The Run Time Length Thread

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Pete, I'm a huge Hugh Jackman fan and James Marsden is incredibly popular and has tons of fans too - he's definitely had much more box office success in films past X-Men and has even more with musical films (Hairspray, Enchanted).

And he deserves it, he's wonderfully talented and certainly just as good looking. :cwink:

I'm not knocking Marsden, but most of his films he's been a secondary, supporting player.

Hugh Jackman is the headliner. Period.

You make James Marsden a headliner, and the film will not have the same draw as Jackman, period.

I like James, I really do. He played Cyclops brilliantly (for what he had to work with), and a couple other things I've seen him in (mainly, The Notebook) he performed well.

But he's not a headliner.

[BMM]

Pete, I'm a huge Hugh Jackman fan and James Marsden is incredibly popular and has tons of fans too - he's definitely had much more box office success in films past X-Men and has even more with musical films (Hairspray, Enchanted).

And he deserves it, he's wonderfully talented and certainly just as good looking. :cwink:

Marsden's films have enjoyed more success than any one of his castmates' since X-Men: The Last Stand.

Funny enough, I knew who James Marsden was before I knew who Hugh Jackman was.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Marsden's films have enjoyed more success than any one of his castmates' since X-Men: The Last Stand.

Funny enough, I knew who James Marsden was before I knew who Hugh Jackman was.

Marsden was also in a Superman film (one of the most famous CHARACTERS of all time), a Disney film, and a movie with John Travolta.

[Peter McCabe]

Marsden's films have enjoyed more success than any one of his castmates' since X-Men: The Last Stand.

Funny enough, I knew who James Marsden was before I knew who Hugh Jackman was.

The only thing I had seen him in before X-MEN was Gossip with Kate Hudson and Disturbing Behavior with Katie Holmes.

He's just not a leading man.

He's a supporting actor.

Last year's Sex Drive was really funny, but once again - supporting role.

*Marsden may have gotten himself a role in Enchanted, but that doesn't even begin to compare to what Hugh Jackman went on to become after X3.

The $20 Million salary for Wolverine says it all http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[BMM]

Marsden was also in a Superman film (one of the most famous CHARACTERS of all time), a Disney film, and a movie with John Travolta.

Right. He’s being offered good roles in good movies that are outperforming those of his fellow castmates. I’m not suggesting that he has to be a headliner or rely on name recognition. Besides, it’s not like the name recognition of his castmates in their respective films is exactly lighting up the box office either.

[chaseter]

I cannot believe this thread has turned into a who is more famous debate....:dry:

[Sam Fisher]

I cannot believe this thread has turned into a who is more famous debate....:dry:Eh, not like this thread has stayed on topic anyway.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Right. He’s being offered good roles in good movies that are outperforming those of his fellow castmates. I’m not suggesting that he has to be a headliner or rely on name recognition. Besides, it’s not like the name recognition of his castmates in their respective films is exactly lighting up the box office either.

The point is, people are sitting here acting like Marsden has had more success as an actor than Jackman. That is not true.

Jackman is the more successful actor. He's the leading man, headliner, that gets the big roles. Marsden doesn't.

Marsden may get roles in some pretty choice films, but those movies aren't successful because of him. They are successful because of the people around him. I.E. Disney, John Travolta, or the "Superman" trademark

[BMM]

I cannot believe this thread has turned into a who is more famous debate....:dry:

I don't think it's really a debate. Hugh Jackman's more famous. Besides, given the nature of this forum, there are worse things this thread could have turned into.

[chaseter]

It's fine that you made that point by stating your opinion but I can't believe people argued that point. Oh well:o

[danoyse]

Right. He’s being offered good roles in good movies that are outperforming those of his fellow castmates. I’m not suggesting that he has to be a headliner or rely on name recognition. Besides, it’s not like the name recognition of his castmates in their respective films is exactly lighting up the box office either.

Exactly. Hugh's done some really good films since X3, but unfortunately they haven't been nearly as successful. I'm hoping that hosting job at the Oscars opens up some more film roles for him. I've seen him on stage, the guy's just ridiculously talented.

Marsden's had more successful films, but that's not to take anything away from him as a performer - he stole the show in Enchanted.

[danoyse]

It's fine that you made that point by stating your opinion but I can't believe people argued that point. Oh well:o

You're really surprised by the things people argue about on here? :huh:

[Peter McCabe]

I don't think it's really a debate. Hugh Jackman's more famous. Besides, given the nature of this forum, there are worse things this thread could have turned into.

Agreed, its not really a debate.

*Ironically there are still people who believe Marsden could have carried X3 on his own [as his character does in the books].

I am not one of those people.

[chaseter]

You're really surprised by the things people argue about on here? :huh:
I am surprised that it continues despite your plentiful warnings. I like Hugh and Marsden so does it really matter who is more succesful???

[EnDz0n3]

Agreed, its not really a debate.

*Ironically there are still people who believe Marsden could have carried X3 on his own [as his character does in the books].

I am not one of those people.

Whoever said we wanted Cyclops/Marsden to carry the movie on his own?

[JP]

Exactly. Hugh's done some really good films since X3, but unfortunately they haven't been nearly as successful. I'm hoping that hosting job at the Oscars opens up some more film roles for him. I've seen him on stage, the guy's just ridiculously talented.

Marsden's had more successful films, but that's not to take anything away from him as a performer - he stole the show in Enchanted.

He stole the show in Sex Drive and Hairspray as well. :up:

[Peter McCabe]

Whoever said we wanted Cyclops/Marsden to carry the movie on his own?

People have been complaining for centuries about how Wolverine basically replaced Cyclops in X3.

To complain about that is to suggest they would have preferred Marsden to lead the film instead of Jackman - which I find hilarious.

Bryan Singer never intended to give Cyclops the presence/position that he had in early X-Men comics.

Singer did it the Claremont way, by putting Wolverine front and center.

Singer's X3 may have been completely different than Vaughn's or Ratner's, but it still woulda been a Hugh Jackman Wolverine movie.

*This is going to be the problem with X-Men: First Class and Magneto.

The general audiences might not dig an X-Men movie without Wolverine :cwink:

[Figs]

Whoever said we wanted Cyclops/Marsden to carry the movie on his own?

No one did. He's assuming once again. Much like another poster, who claims ALL the non comic readers liked X-3 and the only reason comic fans didn't was because they killed a few main characters...which couldn't be farther from the truth.

[Nathan]

I definitely wouldn't prefer switched roles and have Cyclops in front and center instead of Wolverine. But the screentime should be equally shared. The X-Men have many members and I feel everyone is important. It's not just Cyclops that I'm unhappy about. Rogue and Colossus also barely had anything to do.

We have Rogue only taking part in the Danger Room, then getting jealous and deciding to take the cure. And Colossus, after seeing him in X2, I was so looking forward to seeing him in an extended role in X3. First, his metal form looked horrendous compared to X2. And second, he had even less lines than in his X2 cameo role.

[BMM]

The point is, people are sitting here acting like Marsden has had more success as an actor than Jackman. That is not true.

:huh: There is TheVileOne and myself, and neither of us has stated that James Marsden has had more success as an actor than Hugh Jackman.

Marsden may get roles in some pretty choice films, but those movies aren't successful because of him. They are successful because of the people around him. I.E. Disney, John Travolta, or the "Superman" trademark

The same can be said for any actor.

Exactly. Hugh's done some really good films since X3, but unfortunately they haven't been nearly as successful. I'm hoping that hosting job at the Oscars opens up some more film roles for him. I've seen him on stage, the guy's just ridiculously talented.

I absolutely agree.

It's fine that you made that point by stating your opinion but I can't believe people argued that point. Oh well

I don't think anyone really argued that point.

Agreed, its not really a debate.

*Ironically there are still people who believe Marsden could have carried X3 on his own [as his character does in the books].

I am not one of those people.

I don't believe anyone wanted Marsden to carry X-Men 3 on his own, as that isn't the point of The Dark Phoenix Saga.

[chaseter]

I definitely wouldn't prefer switched roles and have Cyclops in front and center instead of Wolverine. But the screentime should be equally shared. The X-Men have many members and I feel everyone is important. It's not just Cyclops that I'm unhappy about. Rogue and Colossus also barely had anything to do.

We have Rogue only taking part in the Danger Room, then getting jealous and deciding to take the cure. And Colossus, after seeing him in X2, I was so looking forward to seeing him in an extended role in X3. First, his metal form looked horrendous compared to X2. And second, he had even less lines than in his X2 cameo role.
It not only went back on the character, but I don't understand why Rogue took the cure so she could be with Bobby physically but then never comes back:huh: That is like me changing something about me so that I could be with someone I loved but then never going back to them.

This thread needs to be renamed The Runtime and such Thread!

[Peter McCabe]

I definitely wouldn't prefer switched roles and have Cyclops in front and center instead of Wolverine.

Agreed.

But the screentime should be equally shared.

Dissagreed. Jackman is the face of the franchise, so he needs to have the most to do. He carries the films.

Plus equal screentime for ALL the mutants in X3 would require a 5 hour movie.

The X-Men have many members and I feel everyone is important.

Yes and no. Some have actual story arcs that require them to have more screen time - Rogue in X1, Magneto and Xavier, Jean in X3, etc.

Some don't really warrant alot of time - Callisto, Kitty Pryde, Colossus, etc.

It's not just Cyclops that I'm unhappy about. Rogue and Colossus also barely had anything to do.

We have Rogue only taking part in the Danger Room, then getting jealous and deciding to take the cure.

I can totally sympathize with her decision. Since X1 she'd been looking for a way out. In X2 she kinda said "Fine, this is what I HAVE to be." In X3, Bobby's distant behavior and obvious attraction for Kitty broke the camel's back for Rogue's rejection of her powers. She saw a way out in the cure and took it. For Bobby. She is a teenager.

And Colossus, after seeing him in X2 I was so looking forward to seeing him in an extended role in X3. First, his metal form looked horrendous compared to X2. And second, he had even less lines than in his X2 cameo role.

Agreed. Colossus sucked. But then again the only thing you can do with Colossus is get him into a fight. The Epic Juggernaut vs. Colossus shoulda been shot and fit into the climax somehow. Oh well.

[JP]

And WHY is Jackman the 'face' of the franchise?

[Ace of Knaves]

It not only went back on the character, but I don't understand why Rogue took the cure so she could be with Bobby physically but then never comes back:huh: That is like me changing something about me so that I could be with someone I loved but then never going back to them.

This thread needs to be renamed The Runtime and such Thread!

Yes, that was a big cock up.

[Ace of Knaves]

And WHY is Jackman the 'face' of the franchise?

Because Wolverine is.

[chaseter]

Yes, that was a big cock up.
I guess she met a man at the bus stop that could fulfill her needs and desires:oldrazz:

[Ace of Knaves]

I guess she met a man at the bus stop that could fulfill her needs and desires:oldrazz:

:hehe: That is the only logical explanation!

[Celestial]

If Jimmy Marsden has hit his successful streak a couple of years earlier, we'd have seen more of Cyclops in X3. He'd have become a priority in the same way that Halle Berry was.

[Nathan]

Because Wolverine is.

As much as I like Wolverine, the constant overexposure and favouring of the character is making me sick. Wolverine isn't the only important Mutant. It's still called X-Men and not X-Man.

The rest of the X-Men could carry a Movie just fine without him around. I'm actually glad Wolverine got his own movie now. Hopefully that'll keep him out of future X-Men movies.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea not saying I agree with Wolverine being the face of the franchise, but he is, there is no denying it.

[JP]

If Jimmy Marsden has hit his successful streak a couple of years earlier, we'd have seen more of Cyclops in X3. He'd have become a priority in the same way that Halle Berry was.
This. Is. Fact.

[Peter McCabe]

If Jimmy Marsden has hit his successful streak a couple of years earlier, we'd have seen more of Cyclops in X3. He'd have become a priority in the same way that Halle Berry was.

Agreed http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Halle got the closest to Jackman.

[Peter McCabe]

Yea not saying I agree with Wolverine being the face of the franchise, but he is, there is no denying it.

Who else could be the face of the franchise?

Its not like any of the other X-Men have successful solo comics that have been running for 27 years and span over 400 issues.

I like alot of other X-Men characters too, but when you say the words "X-MEN", Wolverine is the first that comes to mind for most people.

[chaseter]

Casual fans don't read comics and they far outweigh us fanboys.

[Nathan]

Why do we need ONE face that represents the whole franchise? The X-Men are a group. The Team should represent the franchise.

Who's the face of the Fantastic Four franchise?

[chaseter]

Why do we need ONE face that represents the whole franchise? The X-Men are a group. The Team should represent the franchise.

Who's the face of the Fantastic Four franchise?
Jessica Alba:up:

[Peter McCabe]

Jessica Alba:up:

Exactly.

*Casual fans may not read comics but they know who Wolverine is.

[Nathan]

Tell me that's not true. Most of the time I try to ignore Alba.

[chaseter]

Me saying Alba was a joke:o She is a horrible actress and only a pretty face.

[Peter McCabe]

Me saying Alba was a joke:o She is a horrible actress and only a pretty face.

Joke or not, she's still the face of the Fantastic Four as of now.

Well actually her behind is the face of the FF4 as of now :woot:

[chaseter]

If she is the face of those movies then what a truly sad state we live in:(

[Figs]

If she is the face of those movies then what a truly sad state we live in:(

A state where Fox makes the rules. :(

[JP]

Why do we need ONE face that represents the whole franchise? The X-Men are a group. The Team should represent the franchise.
Seriously.


Who's the face of the Fantastic Four franchise?
There isn't one. Fox didn't shoe-horn one character over the other in the FF movies. All 4 of them were equally important.

[Figs]

Seriously.


There isn't one. Fox didn't shoe-horn one character over the other in the FF movies. All 4 of them were equally important.

Yeah but Alba stood out since she was obviously cast due to popularity as opposed to actual acting ability.

[Nathan]

Personally the only reason Alba stood out to me, was because of how miscast I thought she was.

[Deaths Head II]

I didn't think Alba was way more dominant over the three others. Even though I hated the Fantastic Four films, if theres one thing I like is that they actually felt like super hero team movies.

[Figs]

I didn't think Alba was way more dominant over the three others. Even though I hated the Fantastic Four films, if theres one thing I like is that they actually felt like super hero team movies.

Best part of the first one was the final battle where they worked together all using their powers to take down Doom. That was cool, it just sucked that the majority of the film was subpar.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

As much as I like Wolverine, the constant overexposure and favouring of the character is making me sick. Wolverine isn't the only important Mutant. It's still called X-Men and not X-Man.

The rest of the X-Men could carry a Movie just fine without him around. I'm actually glad Wolverine got his own movie now. Hopefully that'll keep him out of future X-Men movies.

You need to take it up with the writers of the comics then, because the Wolverine over-exposure comes from there, not just the movies.

[Jick09]

I just read about First Class having the first X-Team. Cyclops, Jean, Ice Man...
No Wolverine...and they're planning to do that.

[Deaths Head II]

You need to take it up with the writers of the comics then, because the Wolverine over-exposure comes from there, not just the movies.

Well with the books they gave Wolverine more titles to appear in to compensate for the fan demand. He didn't become the main character of the X-Books like in the movies.

In that respect I agree that a solo series for Wolverine would work well for the X-Men franchise as it gives Wolverine the exposure fans enjoy while letting the rest of the team get some screentime.

[Peter McCabe]

Well with the books they gave Wolverine more titles to appear in to compensate for the fan demand. He didn't become the main character of the X-Books like in the movies.

You just contradicted yourself.

Wolverine got his own series because comic book readers couldn't [and still can't] get enough of him.

It wasn't "compensation". Compensantion implies Marvel was trying to shut the fans up by giving them more Wolverine. Marvel wanted those fans demanding more Wolverine.

*Claremont actually made Wolverine the main character in 70% of the story arcs he wrote, and that's about 15 years worth of writing. So technically that's longer than when the X-Men were on their own (10 years). And to further consolidate Wolverine's leading role in the X-MEN comics, all the writers of the 90s that came after Claremont STILL kept him front and center most of the time.

In that respect I agree that a solo series for Wolverine would work well for the X-Men franchise as it gives Wolverine the exposure fans enjoy while letting the rest of the team get some screentime.

The question is - do general audiences want an X-Men movie without Wolverine? Or better yet, without Hugh Jackman?

Probably not.

[sniktsnakt]

That's right. Marvel's catering to what sells. Right now, Wolverine's selling, no matter how much some people complain about over-exposure.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well with the books they gave Wolverine more titles to appear in to compensate for the fan demand. He didn't become the main character of the X-Books like in the movies.

In that respect I agree that a solo series for Wolverine would work well for the X-Men franchise as it gives Wolverine the exposure fans enjoy while letting the rest of the team get some screentime.

That's why I'd like a First Class series of prequels. Fox can get their Wolverine fix with his movies, and the other X-Men characters can get their shine on without him hogging all the spotlight.

I don't feel that X-Men 1, 2, or 3 were Wolverine like a lot of people do. He was a major factor, of course, but I think they are just as much about Xavier and Magneto, and Jean Grey, as they are Wolverine.

BUT, with X-Men beginning with Wolverine's introduction to the team, and now Wolverine's solo movie, the X-Men series is becoming Wolverine's adventures.

BUT, I have read MANY a comics where Wolverine sticks his nose in where it really doesn't belong. Then, on top of the fact that like you said, Wolverine is in just about every dang Marvel or X-Title there is, THAT is where Wolverine's over exposure comes from, and why Wolverine was so big in the movies.

[chaseter]

Get outta here all of you...this is like a locust plague that moves from thread to thread taking it severely off topic and then it gets closed:cmad:

Run time talk only! I do think comparing run times to the previous films could be deemed on topic.

[BMM]

Well with the books they gave Wolverine more titles to appear in to compensate for the fan demand. He didn't become the main character of the X-Books like in the movies.

I agree. Looking through the team titles, he's not the focus like in the movies.

[sniktsnakt]

. . . I was wondering why so many threads were being closed.

So . . . do we have an official running time yet?

[BMM]

...about the same times as the workprint. Perhaps a minute or so longer.

[Deaths Head II]

*Claremont actually made Wolverine the main character in 70% of the story arcs he wrote, and that's about 15 years worth of writing. So technically that's longer than when the X-Men were on their own (10 years). And to further consolidate Wolverine's leading role in the X-MEN comics, all the writers of the 90s that came after Claremont STILL kept him front and center most of the time.

I disagree with this point. Storm was always more of a main character in Claremont's X-Books. In the beginning of Claremont's run the main characters were basically Scott and Jean and after they retired/got killed the main characters became Storm and Wolverine. And Storm was always more of a main then Logan (not counting his solo stories obviously). At least in my opinion.

And Marvel wasn't trying to shut the fans up, but the reason why they spread him out so much was because fans wanted more but they couldn't have him take over the X-Books.

The question is - do general audiences want an X-Men movie without Wolverine? Or better yet, without Hugh Jackman?

Probably not.

I'm pretty sure the general audience doesn't care that much unless there are explosions. Considering the type of films that usually do well in the box office, I doubt they are that picky.

[sniktsnakt]

...about the same times as the workprint. Perhaps a minute or so longer.

So much for the 14 extra minutes. :down:

Man, I've gotta catch up. I haven't been around here much since the leak.

[BMM]

They could have cut stuff out and replaced it with the additional footage. Although, from what I've heard, I don't know how removing footage from the movie would help much.

[Peter McCabe]

I disagree with this point. Storm was always more of a main character in Claremont's X-Books. In the beginning of Claremont's run the main characters were basically Scott and Jean and after they retired/got killed the main characters became Storm and Wolverine. And Storm was always more of a main then Logan (not counting his solo stories obviously). At least in my opinion.

Dissagree or not, I've read probably around 75% of Claremont's run on X-Men and you can just see him slowly handing the series over to Wolverine. I think by the time The Mutant Massacre came around, Wolverine was pretty much the dominant mutant in the book - but he was already eclipsing the older team members.

I'm pretty sure the general audience doesn't care that much unless there are explosions. Considering the type of films that usually do well in the box office, I doubt they are that picky.

This is completely false.

General audiences may be an easy sell most of the time, but they have certain standards.

*Punisher Warzone's biggest publicity curse was trying to sell a new face as Frank Castle. If Thomas Jane was still playing Castle (but thank God he said "no") in that crapola of a movie - it woulda gone past $40 Million last Christmas despite how horrendous it was.

Jackman is the face of the franchise. To do a film without him is a hell of a risk - which is why I expect to see him in a cameo role in X-Men: First Class.

People will go just to see Wolverine for a few minutes - and you can bet his cameo will be the main focus of trailers and TV Spots for that movie :woot:

[Deaths Head II]

This is completely false.

General audiences may be an easy sell most of the time, but they have certain standards.

*Punisher Warzone's biggest publicity curse was trying to sell a new face as Frank Castle. If Thomas Jane was still playing Castle (but thank God he said "no") in that crapola of a movie - it woulda gone past $40 Million last Christmas despite how horrendous it was.

Jackman is the face of the franchise. To do a film without him is a hell of a risk - which is why I expect to see him in a cameo role in X-Men: First Class.

People will go just to see Wolverine for a few minutes - and you can bet his cameo will be the main focus of trailers and TV Spots for that movie :woot:

Most of the people I know like the X-Men because they love the concept of mutants being persecuted and yadda yadda yadda, they love seeing all the cool powers, etc. I am pretty sure these people would be interested in an X-Film even if Wolverine was absent. I'm also sure Wolverine isn't the only character that developed a fanbase in the general audience because of the X-Trilogy.

Hugh is a moneymaker, but X-Men is a strong enough brand. The X-Trilogy has spread the name enough around that it can grab the interests of enough people without Wolverine. You can argue that this film won't make as much as the other films without Wolverine, but I don't see how you can say the audience will completely shun it.

Also, if X-Men: First Class will look like a good film, it will attract people anyway. Everyone was whining Terminator Salvation would tank without Arnold, but now a lot of people are eagerly awaiting that movie simply because it actually looks like it's going to be good.

[Peter McCabe]

Also, if X-Men: First Class will look like a good film, it will attract people anyway. Everyone was whining Terminator Salvation would tank without Arnold, but now a lot of people are eagerly awaiting that movie simply because it actually looks like it's going to be good.

Awesome point http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

*I was actually one of those people, until I heard Bale say "Devil's hands been busy."

[chaseter]

T3 was a down grade in quality so I don't think many people were whining about change:o

[chaseter]

The arclight, the prestigious cinema some people were touting has a runtime listed of 107 minutes and so do many many sources. So the movie is 107 minutes and the leak was 106 something so it looks like we aren't getting 10, 14, or 20 extra minutes. This deserves a big:( The movie is a 90 something minute flick:(:(:(

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The arclight, the prestigious cinema some people were touting has a runtime listed of 107 minutes and so do many many sources. So the movie is 107 minutes and the leak was 106 something so it looks like we aren't getting 10, 14, or 20 extra minutes. This deserves a big:( The movie is a 90 something minute flick:(:(:(

Probably close to 100 minutes, but damn, that's kinda weak.

The leak is actually 106m 50s to be exact, meaning they just approximated to 107 minutes.

Meaning the 14 minutes is indeed false, the workprint is the real deal (I don't have too big a problem with that, really), Fox lied, and a lot of cool scenes and lines from the trailers and TV spots aren't in the final version.

:(

[chaseter]

So we know nothing is going to be added from the leak plot wise and character wise. Some people still believe we may get alternate takes but I just can't believe that. This just makes me sad. The pacing and character development will more than likely not be fixed and those were my biggest complaints:(

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

So we know nothing is going to be added from the leak plot wise and character wise. Some people still believe we may get alternate takes but I just can't believe that. This just makes me sad. The pacing and character development will more than likely not be fixed and those were my biggest complaints:(

I'm still okay with the movie as it is, as I've stated from the beginning, but I am disappointed that Fox would so blatantly lie.

[chaseter]

Well I do look forward to X1 and X2 on bluray...:up:

[sniktsnakt]

Well, it's still possible that they cut some stuff out and put in new stuff.

I'm staying hopeful.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well, it's still possible that they cut some stuff out and put in new stuff.

I'm staying hopeful.

I just don't know what the movie can afford to get rid of from the actual version.

[Peter McCabe]

So we know nothing is going to be added from the leak plot wise and character wise. Some people still believe we may get alternate takes but I just can't believe that. This just makes me sad. The pacing and character development will more than likely not be fixed and those were my biggest complaints:(

Yes, we should all start crying.

We should all just light candles and wear black for a month.

:whatever:

In 2 weeks, we'll know what's the real deal.

The leaked workprint is 4-months-old.

There's alot that could have been done in 4 months, and I'm starting to believe that those scenes shot in January (after the workprint was made) were made to replace some of the scenes in the workprint.

We'll see.

[chaseter]

Well, it's still possible that they cut some stuff out and put in new stuff.

I'm staying hopeful.
That is a possibility but I highly doubt it:csad: Even if they did put in alternate takes, it will not change the movie at all. But, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

[chaseter]

Yes, we should all start crying.

We should all just light candles and wear black for a month.

:whatever:

In 2 weeks, we'll know what's the real deal.

The leaked workprint is 4-months-old.

There's alot that could have been done in 4 months, and I'm starting to believe that those scenes shot in January (after the workprint was made) were made to replace some of the scenes in the workprint.

We'll see.
Does making snide comments like that justify your opinion more so to yourself:huh:

[sniktsnakt]

That is a possibility but I highly doubt it:csad: Even if they did put in alternate takes, it will not change the movie at all. But, hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

That's what I figure. To the people who know that I'm a big fan and counting down, I've been warning them that it sounds like it'll be mediocre quality when it's done, and probably infuriatingly frustrating for a purist like me. But I can still hope, and do my best to enjoy it one way or the other.

[chaseter]

That's what I figure. To the people who know that I'm a big fan and counting down, I've been warning them that it sounds like it'll be mediocre quality when it's done, and probably infuriatingly frustrating for a purist like me. But I can still hope, and do my best to enjoy it one way or the other.
I guess we can all go to the bar afterward to drown our sorrows or go before to make it more fun:up:

[sniktsnakt]

I intend to watch it twice in the opening day. First I'm going at midnight, and then I'm planning on going home either to party or to cry. Then during the day I'm going to go again, and if it was a bad experience in the first place I hope I'm so tired it'll be enjoyable no matter how the quality actually is.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I intend to watch it twice in the opening day. First I'm going at midnight, and then I'm planning on going home either to party or to cry. Then during the day I'm going to go again, and if it was a bad experience in the first place I hope I'm so tired it'll be enjoyable no matter how the quality actually is.

If it's any help to you, when I saw the midnight showing of X-Men: The Last Stand, I disliked the movie quite a lot.

When I saw it the second time on opening day, it got tons better.

[Peter McCabe]

Does making snide comments like that justify your opinion more so to yourself:huh:

ha, ha, ha. :word:

I guess we can all go to the bar afterward to drown our sorrows or go before to make it more fun:up:

I see myself hitting up a bar after the movie to ---> CELEBRATE :cwink:

can't wait for this to be over, been waiting too long to see how all that footage from the trailers and TV spots comes together http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Daredevil_2003]

Well, if you like a good action movie, but not neccessarily a faithful adaptation of the source, and characters galore thrown in there for little more than to appease the rabid fanboys and girls of said characters, I'm sure you'll be pleased.

[TNC9852002]

So we know nothing is going to be added from the leak plot wise and character wise. Some people still believe we may get alternate takes but I just can't believe that. This just makes me sad. The pacing and character development will more than likely not be fixed and those were my biggest complaints:(
:facepalm

Be careful. You're taking your own personal IDEALS and merging them with your expectations and you're carrying them along as facts and assumptions.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Probably close to 100 minutes, but damn, that's kinda weak.

The leak is actually 106m 50s to be exact, meaning they just approximated to 107 minutes.

Meaning the 14 minutes is indeed false, the workprint is the real deal (I don't have too big a problem with that, really), Fox lied, and a lot of cool scenes and lines from the trailers and TV spots aren't in the final version.

:(


So they lied again, just like they did repeatedly with X3, and you still wonder why people dont like them Nell?

[Ace of Knaves]

Who ever said it would be 14 minutes longer? All they said was there is 14 minutes of footage that isn't on the workprint. Isn't it possible that they have chopped and changed some stuff? Chopping out some of the more unnecessary material and replaced it with more important stuff?

[Ace of Knaves]

Who ever said it would be 14 minutes longer? All they said was there is 14 minutes of footage that isn't on the workprint. Isn't it possible that they have chopped and changed some stuff? Chopping out some of the more unnecessary material and replaced it with more important stuff?

[chaseter]

:facepalm

Be careful. You're taking your own personal IDEALS and merging them with your expectations and you're carrying them along as facts and assumptions.
The only thing that would be different are the takes. The plot will remain the same. The run time is nearly identical to the leak so not much if anything will be added to the film of the additional minutes that were promised. Everything that everyone has held out hope for has been wrong. This is the last little strand of hope and why should anyone believe it to be true:huh:

[Ace of Knaves]

When did they actually say there would be ADDITIONAL footage? I thought it was reported that there was like 14 minutes of unseen footage? I don't remember anyone saying that 14 minutes would be added on top.

[chaseter]

Who ever said it would be 14 minutes longer? All they said was there is 14 minutes of footage that isn't on the workprint. Isn't it possible that they have chopped and changed some stuff? Chopping out some of the more unnecessary material and replaced it with more important stuff?
10, 14, and 20 were all numbers promised to us of cut footage that would be added to the film. They didn't say footage that would replace existing footage so I think they said what they said to try and fool us into thinking it would be a longer film. A longer film to perhaps fix some of the bigger problems. They could exchange scenes of course but 14 minutes of exchanged footage is a lot. That is nearly 1/6 of the film...I just don't see it as plausible and after the lies of X3 and the lies from this film, I have no reason to trust what they say.

[chaseter]

When did they actually say there would be ADDITIONAL footage? I thought it was reported that there was like 14 minutes of unseen footage? I don't remember anyone saying that 14 minutes would be added on top.
Lauren Shuller said this movie was way under 2 hours...that was correct. She also said that there were barely any deleted scenes...so I think that is probably also correct. 14 minutes of deleted scenes is a lot.

[Ace of Knaves]

10, 14, and 20 were all numbers promised to us of cut footage that would be added to the film. They didn't say footage that would replace existing footage so I think they said what they said to try and fool us into thinking it would be a longer film. A longer film to perhaps fix some of the bigger problems. They could exchange scenes of course but 14 minutes of exchanged footage is a lot. That is nearly 1/6 of the film...I just don't see it as plausible and after the lies of X3 and the lies from this film, I have no reason to trust what they say.

But who said that 10, 14 and 20 minutes would be added to the film? No official sources said that. If I remember correctly that was just a article on another movie website.

[Ace of Knaves]

Lauren Shuller said this movie was way under 2 hours...that was correct. She also said that there were barely any deleted scenes...so I think that is probably also correct. 14 minutes of deleted scenes is a lot.

106 minutes isn't WAY UNDER 2 hours though is it? 106 minutes is closer to 2 hours than 1hour 30 minutes.

[chaseter]

But who said that 10, 14 and 20 minutes would be added to the film? No official sources said that. If I remember correctly that was just a article on another movie website.
Rotham himself promised 10 minutes. A producer promised 20, and I think 14 was the speculation that was said by someone working on the film.

[chaseter]

106 minutes isn't WAY UNDER 2 hours though is it? 106 minutes is closer to 2 hours than 1hour 30 minutes.
106 minutes with credits. Credits aren't the movie.

[Ace of Knaves]

Rotham himself promised 10 minutes. A producer promised 20, and I think 14 was the speculation that was said by someone working on the film.

Yes but they didn't promise 10 or 20 minutes on top did they? They just said there was 10 or 20 minutes of unseen footage. That being added on top was all just speculation.

[Ace of Knaves]

106 minutes with credits. Credits aren't the movie.

Ahhh I see. Well credits would be no longer than 5 minutes would they? Plus you have mid credit scenes and possibly after credit scenes to think about.

[chaseter]

Yes but they didn't promise 10 or 20 minutes on top did they? They just said there was 10 or 20 minutes of unseen footage. That being added on top was all just speculation.
I believe Rothman's quote was to the tune of 10 minutes of additional footage. I may be mistaken but I believe that is what he said. That is why so many here got excited because he promised 10 extra minutes.

[Ace of Knaves]

I believe Rothman's quote was to the tune of 10 minutes of additional footage. I may be mistaken but I believe that is what he said.

Oh right, well I'm gonna need to find that article. Not saying I don't believe you but you don't sound to sure yourself.

[chaseter]

Ahhh I see. Well credits would be no longer than 5 minutes would they? Plus you have mid credit scenes and possibly after credit scenes to think about.
I would say it is a 96-100 minute movie which to me is way under two hours. Most films don't go below 90 minutes anyways.

[chaseter]

Oh right, well I'm gonna need to find that article. Not saying I don't believe you but you don't sound to sure yourself.
I honestly don't remember his or the others exact quotes so I am not going to pretend to know:cwink:

[terry78]

There is a big difference between seeing a movie on your pc screen and going on the first weekend with a huge ass crowd and being in the thick of it.

[Juggernaut33]

Oh right, well I'm gonna need to find that article. Not saying I don't believe you but you don't sound to sure yourself.

He did say that but that was a lie. Tom Rothman tells some many of them that we just loose track of them. He said that the workprint was missing 10 minutes. The workprint is 107 minutes and the movie's runtime has now been officially annonced to be...107 minutes!

[Ace of Knaves]

I would say it is a 96-100 minute movie which to me is way under two hours. Most films don't go below 90 minutes anyways.

Yea no big budget films go below 90. But I honestly don't think credits would be 10 minutes long. And if they are, that must include mid credit scenes and after credit scenes. I still find it strange that it was X3 credits on the workprint, maybe another scene?

[chaseter]

There is a big difference between seeing a movie on your pc screen and going on the first weekend with a huge ass crowd and being in the thick of it.
I agree. I liked X3 when I saw it in theatres and then after watching it a second time, I liked it less. Same with SM3, POTC3, Matrix Revolutions. I went midnight to those and had some dissapointments but went and watched them again and just became very dissapointed with those movies. Those aren't films I can watch over and over again because they aren't as good as their predecessors and aren't great pieces of cinema.

[Ace of Knaves]

He did say that but that was a lie. Tom Rothman tells some many of them that we just loose track of them. He said that the workprint was missing 10 minutes. The workprint is 107 minutes and the movie's runtime has now been officially annonced to be...107 minutes!

Yea I know who Rothman is, and I know what he is all about.

But just because he says the workprint is missing 10 minutes of footage, doesn't automatically mean that 10 minutes was going to be added on. He didn't actually say "Well the workprint is 10 minutes shorter than the full version". He said there is 10 minutes of unseen/missing footage.

[chaseter]

Do you have his exact quote?

[FaT_tONle]

Yeah they are really going to replace entire scenes in the workprint with something completely different... :whatever:

If you have seen the leak, you'd realize that there is no room whatsoever for flexibility as far as replacing a scene with entirely new footage, or adding a scene if 107 is indeed the runtime. What Rothman probably meant were to 2-3 minutes worth of missing footage added to smooth the shoddy editing job of the workprint... and the other 8-10 minutes of the actual credits for this film and not X-3. I don't know how Fox still has any credibility with any of you guys... it never ceases to amaze me.

[Ace of Knaves]

Do you have his exact quote?

No, do you? I'm the one asking for it, I'm not proclaiming "THIS IS WHAT ROTHMAN SAID!" Well, not any more so than you guys

Yeah they are really going to replace entire scenes in the workprint with something completely different... :whatever:

If you have seen the leak, you'd realize that there is no room whatsoever for flexibility as far as replacing a scene with entirely new footage, or adding a scene if 107 is indeed the runtime. What Rothman probably meant were to 2-3 minutes worth of missing footage added to smooth the shoddy editing job of the workprint... and the other 8-10 minutes of the actual credits for this film and not X-3. I don't know how Fox still has any credibility with any of you guys... it never ceases to amaze me.

I'm not a fan of Fox, never said I was. But until there is proof that there were either lying or telling the truth, I'm sitting on the fence. And so should everyone else IMO.

[Figs]

I believe Rothman's quote was to the tune of 10 minutes of additional footage. I may be mistaken but I believe that is what he said. That is why so many here got excited because he promised 10 extra minutes.

I don't see how people can still believe what Rothman says anymore.On the brighter side of things, over in the Transformers thread Michael Bay updated a comment saying how the new Transformers 2 trailer will be before Wolverine. I guess that's a bit more incentive to see this in the theatre.
I also have to agree with Ace about the 10 minutes. Rothman most likely meant footage that was shot...but whether it makes it in the final cut is a whole other story.

[chaseter]

No, do you? I'm the one asking for it, I'm not proclaiming "THIS IS WHAT ROTHMAN SAID!" Well, not any more so than you guys
Wow I just asked for it:huh: No reason to get defensive:o I said what I thought he said and you said you were going to find it so I didn't look...jebsus:csad:

[Ace of Knaves]

Wow I just asked for it:huh: No reason to get defensive:o I said what I thought he said and you said you were going to find it so I didn't look...jebsus:csad:

Ay? I'm not getting defensive about it. :D

And anyway I've just found it, and yes, Rothman does lie.


It's about 10 minutes shorter...


But that still doesn't rule out the possibility that there was some chopping and changing in the editing process. Because the fact is the workprint is AT LEAST 2 months old, because that "spoiler" review that was up about 2 months ago was about this cut. Plus there is unfinished CGI that was finished in the 3rd trailer that was released about 2 months ago.

But yes, Rothman lied about the 10 minutes.

[chaseter]

I wish when I lie I would get millions of dollars:(

[Ace of Knaves]

Or get ****ING PROMOTED!!!!! :cmad:

I did a nice little manip of Wade cutting Rothmans head off to show my feelings for him, hope he sees it :D

[chaseter]

Post it!

[Ace of Knaves]

:D It's nothing special, only took a few minutes to whip up. But as they say, it's the thought that counts :up:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8089/rothmandiesz.jpg

[chaseter]

bwahahahahaha:up:

[Ace of Knaves]

:D Oh imagine if by some miracle Marvel or New Line got the rights to a Deadpool film and they actually had a scene where Deadpool bursts into a board room meeting and starts slaying executives Matt Damon in Dogma style, with one being a spitting image of Tom Rothman.

[dark_b]

i dont remember this scene in the workprint(without the head obviously)

[Ace of Knaves]

I think it is, but it's very, very quick. Like blink and you'll miss it quick.

[chaseter]

:D Oh imagine if by some miracle Marvel or New Line got the rights to a Deadpool film and they actually had a scene where Deadpool bursts into a board room meeting and starts slaying executives Matt Damon in Dogma style, with one being a spitting image of Tom Rothman.
This needs to be done in his comic as well:woot: To avoid legal trouble the guy being killed can be called Rom Tothman.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yes!!!!!!

[Peter McCabe]

The leaked workprint was put together BEFORE the January reshoots.

That makes it 4-months-old.

*Rothman's statement may be deceiveing, or it may just be out of context.

As of now, I believe that those reshoots conducted in January weren't extensions to the movie - but instead replacement shots.

I have a strong feeling that the workprint didn't sit well with alot of people (including that reviewer that simply caught it a bit late) so Hood and Jackman decided to go back and do some reshoots on things they weren't happy about.

The final film may not be 10 minutes longer, but it may be 10 minutes different :cwink:

[chaseter]

I don't think there will be 10 minutes different because Rothman would have said so or corrected his statement. They all just shouted out a number to try and reassure some fans to get them in the seats. Sure there might be some different things but I doubt 10 minutes worth. Also, I think some of the pickups/reshoots were used for promo stuff like the MTV character videos.

[Daredevil_2003]

And it will still suck. This movie has problems up the ass. You'd have to write a new script and reshoot the whole thing to make it a signifigantly improved film.

[Peter McCabe]

I don't think there will be 10 minutes different because Rothman would have said so or corrected his statement. They all just shouted out a number to try and reassure some fans to get them in the seats. Sure there might be some different things but I doubt 10 minutes worth. Also, I think some of the pickups/reshoots were used for promo stuff like the MTV character videos.

Dude, the MTV Promos were shot during Principal Photography in the spring of 2008.

The only people these reshoots focus on are Reynolds, Schreiber and Jackman.

Jackman himself talked about how Reynolds only had 3 days of shooting during principal photography (the leaked workprint) and 6 days of shooting during the reshoots - NOT featured in the leak.

They definitely changed something and there's a MASSIVE chance it involves the fate of Deadpool.

*Not trying to persuade you to be an optimist, Chaseter - just trying to get you to be a realist :cwink:

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea and Reynolds himself stated that what he shot in January was not extra scenes. They were all originally part of the principle shoot, but because he was already committed to 2 other films he had to film the majority of his parts in January.

[Ace of Knaves]

And it will still suck. This movie has problems up the ass. You'd have to write a new script and reshoot the whole thing to make it a signifigantly improved film.

Disagreed wholeheartedly. You make it sound as if this is Elektra or Fantastic Four or something.

[chaseter]

Dude, the MTV Promos were shot during Principal Photography in the spring of 2008.

The only people these reshoots focus on are Reynolds, Schreiber and Jackman.

Jackman himself talked about how Reynolds only had 3 days of shooting during principal photography (the leaked workprint) and 6 days of shooting during the reshoots - NOT featured in the leak.

They definitely changed something and there's a MASSIVE chance it involves the fate of Deadpool.

*Not trying to persuade you to be an optimist, Chaseter - just trying to get you to be a realist :cwink:
Reynolds only did have 3 days or so to shoot and that was used for his movie time that included him as Barakapool because they had the makeup team there for him. That is why I think he just now did his MTV character shoot and so did Liev and Jackman. I didn't say that took up all the 6 days because it wouldn't take 6 days to do that promo material.

As for Deadpool, it won't change the film for me. Just because he may shoot an after credits scene doesn't make the rest of the movie better to me or will fix some of the glaring problems I had. Deadpool will probably get his own film so anything involving Barakapool I could care less about. Reynolds was great as Wade and he will be great as Deadpool. Barakapool sucked.

I just don't think 6 days will fix many of the script problems and development issues because that has to do with length and allowing things to breathe and not adding any time to this will still make this movie go BOOM BOOM BOOM The End.

[chaseter]

Yea and Reynolds himself stated that what he shot in January was not extra scenes. They were all originally part of the principle shoot, but because he was already committed to 2 other films he had to film the majority of his parts in January.
Which would include the character bio which was part of my point:cwink:

[Peter McCabe]

Reynolds only did have 3 days or so to shoot and that was used for his movie time that included him as Barakapool because they had the makeup team there for him. That is why I think he just now did his MTV character shoot and so did Liev and Jackman. I didn't say that took up all the 6 days because it wouldn't take 6 days to do that promo material.

As for Deadpool, it won't change the film for me. Just because he may shoot an after credits scene doesn't make the rest of the movie better to me or will fix some of the glaring problems I had. Deadpool will probably get his own film so anything involving Barakapool I could care less about. Reynolds was great as Wade and he will be great as Deadpool. Barakapool sucked.

I just don't think 6 days will fix many of the script problems and development issues because that has to do with length and allowing things to breathe and not adding any time to this will still make this movie go BOOM BOOM BOOM The End.

Once again, he shot the MTV Promo in the spring of 2008 during his 3 days in Australia.

This January he shot 6 days worth of footage in Canada.

*Chase, I'm pretty sure 6 days of footage will amount to more than just an after the credits scene.

I'm thinking they chopped 10 minutes out of the workprint that simply didn't work (studios do this all the time) and inserted the stuff Reynolds shot in January.

We'll know for sure in 2 weeks, but dude - you're gonna have to go see this if you wanna maintain your opposition against the film.

People might come out really happy on May 1st and you'll be in the dark as to why :cwink:

[Ace of Knaves]

I am confident there will be a after credit scene featuring DP or the remains or Weapon XI whatever.

But unfortunately I don't think there will be any actual new footage of Wade in the film. If there is it definitely shouldn't be any more action, he already has probably the best action scene in the film, if there is to be extra footage of Wade it needs to explain why and how he got experimented on.

[chaseter]

What 10 minutes is going to be chopped? I just don't see it happening. I think a couple of minutes will be added and since it was with those 3 then it involves the final act. They probably lengthened the final battle and gave Reynolds an after credits scene. If it were more Team X stuff then they would have had to have everyone else there so I don't see anything from the first 2 acts changing.

As I said, I will probably still go see this but I won't opening night or when the tickets are expensive. I will either go to matinee or if the reviews are bad then I will pay for another movie and see this so that I can come in here and debate:D

[Peter McCabe]

I think a couple of minutes will be added and since it was with those 3 then it involves the final act. They probably lengthened the final battle and gave Reynolds an after credits scene.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

*Though I believe it will amount to more than a 30 second after the credits scene.

As I said, I will probably still go see this but I won't opening night or when the tickets are expensive.

That's the spirit http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Ace of Knaves]

What 10 minutes is going to be chopped? I just don't see it happening. I think a couple of minutes will be added and since it was with those 3 then it involves the final act. They probably lengthened the final battle and gave Reynolds an after credits scene. If it were more Team X stuff then they would have had to have everyone else there so I don't see anything from the first 2 acts changing.

As I said, I will probably still go see this but I won't opening night or when the tickets are expensive. I will either go to matinee or if the reviews are bad then I will pay for another movie and see this so that I can come in here and debate:D

Yea, I've said before I will be happy(ish) if there is a after credit scene or beginning of credit scene similar to the one in Hulk vs. That would tee a DP film up perfectly.

[Figs]

As I said, I will probably still go see this but I won't opening night or when the tickets are expensive. I will either go to matinee or if the reviews are bad then I will pay for another movie and see this so that I can come in here and debate:D

That's exactly what I'm going to do. I won't see it at the midnight showing but I'll definitely catch it opening weekend.
I really want to hear audience reaction after it's over to see what a lot of the GA thought of it.

[Peter McCabe]

That's exactly what I'm going to do. I won't see it at the midnight showing but I'll definitely catch it opening weekend.
I really want to hear audience reaction after it's over to see what a lot of the GA thought of it.

the best crowd to watch it with is the midnight premiere.

Its gonna be nuts!!!

[Figs]

the best crowd to watch it with is the midnight premiere.

Its gonna be nuts!!!


No, because the midnight premier is the showing that just about only hardcore fans will go to.I've gone to the midnight premier for The Dark Knight and Watchmen and it was great. You know there won't be morons making noise and using cell phones because the audience is pretty much all made up of bigtime fans.For Wolverine, everything I've heard tells me it won't be up to the quality of The Dark Knight or Watchmen. So right there I know I won't demand a 100% quiet theatre when watching since it won't have as much depth. Second thing, I want to hear the general audience's opinions of the film. Like I said before, the midnight showing is usually made up of fanboys.

[dark_b]

Dude, the MTV Promos were shot during Principal Photography in the spring of 2008.

The only people these reshoots focus on are Reynolds, Schreiber and Jackman.

Jackman himself talked about how Reynolds only had 3 days of shooting during principal photography (the leaked workprint) and 6 days of shooting during the reshoots - NOT featured in the leak.

They definitely changed something and there's a MASSIVE chance it involves the fate of Deadpool.

*Not trying to persuade you to be an optimist, Chaseter - just trying to get you to be a realist :cwink:i dont think so.

[dark_b]

belive me that there wont be a deadpool scene after the ccredits. there are already enough scenes.

plus i dont think that they would delete 10 minutes and replace it with completely different footage. if you would watch the workprint you would understand. it would completely destroy the flow

[Ace of Knaves]

Why should we believe you? :hehe:

Na but honestly, no one can be sure. One of the after credit scenes was completely pointless and was a MASSIVE plot hole. So hopefully they have realized that and got rid of it. A Deadpool after credit scene would make much more sense in terms of future investments for these money hungry studios and the story.

[TNC9852002]

So they lied again, just like they did repeatedly with X3, and you still wonder why people dont like them Nell?
Has anyone posted the original article where they originally talk about the reshoots?

[StarkTheProdigy]

this has probly been posted, and many may not believe this, but my friend works at a movie theatre, and he got the times for the midnight showings, and said it was 2 hours long...

[dark_b]

Why should we believe you? :hehe:

Na but honestly, no one can be sure. One of the after credit scenes was completely pointless and was a MASSIVE plot hole. So hopefully they have realized that and got rid of it. A Deadpool after credit scene would make much more sense in terms of future investments for these money hungry studios and the story.but what about the ending?

[Ace of Knaves]

but what about the ending?

What ending? You think that would stop Deadpool? I don't wanna post spoilers but the guy has survived from much worse than that before. Hell, his actual "birth" if you wanna call it that involved him getting killed as the experimented on Wade Wilson then being "reborn" as Deadpool.

Check this out if you haven't seen it yet.

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/04/15/deadpool-co-creator-rob-liefeld-says-solo-spin-off-from-x-men-origins-wolverine-likely/

[dark_b]

he can survie this?

really?

woow.

[Ace of Knaves]

:hehe: Yep, his healing factor in the comics is actually more powerful than Wolverines. He's had his head exploded before and still survived. But yea obviously that is the comics, but what I mean is that it isn't out of character for him to survive something like that.

[Peter McCabe]

Has anyone posted the original article where they originally talk about the reshoots?

From WIZARD magazine:

WIZARD: There were stories online about reshoots and you even sent a post to AICN to counter these reports. Can you comment on what actually happened there?

JACKMAN: The whole thing got a little out of hand. I normally don't get involved too much, because at the end of the day, the proof's in the pudding. People like the movie or not. But it was kind of getting a little out of hand. We had finished shooting because there was a thing called Cinema Expo in Europe and I had to go and present Australia there, and I also did a little bit for Wolverine in that. It came at a time where we had about a week's shooting left. And also, Ryan Reynolds was only available for three days while we were shooting-he was on another movie. So we had a whole thing with Ryan we needed to do and we had about five, six days and we thought, "Well, it's great anyway for us to use Canada because, obviously, that's where the character originates from." So the truth be told, it was probably about three or four days of reshoots in there, and the rest was basically original photography, main unit stuff. So it was kind of exaggerated and so obviously erroneous and I just would hate people's excitement for the movie to be dampened because they think there was a big problem when there wasn't.

[dark_b]

if it isnt out of hes character then there is hope.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea, i hope! :hehe:

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Has anyone posted the original article where they originally talk about the reshoots?

McCabe posted it, what does that have to do with Fox lying?

[Peter McCabe]

McCabe posted it, what does that have to do with Fox lying?

It has nothing to do with FOX lying, nor does this discussion.

*The article talks about the reshoots and how many days Reynolds was on set during principal photography.

3 days total and that's all that is shown in the leak.

The 6 days of reshoots he shot in January are in the final film.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It has nothing to do with FOX lying, nor does this discussion.

*The article talks about the reshoots and how many days Reynolds was on set during principal photography.

3 days total and that's all that is shown in the leak.

The 6 days of reshoots he shot in January are in the final film.

So talking about Fox lying about the runtime in the run-time thread arent part of the discussion? God help us all if you ever become a mod McCabe :oldrazz:.

Not to mention, HOW do you know the 6 days of re-shoots are in the movie? You dont.

[Peter McCabe]

So talking about Fox lying about the runtime in the run-time thread arent part of the discussion? God help us all if you ever become a mod McCabe :oldrazz:.

Not to mention, HOW do you know the 6 days of re-shoots are in the movie? You dont.

The workprint is dated Pre-January.

The reshoots were done AFTER that workprint was put together.

*When Rothman said the final film is 10 minutes longer, he may have meant that it contains the ten minutes shot in January that are replacing 10 minutes from the workprint.

Jackman basically confirms that those 10 minutes concern Deadpool by specifying that Reynolds was brought back along with Schreiber for 6 days of shooting.

[Theweepeople]

The workprint is dated Pre-January.

The reshoots were done AFTER that workprint was put together.

*When Rothman said the final film is 10 minutes longer, he may have meant that it contains the ten minutes shot in January that are replacing 10 minutes from the workprint.

Jackman basically confirms that those 10 minutes concern Deadpool by specifying that Reynolds was brought back along with Schreiber for 6 days of shooting.

Saying the movie is 10 minutes longer when all the reshoots accomplished was replacing 10 minutes of footage is still a lie.


I thought about calling Arclight theaters about Wolverine's run time but, decided not to based on an obvious guess. Arclight recently updated their website and to nobodies surprise Wolverine's run time is now at 107 minutes. How did they screw up Star Trek and Wolverine's run times so badly? Especially star trek because the official run time had been set 5 months before Arclight revealed it.

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu again. I remember checking Arclight theater for X-Men 3's run time 3 years ago and I'm pretty sure it was around 2 hours.

[Spidey 2007]

Saying the movie is 10 minutes longer when all the reshoots accomplished was replacing 10 minutes of footage is still a lie.


I thought about calling Arclight theaters about Wolverine's run time but, decided not to based on an obvious guess. Arclight recently updated their website and to nobodies surprise Wolverine's run time is now at 107 minutes. How did they screw up Star Trek and Wolverine's run times so badly? Especially star trek because the official run time had been set 5 months before Arclight revealed it.

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu all over again. I remember checking Arclight theater for X-Men 3's run time 3 years ago and I'm pretty sure it was around 2 hours.

Yea If I remember right, arclight was one source that gave us X3 fans hope.. but didnt turn out true..

[Theweepeople]

Yea If I remember right, arclight was one source that gave us X3 fans hope.. but didnt turn out true..

I thought I wasn't the only one who noticed this. I go to watch movies at Arclight every year and thought they advertised X3 with a running time of 2 hours.

[Ace of Knaves]

Rothman lied, simple. His exact quote about the workprint was "It's about 10 minutes shorter..." Well, it isn't.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Rothman lied, simple. His exact quote about the workprint was "It's about 10 minutes shorter..." Well, it isn't.

So yea, I spent a lot of time defending Fox against various attacks and such, but even I have a hard time defending a blatant lie.

[Peter McCabe]

The lie will sting less if the final film is indeed different from what you guys saw in the leak :cwink:

2 more weeks, gentlemen.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The lie will sting less if the final film is indeed different from what you guys saw in the leak :cwink:

2 more weeks, gentlemen.

Yes. Yes it will.

However, I must say, it's not looking good. The tracklist of the soundtrack perfectly describes the workprint.

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea well I'm still positive about the film.

But Rothman yet again showed why he is the most hated man in the industry. Why doesn't he just realize that by telling the truth you will get more respect? Is he a ****ing retard or something?

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea well I'm still positive about the film.

But Rothman yet again showed why he is the most hated man in the industry. Why doesn't he just realize that by telling the truth you will get more respect? Is he a ****ing retard or something?

[Peter McCabe]

Yes. Yes it will.

However, I must say, it's not looking good. The tracklist of the soundtrack perfectly describes the workprint.

There's something going on with the third act.

They brought back Jackman, Schreiber and Reynolds for 6 days.

I'm thinking whatever those 3 shot - is a different spin on the third act of the film.

PAYBACK and The Butterfly Effect went through that same treatment and the final products ended up fantastic.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

There's something going on with the third act.

They brought back Jackman, Schreiber and Reynolds for 6 days.

I'm thinking whatever those 3 shot - is a different spin on the third act of the film.

PAYBACK and The Butterfly Effect went through that same treatment and the final products ended up fantastic.

I hope you're right, Pete, I really do.

I'm one of the optimistic ones. I just know that I got my hopes up for X-Men 3, letting myself believe that Cyclops would make it through, and we all know what happened. I'm remaining optimistic, but I'm also not getting my hopes up. Really, I expect to see what I saw in the work print. Nothing different, save for effects and score.

I really do hope that I'm wrong. Not because the movie sucks (I don't think it does, even in it's work print form), but because I'd hate to be blatantly lied to, AND the film could definitely use a couple things.

[Ace of Knaves]

Well when shots came out of them filming in January there was a pic of Jackman on a bridge in a denim jacket. That is already in the workprint.

[Peter McCabe]

I hope you're right, Pete, I really do.

I'm one of the optimistic ones. I just know that I got my hopes up for X-Men 3, letting myself believe that Cyclops would make it through, and we all know what happened. I'm remaining optimistic, but I'm also not getting my hopes up. Really, I expect to see what I saw in the work print. Nothing different, save for effects and score.

I really do hope that I'm wrong. Not because the movie sucks (I don't think it does, even in it's work print form), but because I'd hate to be blatantly lied to, AND the film could definitely use a couple things.

I personally didn't like what they did with the material from ORIGIN in the beginning of the workprint. Too short, too meaningless for an audience unfamiliar with that particular comic and because it jumps directly into the wars, you don't get a chance to see how Victor and Jimmy's brotherhood evolved.

I'm pretty sure the actors featured in that sequence shot alot more than what I saw and I wish they would just expand that a bit more.

[Peter McCabe]

Well when shots came out of them filming in January there was a pic of Jackman on a bridge in a denim jacket. That is already in the workprint.

Damn it.

[night0205]

Tom Rothman lies, yes he only cares about money, and he will lie if he can get away with it, and he will lie when he can't. However, I do think something is going on with the third act, I do believe a different ending will happen...maybe.

[chaseter]

I think an additional after credits scene could happen but I think that will be the only different thing from the work print. Nothing from the first 2 acts will change.

[night0205]

Well people weren't throwing up tell the third act, sounds like great news to me :)

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I think that's the most we can hope for. There is one scene at the credits that just makes no sense to include. It features a character that isn't very important and it is a MASSIVE plot hole. So hopefully they replace that or add another scene that actually makes sense, namely a re-emergence of Deadpool scene :D

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well people weren't throwing up tell the third act, sounds like great news to me :)

True, it's really the third act where most of my complaints come into play.

[chaseter]

I will say that I did like the first act...that is where most of my compliments are from. The second act is where it gets weak for me and the third act is the compilation of crap:(

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^The 3rd act is a disaster.

[Ace of Knaves]

My only problem with the final act is the way Logan loses his memories, that could of been done sooooooooooooo much better.

And as a Deadpool fan I'm obviously pissed off about Weapon XI. But as a movie fan I thought he was a sicko and it was a pretty decent final fight. Apart from a certain scene with optic blasts and claws.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

And it will still suck. This movie has problems up the ass. You'd have to write a new script and reshoot the whole thing to make it a signifigantly improved film.My sis and I said the same thing after watching it.

[Ace of Knaves]

Well that's in your opinion.

I don't think it completely sucks, I think it's a decent movie, but yea obviously it isn't brilliant. It pisses all over the likes of Elektra and the FFs, easily. People act like this is the worst movie ever or something, it just stinks of sour grapes or Fox hating.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I liked both FF movies so we disargee on that one. They were massively flawed but charming.

I'm not acting like the leaked version was the worse thing ever. It's just a movie that starts out decent but utterly calaspes in some of the second act and dies in the third one.

Hugh Jackman was good in it and Liev S. was awesome eventhough all of his dialogue was an amalgamation of every bad action movie in the 80's and 90's.

[Ace of Knaves]

I liked both FF movies so we disargee on that one. They were massively flawed but charming.

I'm not acting like the leaked version was the worse thing ever. It's just a movie that starts out decent but utterly calaspes in some of the second act and dies in the third one.

Hugh Jackman was good in it and Liev S. was awesome eventhough all of his dialogue was an amalgamation of every bad action movie in the 80's and 90's.


Some of Liev's dialogue was cheesy. But some of it was brilliant IMO. Delivery can turn a bad line into a good line, and I don't think ANYONE can deny Liev was immense. The scene in the bar when the barman started speaking to him for example, that was just sick.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Some of Liev's dialogue was cheesy. But some of it was brilliant IMO. Delivery can turn a bad line into a good line, and I don't think ANYONE can deny Liev was immense. The scene in the bar when the barman started speaking to him for example, that was just sick.Oh yeah. He was awesome and he seemed to be having alot of fun. I like when actors have fun in these type of films.

[Peter McCabe]

I liked both FF movies so we disargee on that one. They were massively flawed but charming.

The FF movies are one HUGE collapse from beginning to end. They work on a level of popcorn too buttery for me.

I like them, but that doesn't mean I rate them over a 5.

Hugh Jackman was good in it and Liev S. was awesome eventhough all of his dialogue was an amalgamation of every bad action movie in the 80's and 90's.

Well here's the thing, Creed's dialogue was actually inspired by a great deal of Sabretooth mythos from the comics.

Sabretooth is a character that was conceived at the very start of 80s styled action.

Chuck Norris had began to make a name for himself in the late 70s, Charles Bronson had gone insane, Sylvester Stallone traded in his Oscar Nomination for an M-60 and a profesional bodybuilder with a funny accent was about to EXPLODE on to the big screen with a name that would change action movies forever - SCHWARZENEGGER.

That era gave birth to Victor Creed, and even though Liev Schreiber's acting skills make Arnold's look like an 8th grader's, Liev is playing a character that was more cheese than anything else.

The Creed character has always embodied the muscular, macho alpha-male persona. He's big, he's strong, he's mean, he looks like a cross between Dolph Lundgren and a Bobcat, etc...

Liev is obviously bringing some much needed depth to this character, but for me the dialogue I've heard so far isn't cheesy - its all a throwback to that one dimensional macho heroism from the 80s.

"Well, well, well. Look what the cat dragged in."

Chuck Norris coulda said that. Maybe he did...:hehe:

The dialogue is in the essence of Creed, the same way Jackman's dialogue is in the essence of Logan - which has that older 70s antihero lingo.

Logan's lines coulda been Eastwood's, or McQueen's, or Bronson's.

[Rac]

If Dutch and British classification boards have seen the film already, VET, the Finnish one is soon to follow. I'll the post the runtime then. It won't differ from their 106/107 minutes, but they always include the seconds and the metres of the film. :up:

1h 46min 18sec / 106 minutes (http://195.197.150.133/elokuvahaku/EH1210.aspx?ID=380788&lcid=1035)

[drmick]

1h 46min 18sec / 106 minutes (http://195.197.150.133/elokuvahaku/EH1210.aspx?ID=380788&lcid=1035)

How long was the workprint?

[Nathan]

With credits and after credits scene, 1h 46min 51sec.

[chaseter]

And the leak minus credits was some where around 97 minutes I believe so I am sure this is about the same. Just so depressing:(

[drmick]

Wow.

So the actual film is the same length as the workprint? Plus or minus a few seconds of footage?

That is shocking given the whole Studio anti-workprint hype.

[chaseter]

Not really:o They lied, most everyone expected that. I think that work print was farther along than some people want to believe.

[Timstuff]

So Rothman was lying, just like he always lies, and the workprint is pretty much what we'll see in theaters minus the score and FX. Wow, what a shocker. :o

Critics are gonna rip this movie a new one.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

So Rothman was lying, just like he always lies, and the workprint is pretty much what we'll see in theaters minus the score and FX. Wow, what a shocker. :o

Critics are gonna rip this movie a new one.

Yeah, I can see the critics ripping this apart also.

[chaseter]

X3 ended up with 50's on RT and I see this ending up about the same, possibly in the low 60's.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Still cant believe X3 got that good of a rating to be honest.

[Timstuff]

X3 had 55% on the tomatometer, so a slim majority of critics said it was good. I see this movie doing worse though, because even as someone who liked X3 I thought this one sucked. I can see it getting in the low 40's or mid-to-low 30's, easily.

[Downhere]

The Tomatometer will be fun to see when the film gets reviewed. I think it could end up in the 60% range.

[drmick]

Two qestions:

1. Were there credits on the workprint? (At the end I mean).

2. Was there an after-credits scene/coda?

[Ace of Knaves]

Na the majority of the credits on the workprint were from X3. There is mid and end of credits scenes.

[drmick]

Na the majority of the credits on the workprint were from X3. There is mid and end of credits scenes.

Thank you.

So I guess the workprint was essentially a finished piece in terms of photography.

Ah well, I really enjoyed F4 because I went to see it expecting a disaster. Hopefully the same thing will happen with this one.

[Goopman25]

If Fox did right to the fans, characters, etc, the film should run Spidey length(21/2 to 3 hours). Set up for other potential spin-offs and more stories for other characters later. I just hope Fox didn't go the Mortal Kombat route with small cameos just showing the main powers before giving the spotlight back to the main character(s).

[Timstuff]

The Tomatometer will be fun to see when the film gets reviewed. I think it could end up in the 60% range.

Considering that this movie is worse than X-Men 3, the only way I see it getting better reviews is if standards have gotten lower since X3 came out.

[Hypestyle]

I hope that there will be an unrated extended version dvd, and has more character moments as well as more violence..

[Timstuff]

If Fox did right to the fans, characters, etc, the film should run Spidey length(21/2 to 3 hours). Set up for other potential spin-offs and more stories for other characters later.

My biggest knock against X3 was always that I felt like it should have been at least a half hour longer-- preferably 2.5 hours long. Unfortunately, Fox doesn't do long movies anymore.

I just hope Fox didn't go the Mortal Kombat route with small cameos just showing the main powers before giving the spotlight back to the main character(s).

I hate to break it to you, but that's actually exactly what they did. :(

[Timstuff]

I hope that there will be an unrated extended version dvd, and has more character moments as well as more violence..

Fox is so stingy that I doubt there's much that they filmed that won't be in the actual movie. There will be deleted / alternate scenes, sure, but it's not like Fox has an extra half hour of story that's laying around, waiting to be reinserted.

[lordofthenerds]

X3 had 55% on the tomatometer, so a slim majority of critics said it was good. I see this movie doing worse though, because even as someone who liked X3 I thought this one sucked. I can see it getting in the low 40's or mid-to-low 30's, easily.
I could see this getting anywhere from about 20 to 40. This was a lot worse than X3.

[bapi]

Also here in Czech Rep Wolvie's local distributor says it's 107 minutes long.

So Rothman was lying, huh?

[night0205]

Yep, lyin does not help reputation...Tom Rothman deserves all the hatin in the world, and then some, because many people haven't even heard of him. Australia was the last good movie released by Fox and it was co-produced, and they probably got a big contract for Fox to sign, to keep certain things the way they want...but that's not the case for X-men movies.

Yeah I just looked at every movie Fox has distributed in the last 5 years, and...they SUCK! I don't understand how they are still in business, except for the fact that they are penny pinchers. There are a couple good movies within the 50-100, but it seems like the X-men Franchise is the one thing keeping them afloat...so they better be praying Wolverine does well.

[Peter McCabe]

Yep, lyin does not help reputation...Tom Rothman deserves all the hatin in the world, and then some, because many people haven't even heard of him. Australia was the last good movie released by Fox and it was co-produced, and they probably got a big contract for Fox to sign, to keep certain things the way they want...but that's not the case for X-men movies.

Yeah I just looked at every movie Fox has distributed in the last 5 years, and...they SUCK! I don't understand how they are still in business, except for the fact that they are penny pinchers. There are a couple good movies within the 50-100, but it seems like the X-men Franchise is the one thing keeping them afloat...so they better be praying Wolverine does well.

Revenge of The Sith was great and I loved X3.

*Both those movies made ALOT of money.

[Nathan]

*sigh* The lots of money argument again. Money doesn't say anything about the quality of a movie. Especially when its a sequel to two successful movies and people naturally expected it to be just as good. Which, IMO, it wasn't.

And X3 only made 20mil more than X2 and X2 was made for 100mil less than X3.

[night0205]

Star Wars gets a free ticket into Heaven! X3 would be part of the "X-men franchise keeping them afloat point", but again that was a couple years ago...

[Peter McCabe]

*sigh* The lots of money argument again. Money doesn't say anything about the quality of a movie. Especially when its a sequel to two successful movies and people naturally expected it to be just as good. Which, IMO, it wasn't.

And X3 only made 20mil more than X2 and X2 was made for 100mil less than X3.

It doesn't really matter.

That same argument you can apply to Spider Man 3.

They didn't profit as much as their predecessors, but here we are 2 weeks away from a another X-Men movie after X3 and 2 years away from a sequel to Spider Man 3.

They banked, and that's all that matters.

[dark_b]

It doesn't really matter.

That same argument you can apply to Spider Man 3.

They didn't profit as much as their predecessors, but here we are 2 weeks away from a another X-Men movie after X3 and 2 years away from a sequel to Spider Man 3.

They banked, and that's all that matters.of course it matters

[Figs]

*sigh* The lots of money argument again. Money doesn't say anything about the quality of a movie. Especially when its a sequel to two successful movies and people naturally expected it to be just as good. Which, IMO, it wasn't.

And X3 only made 20mil more than X2 and X2 was made for 100mil less than X3.

QFT! $$$$ doesn't always equal quality.

[Knives]

Not really:o They lied, most everyone expected that. I think that work print was farther along than some people want to believe.

Yeah this is ridiculous. SO what happened to that extra 15 to 20 minutes of footage FOX and and the apologists were chattering about? Where did that go? I KNEW it was ********. There was simply nowhere to put it in that workprint. The workprint IS the film. Plain and simple. And no amount of finished FX are going to fix this film. It was incredibly mediocre. Now I really hae no reason to see it either, seeing as the workprint aside from FX an dmusic, was essentially the final version of this movie. Thanks Fox for ****ing up another one!

[Timstuff]

Yeah this is ridiculous. SO what happened to that extra 15 to 20 minutes of footage FOX and and the apologists were chattering about? Where did that go? I KNEW it was ********. There was simply nowhere to put it in that workprint. The workprint IS the film. Plain and simple. And no amount of finished FX are going to fix this film. It was incredibly mediocre. Now I really hae no reason to see it either, seeing as the workprint aside from FX an dmusic, was essentially the final version of this movie. Thanks Fox for ****ing up another one!

Yup. If there was extra footage in the theatrical version it MIGHT have been enough to get me to watch, but knowing what I know I'm not going to watch it until it's available on Netflix. I am convinced that aside from the FX and score, I have pretty much seen the final cut of the movie.

Also, to the people who brought up Star Wars Episode III as a success for Fox-- Fox only distributed the movie. George Lucas funded it with his own $$$, so Lucasfilm got most of the money off of it. It was basically a really expensive independent film that got released through Fox, but it was not a Fox venture, and while I'm sure Lucas gave them a good deal, it was not really that big of a moneymaker for their studio.

[night0205]

Yeah George Lucas got most of the profit, Fox just wanted a % of that. I do believe there is extra footage in the movie we will see on May 1st. Maybe only a couple minutes, but with all the editing they had to do, there has to be new stuff from the leak.

[The Squirrel]

1h 46min 18sec / 106 minutes (http://195.197.150.133/elokuvahaku/EH1210.aspx?ID=380788&lcid=1035)

It's the same. :lmao:

[Timstuff]

Nice avvi, Squirrel. :word::up:

[Peter McCabe]

Yup. If there was extra footage in the theatrical version it MIGHT have been enough to get me to watch, but knowing what I know I'm not going to watch it until it's available on Netflix. I am convinced that aside from the FX and score, I have pretty much seen the final cut of the movie.

What else have you convinced yourself of?

There's no solid evidence to suggest that the footage that was shot in January has not been fully inserted into the workprint you saw.

As of now, it looks like whatever was shot in January, was shot to replace footage from the workprint that didn't sit well with test screenings.

*If you're gonna make bold statements based on guesses, don't expect people to care. If you're gonna continue bashing this movie, you're gonna need to know what you're talking about.

The film that comes out in 2 weeks might have a very different outcome than the film you saw in crappy quality on your computer.

[CelticPredator]

It was DVD quailty.

[The Squirrel]

Nice avvi, Squirrel. :word::up:
Thanks.

What else have you convinced yourself of?

There's no solid evidence to suggest that the footage that was shot in January has not been fully inserted into the workprint you saw.

As of now, it looks like whatever was shot in January, was shot to replace footage from the workprint that didn't sit well with test screenings.

*If you're gonna make bold statements based on guesses, don't expect people to care. If you're gonna continue bashing this movie, you're gonna need to know what you're talking about.

The film that comes out in 2 weeks might have a very different outcome than the film you saw in crappy quality on your computer.
Why are you in denial that Rothman could have lied? It happened with X3, and it will/may happen here.

[dark_b]

It was DVD quailty.he knows it. he rate it 10

[Peter McCabe]

Why are you in denial that Rothman could have lied? It happened with X3, and it will/may happen here.

Not in denial, its more than possible.

But its gonna take another 13 days for us to know for sure.

*The statement that he made is a false statement, but there may be some truth to it if the final film contains footage that was not in the leak.

Since we know that both films have the same running time, for new footage to be inserted - old footage would have to be removed.

Its all gotta be from the third act.

[Peter McCabe]

It was DVD quailty.

Actually, all the movies I own on DVD don't feature borrowed scores, ridiculously unfinished effects and actors fighting on wires.

All that baggage alone was enough for me to turn the movie off after the title sequence.

[CelticPredator]

Its still good quailty. So....

[Peter McCabe]

Its still good quailty. So....

Good quality, not DVD quality.

But we're not talking about X-Men Origins: Wolverine, we're talking about what was to become X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine comes out on May 1st.

[dark_b]

it was DVD quality and thats a fact.

[Peter McCabe]

it was DVD quality and thats a fact.

Only in your mind.

[The Squirrel]

Only in your mind.

Your saying it's only DVD quality if it's the finished film. This was DVD quality because the images weren't blurry, and it wasn't filmed with a camcorder.

And I enjoyed the unfinished touches of the film for the most part, because you don't get to see that part of a film very often. As a film student, it was interesting for me to see that side.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

to argue remantics, since thats all we're doing here, the leak was less than dvd quality, i know what i saw. however, it was still near dvd quality.

[Peter McCabe]

Your saying it's only DVD quality if it's the finished film.

Exactly.

DVDs contain finished films. Unfinished films are not sold on DVD.

Workprints are not sold on DVD.

This was DVD quality because the images weren't blurry, and it wasn't filmed with a camcorder.

It was clear, yes. But not finished - therefore NOT DVD quality.

And I enjoyed the unfinished touches of the film for the most part, because you don't get to see that part of a film very often. As a film student, it was interesting for me to see that side.

That's fine, but I personally believe watching a fim in that condition can tarnish one's overall view of the film.

[3 Dev Adam]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine comes out on May 1st.

And, mark my words, it will suck.

[Figs]

Jesus Christ Peter why do feel the need to be a smart ass or play dumb just to give people head aches.

Anyone with common sense knows that when someone says a movie was DVD quality it's almost always mainly referring to the actual screen quality. Meaning it's not from a handy cam and it's not blurry or the colors aren't off.

You know damn well your being a smart ass by ignoring that and going on that "oh the effects aren't finished so it's not DVD quality".

The effects aren't finished means it's an unfinished film, the screen quality looking like it will on an official DVD release would mean the leak although unfinished, looks like DVD quality.

[Timstuff]

Actually, all the movies I own on DVD don't feature borrowed scores, ridiculously unfinished effects and actors fighting on wires.

All that baggage alone was enough for me to turn the movie off after the title sequence.

And yet that title sequence was so great, that you rated the movie a 10 for it. Nice.

[Timstuff]

Exactly.

DVDs contain finished films. Unfinished films are not sold on DVD.

Workprints are not sold on DVD.

So you're saying that it's not RETAIL DVD quality. That's a very big distinction. The fact remains that the video is still DVD quality. Also, you've clearly not seen any of the DVDs that they sell for $1 if you think that Wolverine's picture quality wasn't superior to those.

[Peter McCabe]

Jesus Christ Peter why do feel the need to be a smart ass or play dumb just to give people head aches.

Thanks for the message board hostility.

Anyone with common sense knows that when someone says a movie was DVD quality it's almost always mainly referring to the actual screen quality. Meaning it's not from a handy cam and it's not blurry or the colors aren't off.

Sure.

You know damn well your being a smart ass by ignoring that and going on that "oh the effects aren't finished so it's not DVD quality".

And it goes on...

The effects aren't finished means it's an unfinished film, the screen quality looking like it will on an official DVD release would mean the leak although unfinished, looks like DVD quality.

You sound bitter and unhappy. :csad:

[Figs]

Thanks for the message board hostility.



Sure.



And it goes on...



You sound bitter and unhappy. :csad:

If I sound bitter and unhappy it's because I get sick of seeing some of your posts where you defend this film like it's your literal child in any and all ways possible...even BS'ing people with semantics about DVD quality.

And no, that is not hostility. I asked you a question in regards to why you have to be a smartass since that is what you we're being in regards to the DVD quality argument. I even asked one of my coworkers sitting next to me what comes to mind when they hear 'DVD quality'. Their answer was what I expected, it's in regards to the picture quality.

So in regards to the 'hostility' comment. No, I didn't call you dumb I asked why must you play dumb, big difference.

[Peter McCabe]

And yet that title sequence was so great, that you rated the movie a 10 for it. Nice.

Its really hilarious how you think that incriminates me somehow or makes me a lesser person in any way :woot:

*I voted 10 only to spit on that poll.

The Leaked film shoulda never been allowed to have a poll like that in the first place.

Good thing it got shut down http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

So you're saying that it's not RETAIL DVD quality. That's a very big distinction. The fact remains that the video is still DVD quality. Also, you've clearly not seen any of the DVDs that they sell for $1 if you think that Wolverine's picture quality wasn't superior to those.

I'm saying workprints aren't sold.

The workprint you saw is actually illegal in these United States :cwink:

[Peter McCabe]

If I sound bitter and unhappy it's because I get sick of seeing some of your posts where you defend this film like it's your literal child in any and all ways possible...even BS'ing people with semantics about DVD quality.And no, that is not hostility. I asked you a question in regards to why you have to be a smartass since that is what you we're being in regards to the DVD quality argument. I even asked one of my coworkers sitting next to me what comes to mind when they hear 'DVD quality'. Their answer was what I expected, it's in regards to the picture quality. So in regards to the 'hostility' comment. No, I didn't call you dumb I asked why must you play dumb, big difference.

Once again, for the 80th time, workprints aren't sold. DVDs are sold.

The leak has a good picture quality, but its not something I would compare to anything I own on DVD.

The effects are bad, the people are on wires at times and the score is borrowed from various films.

In the end, If the leak ends up being IDENTICAL in content to the final film, I still can't deem it DVD quality because of the problems listed above.

[Timstuff]

Its really hilarious how you think that incriminates me somehow or makes me a lesser person in any way :woot:

*I voted 10 only to spit on that poll.

The Leaked film shoulda never been allowed to have a poll like that in the first place.

You still voted dishonestly, which makes everyone who gave it a positive vote look less credible. And I don't care if the poll got shut down, because everyone has had a chance to vote on it by now anyway, and the averaged results were 5.5. The consensus is that the film is mediocre.

[Peter McCabe]

You still voted dishonestly, which makes everyone who gave it a positive vote look less credible. And I don't care if the poll got shut down, because everyone has had a chance to vote on it by now anyway, and the averaged results were 5.5. The consensus is that the film is mediocre.

The "consensus" is invalid.

It doesn't mean anything.

As far as I'm concerned, all that poll did is allow you to share your utter hate for FOX in an interactive fashion.

*Unfortunately that same hate is displayed in every thread in this forum that you enter :whatever:

[Figs]

Once again, for the 80th time, workprints aren't sold. DVDs are sold.

The leak has a good picture quality, but its not something I would compare to anything I own on DVD.

The effects are bad, the people are on wires at times and the score is borrowed from various films.

In the end, If the leak ends up being IDENTICAL in content to the final film, I still can't deem it DVD quality because of the problems listed above.

More semantics...for the 80th time. I never said anything about something being sold, I have no idea where you got that.

Your chosing to ignore the facts that all the time people have been saying the leak was DVD quality(and once again only needing common sense) that they are talking about the screen quality...not EFFECTS. Of course an actual DVD will be the full finished cut with all effects/wire work done. When people usually need to point that out, they usually say something along the lines of "the finished film" or "the final cut". I've never heard anyone in all my life when referring to DVD or VHS quality(in the past) mean to compare it between a film with unfinished effects, it's always meant picture and sound quality.

[Peter McCabe]

More semantics...for the 80th time. I never said anything about something being sold, I have no idea where you got that.

Your chosing to ignore the facts that all the time people have been saying the leak was DVD quality(and once again only needing common sense) that they are talking about the screen quality...not EFFECTS. Of course an actual DVD will be the full finished cut with all effects/wire work done. When people usually need to point that out, they usually say something along the lines of "the finished film" or "the final cut". I've never heard anyone in all my life when referring to DVD or VHS quality(in the past) mean to compare it between a film with unfinished effects, it's always meant picture and sound quality.

I guess I don't use the term "DVD quality" so freely because I've seen workprints to many films.

They always look clear, its just that they're lacking so many things that prevent them from being deemed a DVD quality movie.

I have workprints of several movies and because they suffer from those issues [like no score at times, no CGI all the time or sometimes scenes that never made the final film] I still am forced to go out and buy them on DVD to be able to watch the films properly.

This [I]Wolverine workprint is gonna be interesting to watch once I've seen the final film.

But it'll never be something that can prevent me from buying Wolverine on DVD in 5 months :cwink:

[Figs]

That's the point McCabe. Whether you want to call it a workprint or a bootleg, I agree with you in that it's not a finished film. But in regards to 'DVD quality', when most people use that term they're usually only referring to the picture quality not whether the effects are finished.

You are literally the first person I've ever heard use it that way, which is why I'm assuming you were being that picky about it just to win your argument...that yes Wolverine will be the second coming.

[night0205]

I'm so not understanding what you people are arguing about? :/

[Figs]

I'm so not understanding what you people are arguing about? :/

LOL

Don't worry about it. It's over anyways.

[Anita18]

Wow.

So the actual film is the same length as the workprint? Plus or minus a few seconds of footage?

That is shocking given the whole Studio anti-workprint hype.
I guess it comes down to if they actually replaced old shots with new ones. But I certainly hope the editing is more refined in the final version than in the workprint. I could tell was a rough edit, but if it stays, it'll be THE worst-edited film I will have ever seen. Catwoman wasn't as painful to watch in terms of pacing.

But I guess we'll just have to see. :oldrazz:

[The Squirrel]

Jesus Christ Peter why do feel the need to be a smart ass or play dumb just to give people head aches.

Anyone with common sense knows that when someone says a movie was DVD quality it's almost always mainly referring to the actual screen quality. Meaning it's not from a handy cam and it's not blurry or the colors aren't off.

You know damn well your being a smart ass by ignoring that and going on that "oh the effects aren't finished so it's not DVD quality".

The effects aren't finished means it's an unfinished film, the screen quality looking like it will on an official DVD release would mean the leak although unfinished, looks like DVD quality.

:applaud

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

even for picture quality its still not dvd quality. considering what it is, it is good, clear quality, but if the dvd release looked like that id be pissed. it is kinda blurry. and to answer a question asked of peter - we defend this film "like its our child" for the same reason people feel the need to attack it like it killed their mom. we feel that this film (even in its workprint state) is not anything close to the piss poor piece of trash that some make it out to be (well at least me cuz pete hasnt seen it). as long as there are people who call it mediocre, or worse, i will be here to present MY truth that it is a good movie that is a worthy addition to the x men film franchise, and a solid adaptation of the character wolverine. :D

[CelticPredator]

Its really hilarious how you think that incriminates me somehow or makes me a lesser person in any way :woot:

*I voted 10 only to spit on that poll.

The Leaked film shoulda never been allowed to have a poll like that in the first place.

Good thing it got shut down http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif


Heh....i'm gonna laugh when the actual theater cut is the same damn crappy workprint, with pretty effects.

This "OMG U SUCK CUZ U DOWNLOAD" stuff is just pointless. I did it, and there we go. It doesnt effect you, and it bearly effects FOX. So get on with your lives, and stop worrying about what other people do.

Now...back to the real stuff...FOX needs to get destroyed.

[CelticPredator]

By the way, you cant tell people how to think. I cant tell you the movie is ****, and call that a fact. Just like you cant say "It isnt that bad", because I THINK it is. I think its very bad. X-3 bad...and that to me, is very bad.

[Peter McCabe]

even for picture quality its still not dvd quality. considering what it is, it is good, clear quality, but if the dvd release looked like that id be pissed. it is kinda blurry. and to answer a question asked of peter - we defend this film "like its our child" for the same reason people feel the need to attack it like it killed their mom. we feel that this film (even in its workprint state) is not anything close to the piss poor piece of trash that some make it out to be (well at least me cuz pete hasnt seen it). as long as there are people who call it mediocre, or worse, i will be here to present MY truth that it is a good movie that is a worthy addition to the x men film franchise, and a solid adaptation of the character wolverine. :D

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[CelticPredator]

I hate the thumbs up symbol thing. Personal pet peeve.:o

[Superhero 101]

Well then, :up::cwink:

[C. Lee]

People....you can discuss and debate things until the cows come home....but you will di it civily.

Stop the name calling.