Wolverine

Flavinho: I think it's a little subjective to say that the failure to make Wolverine look like a runt doesn't affect the movie's quality at all. But if I start calling out all the subjective points people make, someday someone's gonna look real hard at my posts and possibly--just possibly--find something I said that was a little bit subjective as well. 🙄

While what you said makes sense, you basically proved my point by pointing out that the movie was made in a rush. The X-Men have waited at least 25 years to star in a movie. There was absolutely no excuse to rush this film. Were they afraid all the X-Fans and popcorn movie-lovers were going to die before the release? Anyway, I don't accept an excuse like time constraints on an immortalized franchise whose film rights took decades to even set straight when they cut corners.

As for the writers and Jackman capturing Wolverine's soul, I partially agree with you. I also think that Wolverine, like Spider-Man, was watered down for the wider audience and made into a more generic hero. That's unacceptable. I won't even entertain the idea of anyone's excuse for this. Here's why: the X-Men are not supposed to be generic heroes, at least not originally. More specifically, Wolverine stands out from the group. That's why he's their meal ticket. Wolverine is not a cookie-cutter superhero that follows cliched cinematic conventions (or at least he wasn't before everyone started using Wolverine as a model for their newer heroes). The runtiness is an asset, and they failed to use it. They also failed in several instances, portraying some other character instead of Wolverine . When they have a character that so many people recognize doing pansy-ass things like timidly approaching an abandoned military facility where his past supposedly lies and then leaving after taking a cursory glance, they have failed to deliver. Wolverine would either walk right into the facility with cocky self-assuredness, or he'd do it calmly stealthily. But never, ever like some woman in a horror flick, slowly moving into a dark room, waiting to get disembowled. And when they have Wolverine making a big, drawn-out show of how much it hurts to put out a cigar in his hand, they sabotage the point of the action entirely. A simple grunt would have been perfect. Oh, but we have to show Wolvy's vulnerable side, right? No. If he hugs Rogue or kisses Jean, then he's sensitive enough for these movies. They don't need to make him much taller and much wussier and then tell us they're trying to be realistic. It's laziness and incompetence, pure and simple. Rushing through a movie and cutting corners is incompetence.
Okay, I'm done ranting. Feel free to respond with any thoughts. Talk to you good people later.

Ok, for people like you it affected the quality of it, i should have said for the most people it didn't affect, but there are always different people who have different thoughts. In the beginning of my reply i said that basically your right. Basically. You said that they waited 25 years to put X-men in a movie so they couldn't be in a rush to do it right in a year. But you must see that Fox, as any other production company, just wanna see money, and wanna see it fast. They didn't beleive much in a super-hero movie at that time (they were right), that's why there wasn't time and money to make a smash hit, coz it was a shoot in the dark, the most part of sh movies had failed, and they didn't want to lose money. Spending too much time in film that probably won't work makes them lose money as they could be deeply working on worthy projects. That's why i think they wanted to make it fast: so that they couldn't lose much of their furtune if the movie failed like the other super-hero movies did. I hope I have proved that there was an excuse to the rush of making the film.
I must agree with you that Wolvie is more generic in the films (although, as a non-die-hard fan, i don't think it's unaceptable). But then again, we come to money point. A film that has a bloody hero without any boggle doesn't attract many people, principally if it's only recommended to people older than 18. They needed to put Wolvie a little nicer to not shock the audience that didn't know him and to let more people watch it(so that they could earn more money). You could even say that Logan lost his essence without all that rage. I don't think so. Logan's essence is there, obviously more in dialogues than in actions, but it's there. And that's what you need to a film that was promised to be a trailer to the second and third ones (in the second we got to see more of his rage, and we'll probably see even more in the third, or in the spin-off).
As for the scene of the cigar, you said that it sabotage the point of the action entirely. Aren't you being a little - just a little subjective? Wolverine's mutantion allows a very rapid cicatrization, but he doesn't have invulnerability, which means that he feels a f*ckin pain when he burns the cigar in his hand, but it gets cicatrized really fast.
But i agree with you in the scene where he takes a cursory glance at the Alkali base.
Guy, you say it was laziness and incompetence. Have you thought if they put every little detail like that in the movie? would take at least 5 years to come out! They may have worked really hard to put everything we see onscreen and we should clap our hands to them. That's it.

man!! I like pics better..... ✅.... instead of those HUGE posts 😑

oh, but let us go on with this discuss, it's fine, and Kes said it could go on on Wolvie's thread...

People have been writing better stuff for years before the movie came out, so I don't accept that it would have take five years to make a faithful movie. Cut and paste, man.
I must clear up some things with you. I did not say that they left out Wolverine's rage or even made him too nice. I'm not some 10-ten year fan of X-Men Evolution who likes Wolverine because "he gets mad and hurts stuff" or whatever. Wolverine gored three people in the first movie alone, and there was no blood. I find this to be ridiculous and irresponsible. Either it should be a violent, graphic movie, or it shouldn't. They decided to be half-assed about it and give us the violence without the consequences. They were faithful to the X-Men in the original cartoon, and they didn't have Wolverine do things as vicious as in the movie. I'd prefer a little class over a lot of violence, although a competent writer could have provided both. They didn't make Wolverine nicer, they just failed to write it properly when he was a bastard. His dialog was better in both the comics and cartoon, and there's no rational excuse that says writers can't put good stuff in this movie. Some other movies have good dialog and character portrayals, and Wolverine's character has been consistently written and portrayed as acting a certain way (a cool way) for years, so there's no excuse. The thing about the cigar burn-- I know he's not invulnerable, and I know it would hurt like a mother if someone burned their skin that way. It's his reaction that was a failure. A simple grunt would show that it hurt even the mighty Wolverine, but his character is such that he doesn't let pain get to him. Maybe they thought it would be funny to see him wince and groan like a normal person. They were wrong. It was funny to hear Xavier threaten him into doing it, but then they failed.
You seem to think I'm asking for a one-dimensional, always-rippin'-an' -tearin' portrayal of the character. I'm not. I'm setting my standards where they should be-- expecting to see the subtleties of his character and behavior in the movie when I've seen it for years everywhere else. Honestly, even "X-Men: Evolution" -- piece of teen-pop trash that it is--shows more interesting sides to the character than the movie. And don't give me "it's a TV show, so they have time to develop the guy", because I'm talking about just in each individual episode. The original cartoon got the early Wolverine character down pretty well, and Evolution shows more of the recent Wolverine. They didn't get either one right in the movie. They need to put Larry Hama--a Wolverine writer who also wrote the recent video game, which may have its flaws, but the dialog was great--in charge of writing the dialog, and get someone who actually reads Wolverine to coach the actor on how to act the part. This generic stuff isn't exclusive to Wolverine; they do it to pretty much every long-time character who's been waiting for a movie. Spider-Man's the perfect example. Check my posts in the now-closed "Man-spider" thread in the Spider-Man forum for my specific beefs with that if you want. They suck all the subtlety and quirks and character out of these figures, and I haven't yet heard a viable excuse for why they can't do better. Why is Joss Whedon and God knows who else writing this movie when they know who the good writers are? Hama wrote the video game, he can write for the movie, and he'd do a better job of that.
I know Fox is just a money-making machine, but I think it would have been worth their time to try a little harder. Superman and Batman are considered classics now. They get clips shown at the beginning of Warner Bros. videos. X-Men could have been than good if they had decided to make it good. Bryan Singer did some great things, but he's full of crap when it comes to imposing his own image of the X-Men on the silver screen.
If you're still reading, congrats on not having a short attention span. Talk to you later.

what you said seem to be right.

Originally posted by Herr Logan

I must clear up some things with you. I did not say that they left out Wolverine's rage or even made him too nice. I'm not some 10-ten year fan of X-Men Evolution who likes Wolverine because "he gets mad and hurts stuff" or whatever. Wolverine gored three people in the first movie alone, and there was no blood. I find this to be ridiculous and irresponsible. Either it should be a violent, graphic movie, or it shouldn't. They decided to be half-assed about it and give us the violence without the consequences.

i just don wanna discuss anymore bout something tthat can't be changed...

Anyone now if Hugh sighned on for X-3, last I heard he hadn't,
altough most of the information on that is quit dated, so I don't know weather or not he had, because lets face it if ya don't have Hugh you
don't have Wolverine, if ya don't have Wolverine ya don't have X-men.

i dunno if he's signed...but i heard he's not yet...

I think he wants to but he is busy doing that musical. But he said something like it just wouldn't be wolverine if he didn't play him.

Shawn Ashmore (Bobby Drake, AKA Iceman)
Daniel Cudmore (Piotr Rasputin, AKA Colossus)
Alan Cumming (Kurt Wagner, AKA Nightcrawler)
Famke Janssen (Dr. Jean Grey)
James Marsden (Scott Summers, AKA Cyclops)
Anna Paquin (Rogue)
Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (Mystique)
other cast not announced or confirmed as signed yet.

Originally posted by buffymitch
Shawn Ashmore (Bobby Drake, AKA Iceman)
Daniel Cudmore (Piotr Rasputin, AKA Colossus)
Alan Cumming (Kurt Wagner, AKA Nightcrawler)
Famke Janssen (Dr. Jean Grey)
James Marsden (Scott Summers, AKA Cyclops)
Anna Paquin (Rogue)
Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (Mystique)
other cast not announced or confirmed as signed yet.

I read somewhere Kelly Hu was signed as well as Hugh Jackman was putting the finishing touches on his contract. Something about him signed to do 3 more Wolverine Movies..

Possibly X-3, The Wolverine movie (that will be out after X-3) and Maybe, Origin? confused1

Kes: Maggots? You mean they censored the word "maggots" or wouldn't actually show them? That's incredibly weird, since the X-Files has shown and said much worse than maggots. Oh, wait, you mean they substituted "maggots" for a harsher word. How fast on the uptake am I this evening? 🙄
Stupid rating system. I understand if they don't want gallons of blood spilled in this movie. It's not necessary, as the original cartoon proved. What they should do is keep the violence to a realistic level proportional to the amount of consequence (like blood, corpses, and graphic suffering) they are prepared or allowed to show. You know some jackasses actually brought their kids to "X-Men?" I know I heard the distant wailing of an infant after Sabretooth was doing his impression of the MGM lion mascot. Of course, that doesn't top the stupid woman who brought her baby to "Kill Bill" when I saw it. No, I'm not joking. It's a stupid world, people.

Hugh Jackman will be in X3. Don't listen to anything else, and don't get your britches in a twist. He's signed for two more movies as Wolverine, and they're more sure that X3 will be made than a second Wolverine solo film. Musical or not, he'll be there, half-assing the role as per usual.

Originally posted by flavinho
oh, but let us go on with this discuss, it's fine, and Kes said it could go on on Wolvie's thread...

k 😄

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Hugh Jackman will be in X3. Don't listen to anything else, and don't get your britches in a twist. He's signed for two more movies as Wolverine, and they're more sure that X3 will be made than a second Wolverine solo film. Musical or not, he'll be there, half-assing the role as per usual.

Half Assed? For shame.

HALF ASSING!?!?!? Grrrrrrr 😠

I think i had better get in on this debate.......
Hugh was good as wolverine. End of story.

NOW GIVE ME PICTURES!!!!!!

If Hugh werent there, it would be VERY STUPID.
So I hope he will get it and be there.