Who knows where The Fantastic Four will fall, but I won't miss a Marvel movie if I can help it.

*sniff* No mention of the Punisher?

That movie kicks ass damnit!

*sniff* No mention of the Punisher?

That movie kicks ass damnit!

Didn't see it, so couldn't rank it. If I had to guess, between Hulk and DD.

X-Men > X-Men 2 > Spiderman 2 > Spiderman > Hulk >>>>>>> Daredevil. Who knows where The Fantastic Four will fall, but I won't miss a Marvel movie if I can help it.

I too was a bit dissappointed by no Colossus, as well as lack of Gambit pwnage.

Kelsey Grammar annoys me almost as much as French Stewart.

I too was a bit dissappointed by no Colossus, as well as lack of Gambit pwnage.

Well, ok, but he can play Beast, don't you agree ??

Yes to Dark Phoenix (otherwise why show that last scenes in X2), but I thought Halle Berry had said she would refuse another sequel unless Storm was made a more central character? But I guess Gothika and Catwoman taught her she can't pick good roles from shit, and should be happy someone else gives her such presents as that role.

Not if he's sill popping pills, snorting coke and drinking like a fish.

Not if he's sill popping pills, snorting coke and drinking like a fish.

Doesn't stop me doing my job.

Do you have to hang upside-down, quote obscure texts, and be an overall dickhead most of the day?

I won't miss her. At all.

I think she jumped the shark when she spent 10 minutes in tears comparing herself to Dr Mr Luther King after winning the Oscar and everyone else was like 'Halle Berry is black?'  Oh, and then she was Catwoman.  I predict good things for "Nappily Ever After (http://imdb.com/name/nm0000932/)".

Either show some skin or ugly yourself up.

The standards for "best actress" at the Oscars are absurd. Either show some skin or ugly yourself up.

Ironically, the leading men of this decade - Pitt, Rockwell, Buscemi, Brody, Foxx, Norton, Spacey, Cage, Robbins, Wahlberg - tend to rock fucking ass. Sure, they're hit or miss, but when they really land their shit it's almost as if they didn't try. There's a certain finesse to it. But then people like Cruise, Washington, and Penn come and fuck everything up for them.

Have you seen Halle's acting in the X-Men movies? If anything Storm has way too much airtime.

When the fuck did Rockwell, Norton and Buscemi become leading men?

The best actress working today is Dakota Fanning. She's 11 years old and runs circles around the cinema sluts listed above. If you've seen Taken, you know what I'm talking about.

When the fuck did Rockwell, Norton and Buscemi become leading men?

I don't think any casting of well known actors is good casting. While, if I had no idea who Kelsey Grammer was, I'd probably think he made a great Hank McCoy after I watched the movie, as it is, I know him from Cheers, Frasier, Simpsons, etc.

It just reminds me of men playing women in ye olde england. I mean in that we have a group of people who make it their job and constantly reappear as different characters, making it all the more evident that what you're watching is a farce for entertainment. Frankly, I like not knowing any of the actors going into a really good movie - not relating them to another character or movie, and being able to believe that they ARE that character, without being distracted by the movie industry - or men in drag.

In other words, you have a problem with the idea of acting.

Fight Club
American History X
To name two major ones... though maybe he meant someone else I'm not thinking of.

Buscemi - Fargo was made like what, 9 years ago? I'd say he's been leading for quite a while. I think he was in a lesser known movie called the big Lebowski too.

Hammer and nails, and stuff.

Is it because it's the weekend or did I just kill a thread?  :oops:

In other words, you have a problem with the idea of acting.

I'm assuming he meant Edward Norton...

in which case:
Fight Club
American History X
To name two major ones... though maybe he meant someone else I'm not thinking of.

Regarding the initial subject:
Cautious optimism tempered by hesitant, guarded hope.

Buscemi - Fargo was made like what, 9 years ago? I'd say he's been leading for quite a while. I think he was in a lesser known movie called the big Lebowski too.

Asshat.

He wasn't a lead in Ghost World. Oh man, I must've been watching something else. MY BAD.

But even though I'm sure he'll do a fine job in X-Men, I'll still be thinking "There's Kelsey Grammer" the whole time.

Rockwell - Matchstick Men, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

You do realize he'll be covered in more makeup than most other actors there, yes? (Except Mystique. Rrrwr.) That tends to make the suspension of "that's Frasier Crane" work.

You do realize he'll be covered in more makeup than most other actors there, yes? (Except Mystique (http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0005381/). Rrrwr.) That tends to make the suspension of "that's Frasier Crane" work.

He wasn't a lead in Ghost World. Oh man, I must've been watching something else. MY BAD.

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0162346/Ss/0162346/GW_Poster.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0162346

I don't know.  He was an important character, sure, but the lead?  I don't think so.  Kinda like how Johnny Depp wasn't the lead in Pirates, but it wouldn't have been the same movie without him.  He was still supporting.  And hell, at least Depp was on the poster.

On the other hand Johnny Depp got a Best Actor Academy Awards nomination for that role.

By default, Buscemi got the lead male title for Ghost World. He simply had more lines than any other male in the movie.

Also, in Pirates, Depp had much more screentime than anyone else. You may be confusing him with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector. Probably not though.  :-D

I know he had more screentime, and basically it was a good movie BECAUSE of his character, but his plot wasn't the main one.  As such, I considered Bloom the lead actor- even though he was outdone on many levels by Depp's performance.  But let's be honest- most actors would find that performance hard to top.  Jack Sparrow is just a fantastic character, and Depp made him a classic.

Galactus as a Beatles Fan.


Hmm, I smell Money.

With the way his helmit is shaped I would have thought he was more an Elvis guy myself.

Most of us don't think enough of Hollywood to be surprised by the casting of David Hyde Pierce as Galactus, no matter how insane that would be.

But I hear Nic Cage wants to play him.

Galactus is Elenor Rigby?

Yes. The vast majority (99%) of actresses working today are untalented hacks. Off the top of my head I can't even think of an overwhelmingly good actress. Scarlett Johannson was great in LiT and Ghost World, but then she's also done Perfect Score. Kirsten Dunst was good in Eternal Sunshine (as was Kate Winslett) and Wimbledon to a degree - but then she also did, well, really everything between Interview with a Vampire and Eternal Sunshine was crap. Kate Winslett hadn't been in a great movie besides Eternal Sunshine, unless you're a fan of Heavenly Creatures (I think that's the name. I always get it confused with the Rachel Weisz movie). Speaking of Rachel Weisz, she's also reasonably good, in a really good or positively shitty sort of way. Zooey Deschanel and Maggie Gyllenhall are consistantly awesome, unfortunately their movies are far and inbetween because they aren't hot according to casting director standards. The SUPER BIG NAME WOW actresses (Berry, Roberts, Swank, Paltrow, Hunt, Sarandon, Theron, Foster) are more often than not total shit. When they nail a role, they really nail it. But they never got props for their nailed roles. Angelina Jolie sucks monstrous ass but she's been riding the Girl, Interrupted wave for about 5 years going now. Berry was never good and will never approach good. I wish I could like Julia Roberts and Gwyneth Paltrow, but they won't let me. Girls like Thora Birch and Anna Paquin need to get more work.

The best actress working today is Dakota Fanning. She's 11 years old and runs circles around the cinema sluts listed above. If you've seen Taken, you know what I'm talking about.

Ironically, the leading men of this decade - Pitt, Rockwell, Buscemi, Brody, Foxx, Norton, Spacey, Cage, Robbins, Wahlberg - tend to rock fucking ass. Sure, they're hit or miss, but when they really land their shit it's almost as if they didn't try. There's a certain finesse to it. But then people like Cruise, Washington, and Penn come and fuck everything up for them.

What I'm getting at here is there isn't a duo like Grant and Hepburn that make movies magical anymore. We're in desperate need of a new onscreen team that really lights shit up. Even if it's two males and one of them isn't even acting (Kurosawa and Mifune for instance). I'm sorry but Hillary Swank and Clint Eastwood just don't do it for me. Neither does Jet Li and Morgan Freeman. Or Natalie Portman and Bitchface Christensen.

I'm moving into rant territory now and I'd rather not, suffice it to say - we all need Dakota Fanning to grow up and to stop any of the actors in cable teen dramas from becoming famous. Case dismissed.

> Buscemi: this was covered already. He's a character actor, not a leading man. One of the best character actors out there next to Walken, but still not a leading man. Ghost World doesn't count since he was basically the only male in that whole damn boring thing.

You do seem to be slamming some people more for their shitty choices of roles than for their acting ability.

Angelina Jolie was/is good in NOTHING.

Spandex.

Neg. A good actor can work in a bad movie. Matthew Lilliard was great in She's All That.

Matthew Lilliard is a bucktoothed cocksucking lacktalent of the highest order. His very existence diminishes the entire craft of acting.

He's a character actor. Go rent SLC Punk, heathen.

*I will check it out at some point.

Halle Berry was/is good in NOTHING.

I disagree. I thought she was good in Monster's Ball.

Matthew Lillard is not a character actor, because he would actually have to play more than 1 character for that. And no, fucking Shaggy does not count as 1 character.

Once again.  Until you see SLC Punk, you can't judge Matthew Lillard. If you've seen it and still think that, I guess there's just no accounting for bad taste. :-)

Unfortunately, that didn't save Swordfish, which was brilliant for the first five minutes and utter shite thereafter.

Can I ask why you don't like Hillary Swank schild?

While she has been in bad movies, she has done a great job in all of her movies. Yes, that includes the Next Karate Kid.

And while she is kind of pretty, I certainly wouldn't rate her as smoking hot.

Not to mention that she could eat corn on the cob through a picket fence.

Not to mention that she could eat corn on the cob through a picket fence.

SLC Punk is a great flick.


/although this may be influenced by the fact that I lived some of it.

Natalie Portman really wasn't all that impressive in Leon. The people around her made her look a LOT better. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Dakota Fanning will be a god among (wo)men if she doesn't start doing drugs Drew Berrymore style.

At least, not until late tonight, when I got the two names confirmed from inside the Pico lot, from a spy I’ll call “Putch Harker,” who tells me that we’ll have an announcement very soon. So either we’ll have X3 directed by John Moore, who did solid, sturdy jobs with both BEHIND ENEMY LINES and FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX, or...

... brace yourselves...

... Brett Ratner.

Now go back and read those clues that everyone gave me at the start of the piece. Makes sense, doesn’t it? What just fell apart? RUSH HOUR 3. Ratner’s definitely considered an A-list filmmaker. And he’s certainly one of ”those” names. Right now, I’d bet he’s the guy who’s going to end up in the chair by the start of the week.

Which raises the question... which X-MEN 3 is he going to make? The one that Matthew Vaughn left behind, that famous “six day script,” which is still evidently being revised by Kinberg and Penn as we speak? Or something else? With only nine weeks left to go until the film starts shooting, it would seem like they’re pretty much locked into what they’re going to be doing. It’d be nice to know what the general plot is... which characters are definitely in it, and what they’re doing... wouldn’t it?

Please... not... Brett... Ratner. He's a mediocre director if anything, who happened to get lucky with the timing of two superstars in the making (Chan and Tucker having great chemistry). Rush Hour could easily have been Money Talks. Either Moore or Ratner is really just a warm body in the director's chair, with no real artistry of their own. I suppose it could have been worse. It could have been McG.

But still.

What's happening?!!! (http://alancumming.com/whatsnew.htm)

EX X MAN!! Alan will NOT be appearing in X3. Fox has not picked up his option to play Nightcrawler for a second movie.

From Alan Cumming's website:

You're just trying to pop a blood vessel in my forehead, aren't you?

If any of that shit is true, especially the part about Cyclops being killed, FUCK THEM. Cyke has always been my favorite X-Man, and he's been fucked over for years by writers too in love with fucking Wolverine to do more than make him a tool.

Nightcrawler, though, he just exuded cool. Not having him in it just sucks donkey dick.

Fuck that, give me more Colossus.

Yes, but he was mostly a plot device in the 2nd movie; that plot having gone, he's not that important anymore.

Having Nightcrawler is fucking important as important gets, goddamnit.

Yeah, he just got 1 or 2 scenes in the second movie (leading some kids to safety, helped by Iceman and Wolverine). In the comic books he once fricking saved Japan from an earthquake-inducing mutant. He is powerful dammit!

That was Banshee who lost his power because of it.

*sigh* Yeah, I know - I was sure I deleted that sentence before submitting. Shame on me. Colossus got knocked almost into the sea, and went back in, angry, and beat the baddie up if memory serves.

July 1, 2005 -- RED-blooded director Brett Ratner is having his dream character written into the new "X-Men 3" movie. The mutant is, according to an inside source, "an unbelievably hot and sexy hooker. Her super power is that she secretes a pheromone that helps her to seduce men. She can seduce anyone." The source added the character has not yet been cast but, "they are open to all ethnicities who are in their early-to-mid 20s." Unknowns Kate Nauta and Aya Sumika are apparently auditioning. A rep for Ratner didn't return calls. 

Sure, the Marvel universe doesn't have enough characters that are interesting so make up your own. Brett Ratner deserve a lava bukkake for this one.

I've got an idea- let's do the whole movie with muppets.

Son of a bitch.

It just keeps getting worse.

I've got an idea- let's do the whole movie with muppets.

Let's get the South Park guys a la Team America!

Of course, they may also be talking a character that was only recently in the X-Men during Joe Casey's run (circa Uncanny #400 or some such) whose name I forget. She was a mutant hooker (a hooker for people who got off on having sex with mutants) who used pheremones to seduce people.

Yeah, her. I can't imagine they'd bring in such a minor and forgotten character, but then, these are the same fucktards that are now on their third director for a blockbuster money-making franchise. Smart is not their catchphrase, apparently.

If you're going to fuck up, fuck up big I suppose.

No, unfortunately, the explanation for that is that Joel Schumacher is a flaming douchebag of a dog-fucking fairy.

But you had the bat-butt !  What's to hate ?

They should strip Storm of her powers and put her in her punk phase as an excuse to cast a new actress in the role. The standards for "best actress" at the Oscars are absurd. Either show some skin or ugly yourself up.

IGN FilmForce has learned that the role of Kitty Pryde in X-Men 3 will be played by eighteen-year-old actress Ellen Page (a.k.a. Ellen Philpotts-Page). Her credits include Hard Candy and the TV series Trailer Park Boys. Click here for more about Ms. Page.

The part of Warren "Angel" Worthington's father has not yet been cast but is down to a few actors, while Daniel Cudmore will reprise his role as Colossus in X3. And, yes, Alan Cumming's Nightcrawler will definitely not return.

Cayden Boyd has been apparently been cast as Angel (http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=14755).  I can't say that I saw "The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl in 3-D", so I can't say anything about his acting.  I didn't realize though that they were going to make Angel this young.

It says "young archangel" in that link.  He might just be for flashbacks and etc.

and IMDB wasn't much help

Kevin Smith is only a year older than I'm about to be? And he's a Leo too?

I'm not sure what that makes me feel like.

How much help do you really need (http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0004936/)?

Hey, Orlando Bloom didn't look like Legolas.  That didn't stop him.

Look, there's a world of a difference between saying 'This actor looks nothing like the part he was cast as' and 'that actor played and looked the part during the movie'.

Stop trying to fucking wind me up.  It's working.

Which I think was my point.

I dunno if this is the same one but there's a newish trailer here:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/tls/trailer/

Saw the same trailer on 24. It's fun spotting the little details and figuring out which various comic storylines they are blendering together.

Looks like they might be going with the Dark Phoenix/Logan on the Moon ending, just not on the Moon. Won't really have the same impact though if she doesn't blow up a star first.