Brett Ratner Says You Have No Life

Apparently director Brett Ratner doesn’t actually make bad movies; the problem is that the audience just doesn’t appreciate his brilliance.

More than three years after Ratner’s X-Men: The Last Stand stunk up theaters, the filmmaker is still defending his movie against the critics who have placed it among some of the worst comic book adaptations of all time.  With Bryan Singer at the helm, the first two movies dealt metaphorically with racial, sociological, and political issues while introducing an all-star cast of complex characters.  When Singer stepped back from the the world of mutants to direct Superman Returns, Ratner took the reigns and apparently fired all the good screenwriters in order to hire some extra pyrotechnicians and CGI artists. 

Despite the fact that most people who saw the film — fanboys and regular folks alike — agree that Ratner excised the heart and soul of what made the first two films good (despite being the most financially successful film of the trilogy, X-Men: The Last Stand received a dismal 56% freshness rating at RottenTomatoes after the first two got 80% and 88%, respectively), Ratner recently lashed out at the geek community claiming that they didn’t like his adaptation simply because they have no life.  Speaking with AOL’s Popeater, he said:

I love a person who’s passionate about a comic book character. You gotta give it up for that guy, ’cause he’s got nothing else going on in his life.

This from the man that brought us enduring classics like Rush Hour, Rush Hour 2, Rush Hour 3, and…that’s about it.  (You can read more of his comments toward the end of the interview posted at the link above.)

To be perfectly transparent, a certain amount of skepticism toward the pickiness of the geek community is deserved.  There are people out there who were upset because Jean Grey’s eyes were the wrong color or because Wolverine was 6’2″ instead of 5’3″.  By and large, though, fanboys are passionate about their favorite comics properties because of the legacy and appeal of the characters, not what their costumes look like.  A cinematic divergence from the details and plotlines of ink-and-paper stories and source material doesn’t matter to most of us when the heart, motivation, and portrayal of characters is kept true to the originals with which we’re familiar.  We don’t go to see comic book movies simply because they feature a guy with knives coming out of his hands fighting somebody who can bend metal with his mind while explosions dance all around; we pay our $8 to see characters in whom we’re invested interacting in compelling new stories.

So, Mr. Ratner, I humbly submit to you that your X-Men movie has not been universally panned because we geeks didn’t approve; it’s because it was simply a bad movie.  There’s a lesson here for you and many of your Hollywood compatriots that, if taken to heart, will help you make far more successful (and better!) films: figure out why a property is popular before adapting it and then proceed accordingly.  Instead of dismissing the concerns of the most ardent fans, suss out why they are fans in the first place.  Engage them and listen to their opinions.  This is why creators like J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon, Peter Jackson, and Damon Lindelof have wildly popular movies and television shows while people like Uwe Boll, Mark Steven Johnson, and — yes, you — Brett Ratner are vilified for their work.