how to fix wolverines character

[GuestStar2004]

now im sure i aint the only person to think he was at his best in xmen 1 and 2, and seem to lose something in the last 2

but what was it? and how to fix it?

you would think in his origin movie he would go even more darker, but he become never do wrong superhero sex symbol goody goody

in my appinion

[x-fan]

The problem is that Logan isn't a Hero he is an Anti-hero, meaning he is a bad guy that does good, they have turned him into a run of the mill good guy.

[The Executioner]

Exactly he needs to be the Wolverine on the big screen that he is in the comics.

[sabetoonth]

he needs blood and cigars, and alchohol, and ya know, to get violent again

[DarkSovereignty]

yeah i felt he was too tame especially in origins. like there was that one scene where he's talking to silver fox and he says that line "im the best there is at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice", i couldn't help but chuckle 'cause he really hadn't done anything to warrant that line. he served the military, thats about it. as a mercenary, he went on one mission and walked out because of the ethical ambiguity behind it, not very nice huh?

[Karelia]

I think they should also fix his claws. I didn't have any problems with them in the first 3 X-Men movies, but in XMOW they just didn't look good at all...

Maybe this one they'll get it right. Since Jackman has talked about the Japan storyline so much, it'll be more accurate to the comics.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Take off his restraining collar and make it R rated.

[sabetoonth]

IMO, R rated isnt nessasary to get an accurate depiction of him


and Karelia, i think they looked too CG in XMOW when he first unsheathes them

[Karelia]

IMO, R rated isnt nessasary to get an accurate depiction of him


and Karelia, i think they looked too CG in XMOW when he first unsheathes them
I think the most noticeable scene was when he was in the bathroom at the old folks home. People were whispering how bad they looked in theater. They were just bad... :dry:

I agree, you can get an accurate depiction of Wolverine without an R rating. I'll never understand the obsession to have R ratings for comic book movies.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Wolverine is potentially the most violent character in all of comics. He was made to kill. I feel the movies have a real watered down version of him, like they're afraid to let him cut loose. An R rated Wolverine movie is the only interest I have in this dwindling X-franchise.

[TheDarkKnight08]

I think the most noticeable scene was when he was in the bathroom at the old folks home. People were whispering how bad they looked in theater. They were just bad... :dry:

I agree, you can get an accurate depiction of Wolverine without an R rating. I'll never understand the obsession to have R ratings for comic book movies.

I'll agree with this to an extent. Wolverine is the kind of character that begs for an R-rating, due to his nature in the comics. He's a violent, sadistic brute who has a righteous amount of honor and bravery, enough to call him a hero of sorts. Anything less is watered-down, especially with a PG-13 rating. Any popular, sucessful depiction of Wolverine from the comics portrays him in a violent manner where he's relentless and angry, with gore splattering everywhere. It doesn't need to be taken to a Saw-like extreme, but enough so the audience understand the grimy and violent world that Wolverine lends himself to.

The best way to fix Wolverine is to take away his need to cry and break down every 5 minutes and for him to be much more cenetered, while displaying a agressive state of mind, as well as a focus on what he believes is right. Having him bawl about his girlfriends and back down from fights, particualrly fights that last 2 minutes is a huge mistake. He needs to be agressive, with a dark sense of humor, and a character that can described as unstoppable. Not just because he's got an indestructable metal in his bones, but becase he's just that good at what he does, and will accept nothing less.

An even better way is to make X-MO:W a dream, and re-do his origin with a better director and Fox's now present need to no longer **** up their own movies, but dreams can't come true. :csad:

[Karelia]

Yeah, I'd understand making Wolverine R. He is a violent character, it's just when people say that the movie will suck with a PG-13 rating and won't watch it because of the rating just annoys me. The rating isn't what will make or break a movie, at least to me. :D

If you go to the SHH main page and look at the Deadpool article, you'll see what I mean. It's ridiculous.

I agree with the crying part. xD

[danoyse]

The R-rating ain't ever gonna happen, but they'll bring it up like a broken record every time the movies are mentioned. I'd love it, but it's pointless to keep thinking it will happen.

They need fix it by: making it longer (seriously, XMO was shorter than Toy Story 3), making it more violent, using better special effects (no more Roger Rabbit claws, please), and having a stronger, more cohesive story.

The sad part is, all of that should be obvious.

[BigSams50]

Better looking claws have to be a must. They were just horrific in XMO

[Squidboy]

yeah i felt he was too tame especially in origins. like there was that one scene where he's talking to silver fox and he says that line "im the best there is at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice", i couldn't help but chuckle 'cause he really hadn't done anything to warrant that line. he served the military, thats about it. as a mercenary, he went on one mission and walked out because of the ethical ambiguity behind it, not very nice huh?

We never actually get a confirmation that the Africa mission was their first - I always assumed that they showed it only to give an idea of how Logan wasn't like the rest of the people Stryker associated with. They could've given much better pacing for things like this, but alas, Fox preferred to rush the beginning so Logan could get his metal claws already.

[danoyse]

We never actually get a confirmation that the Africa mission was their first - I always assumed that they showed it only to give an idea of how Logan wasn't like the rest of the people Stryker associated with. They could've given much better pacing for things like this, but alas, Fox preferred to rush the beginning so Logan could get his metal claws already.

I don't think it was meant to be their first mission either. But it would have been nice to see Wolverine actually do something during that scene other than stand around and disapprove, if they were only going to show that one mission

[sabetoonth]

We never actually get a confirmation that the Africa mission was their first - I always assumed that they showed it only to give an idea of how Logan wasn't like the rest of the people Stryker associated with. They could've given much better pacing for things like this, but alas, Fox preferred to rush the beginning so Logan could get his metal claws already.

I don't think it was meant to be their first mission either. But it would have been nice to see Wolverine actually do something during that scene other than stand around and disapprove, if they were only going to show that one mission
I think a mission montage would have been sufficient to clearly say this isnt the first mission, and yea, I'd like at least SOME blood, at LEAST, i mean, there was blood in his flashbacks in X2, and even just some splatter on the wall like in The Punisher when he slices the guys throat off screen in the end, we see blood splatter, a hard pg 13 i think would suffice to get across his violence and such. the bloodless XMOW did bug me, and the fact they bonded him to the metal not at the same place as X2

[Squidboy]

I guess Hood didn't want another set of montages after the opening credits, but it would've worked to the movie's advantage in the long run

[danoyse]

A second montage wouldn't have worked, since it would have been just a few minutes after the opening credits montage (which was one of the best parts of the film). But just a more detailed scene, or maybe a second mission where you got to see the other characters show off their powers some more - especially Wolverine, since he didn't get to do anything in the scene we got, and got to see how it went bad to justify him leaving.

In the end, the Team X scene's only purpose was to show where the adamantium came from, and even that was really a vague explanation.

I actually thought the Team X scene went really well, it just need to be so much more.

[hopefuldreamer]

They screwed up Wolverine (and upset the balance of the whole X-Men) when they made the entire trilogy Wolverine-centric storylines, with wolverine fighting for the truth/the girl.

Everyone else was just his supporting cast, and they still decided it needed a wolverine spin off... basically the exact same thing but this time at least they had the guts to call it 'Wolverine' instead of trying to pretend it was about the other X-men in any substantial way.

That is why I am seriously looking forward to First Class.

P.s. No offense to Hugh Jackman who I honest think played an amazing Wolverine. But the storylines and scripts and general direction of his character was just awful.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think that Wolverine started getting watered down after the first movie. The character wasn't exactly as I'd like to see him in the first film but he was still the Wolverine I knew and loved. He's all down hill from that film IMHO. The Wolverine movie just completely ruined the onscreen version of the charcter but it started with X2 IMHO.

[Squidboy]

A second montage wouldn't have worked, since it would have been just a few minutes after the opening credits montage (which was one of the best parts of the film). But just a more detailed scene, or maybe a second mission where you got to see the other characters show off their powers some more - especially Wolverine, since he didn't get to do anything in the scene we got, and got to see how it went bad to justify him leaving.

In the end, the Team X scene's only purpose was to show where the adamantium came from, and even that was really a vague explanation.

I actually thought the Team X scene went really well, it just need to be so much more.

It would've been cool to see Logan and Victor integrated into the team, with Logan being a little uneasy about the idea of working with the team, and Victor fitting in perfectly.

[danoyse]

It would've been cool to see Logan and Victor integrated into the team, with Logan being a little uneasy about the idea of working with the team, and Victor fitting in perfectly.

It also would have been to nice to explain when he changed his name to Logan. That was the first thing my sister asked me after she saw the movie. It was never explained (we knew where it came from, but that had to be confusing for everyone else).

[DarkSovereignty]

one thing that i hope they work on his hair. i don't remember it being too bad in origins, but i remember his first scene in x2 when i caught it on FX a few months ago, i cracked up at how ridiculous it looked.it was just so obviously gelled, i don't mind them going for a "wild" look, but please, don't make it LOOK like he just had hair stylists slaving over his melon for an hour.

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

It also would have been to nice to explain when he changed his name to Logan. That was the first thing my sister asked me after she saw the movie. It was never explained (we knew where it came from, but that had to be confusing for everyone else).
Agreed. Glad I read Origin before seeing the movie, otherwise I'd be scratching my head with everyone else.

[sabetoonth]

one thing that i hope they work on his hair. i don't remember it being too bad in origins, but i remember his first scene in x2 when i caught it on FX a few months ago, i cracked up at how ridiculous it looked.it was just so obviously gelled, i don't mind them going for a "wild" look, but please, don't make it LOOK like he just had hair stylists slaving over his melon for an hour.
i kinda chuckle inside everytime i see that scene, its just so BIG and shaped incredibly well lol, i like his Origins hair the best

[NinjaTurtleFan]

They got to play up his animalism. Make him more predatory, primal, unpredictable, caught between man and beast, caught between right and wrong. I liked the animated series because Logan seemed like Mowgli (to use a literary reference) a man caught between two worlds. When he got into fighting Sabretooth in that show, it was like two lions going at each other.

I want to see that more. Less of a crybaby wuss and more of a guy who'll rip, slash, disembowel, render, and dismember guys left to right like in the videogame. I know we won't get an R-rated Wolverine film, but least have him just slaughtering a whole pack of guys. Like it's so fast and brutal, it pushes the PG-13 rating.

[sabetoonth]

i love the fight against the soldiers in X2 becuase he went ape**** on them

[Squidboy]

It also would have been to nice to explain when he changed his name to Logan. That was the first thing my sister asked me after she saw the movie. It was never explained (we knew where it came from, but that had to be confusing for everyone else).

That's something that I don't really get at all. If they had mentioned Victor's father by name, then maybe the audience could've assumed that James took on that name, but that would've also left Victor Creed's name up in the air. I guess they just left it up to the audience to decide how he came up with the name Logan.

one thing that i hope they work on his hair. i don't remember it being too bad in origins, but i remember his first scene in x2 when i caught it on FX a few months ago, i cracked up at how ridiculous it looked.it was just so obviously gelled, i don't mind them going for a "wild" look, but please, don't make it LOOK like he just had hair stylists slaving over his melon for an hour.

The Origins hair was ridiculous at some points - take the Logan/Sabretooth fight in Stryker's base (right after Victor threatened Silverfox), it's all poofy and all over the place when they both came crashing down from the windows. I'd take his X2 hair any day, as compared to that.

[sniktsnakt]

Simple fix: Take Wolvie away from FOX, and give all the X-Men back to Marvel for a reboot.

They'd do it, and hopefully they'd learn from FOX's mistakes.

[DarkSovereignty]

also, i hope they stop that whole "sticking up the middle claw" gag they have running throughout the show. it was just kind of there the first time, and they kept doing it.

[TheDarkKnight08]

Simple fix: Take Wolvie away from FOX, and give all the X-Men back to Marvel for a reboot.

They'd do it, and hopefully they'd learn from FOX's mistakes.

The way Marvel's going these days, I'm not even sure this is a good idea. :csad:

[danoyse]

That's something that I don't really get at all. If they had mentioned Victor's father by name, then maybe the audience could've assumed that James took on that name, but that would've also left Victor Creed's name up in the air. I guess they just left it up to the audience to decide how he came up with the name Logan.

The made Dog Logan into Victor Creed, which I was OK with (I loved the idea that they were brothers), but created a whole other issue with the Thomas Logan character by causing all this confusion with the names. You can't even get away with saying his name was "James Logan" because even Kayla called him Logan. I don't think his girlfriend would be calling him by his last name.

Oddly enough, they changed James Hudson to Travis Hudson. Guess they didn't need two characters named "James" in the same movie. :huh:

The Origins hair was ridiculous at some points - take the Logan/Sabretooth fight in Stryker's base (right after Victor threatened Silverfox), it's all poofy and all over the place when they both came crashing down from the windows. I'd take his X2 hair any day, as compared to that.

It was definitely a little too poofy in Origins. I think it looked best in X1.

[Squidboy]

The made Dog Logan into Victor Creed, which I was OK with (I loved the idea that they were brothers), but created a whole other issue with the Thomas Logan character by causing all this confusion with the names. You can't even get away with saying his name was "James Logan" because even Kayla called him Logan. I don't think his girlfriend would be calling him by his last name.

Oddly enough, they changed James Hudson to Travis Hudson. Guess they didn't need two characters named "James" in the same movie. :huh:

It was definitely a little too poofy in Origins. I think it looked best in X1.

When I first saw the 'Brothers' trailer that revealed that Logan and Sabretooth were going to be related in the movie, I was very excited, because their past has been a mystery for all these years and I still don't buy the Jeph Loeb reasoning for why they must always fight, because of ancient animalistic mutants that they evolved from, or whatever. So making Victor take the place of Dog was fine for me, but like you said, the name Logan just came out of nowhere after that point.

I could buy it if his middle name was Logan, because sometimes people do just prefer to be called by a different name -my friend's mother always called her husband by his last name, so I guess it's just a matter of what each person likes to be referred to as, since I never heard of something like that before. It doesn't bother me too much that we get no explanation as to where that name came from, but it really could've been a five minute scene to fix all of that, at most.

[Mr.?]

I don't think Wolverine's as interesting solo. With First Class they should treat it as a reboot and introduce Wolverine in a sequel. Have Wolverine non-formally join the team and start tearing ass up. Make Cyclops the leader (Like he should be) and have Wolverine just not listen to him and do what he feels he needs to do.

[danoyse]

When I first saw the 'Brothers' trailer that revealed that Logan and Sabretooth were going to be related in the movie, I was very excited, because their past has been a mystery for all these years and I still don't buy the Jeph Loeb reasoning for why they must always fight, because of ancient animalistic mutants that they evolved from, or whatever. So making Victor take the place of Dog was fine for me, but like you said, the name Logan just came out of nowhere after that point.

I could buy it if his middle name was Logan, because sometimes people do just prefer to be called by a different name -my friend's mother always called her husband by his last name, so I guess it's just a matter of what each person likes to be referred to as, since I never heard of something like that before. It doesn't bother me too much that we get no explanation as to where that name came from, but it really could've been a five minute scene to fix all of that, at most.

Yeah, I knew where it came from, so it didn't bother me too much. But it had to be confusing for anyone who didn't know. I love the scene when Rose gives him that name in Origin, and while I can see why there was no need for Rose in the movie, something comparable would been great.

I loved the whole brother angle - much more Jeph Loeb explanation, which I never really liked. And I thought Hugh and Liev had terrific chemistry in the scenes they had together. I'm not a fan of the alternate mind-wipe scene from the DVD (seriously, why on earth would Logan volunteer for anything Stryker was offering at that point?), but I do love the moment when Victor keeps asking if Logan will remember him and wants the whole thing stopped when he learns that he won't. That was great.

[Squidboy]

I required my friend to read Origins before she saw the movie, so she was on the same level with me when the entirety of that six issue book was compressed into a three minute scene. Using that book as a guide, I had to assume that the name Logan was taken from something along the same lines as they were in the book, and that he used it to hide his past and to keep Weapon X from tracking him down too soon. I don't know what others assumed, though.

[Doctor Jones]

Make it a tragic story. So many bad things have happened to Logan. Don't just make him an animal tearing into people and being violent with blood and gore. I mean show that, although don't go overboard with the gore. But show his animalistic side, but have him question humanity with animalism. Victor and Logan don't see eye to eye on life and man. Victor sees them as terrible people who doesn't deserve sympathy or chances. Logan believes otherwise. The war scenes should have done this. Developing their relationship through these scenes shows how different they are in their ideals. The wars also shape their views on man. But it all goes back to their upbringing. Victor's father should be abusive while Logan's father should be loving. Though through the wars, Logan's humanity should be starting to slip. By the time he gets to Vietnam, he has been fighting for so long he has nearly forgotten that war and violence is needless and doesn't serve a purpose. He gets caught up in violence for a while. But Victor should do something, maybe kill a boy defending his mother for Logan to see that what they have been doing is wrong. The only reason they have been fighting is because they feel a sense of belonging and war is the only place where they are needed and can actually do something. As Logan's mother can reject him and Victor with his father.

Make him badass, give him his balls, but it should be an examination as to why he is like that.

[Infinity9999x]

yeah i felt he was too tame especially in origins. like there was that one scene where he's talking to silver fox and he says that line "im the best there is at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice", i couldn't help but chuckle 'cause he really hadn't done anything to warrant that line. he served the military, thats about it. as a mercenary, he went on one mission and walked out because of the ethical ambiguity behind it, not very nice huh?

The bolded part was one of my biggest problems with Origins (and the fact that it was written pretty poorly).

I tend to agree with Origins (the original 2001 comic) take on Wolverine. He's a good guy that's had a whole ton of crap piled on him in his life, so he's become a very grizzled and hard person, but a good heart lies under all that gristle.

However, Wolverine did go through a period when he was a very bad person. He killed a lot of people. And to be honest, as cool as it was to see Deadpool own a room of people, we needed scenes of Wolverine doing that. We needed to see Wolverine go in, carve up a room of goons and enjoy it. Because THAT's the part of him that he tries to hide later in life. That animal inside him that wants to fight, and LOVES to fight. That's the side of him that he's scared of.

All the lines about "you're not an animal" ect. ect. fell flat in that movie because they didn't do anything to explore that area of Wolverine. He was more of a goody goody in Origins then he was in X1 or X2.

Also, Wolverine: Origins messed up by not going into the horrors Weapon X inflicted upon Logan. They did more then put metal in him. They tortured him physically, but more importantly, they tortured him mentally. They tried to erase his humanity and tried to turn him into an animalistic killing machine. That's another reason why he has to struggle so much against his violent impulses, because of the intense trauma that Weapon X inflicted upon his psyche.

The past Wolverine movie did a lot of damage to the character of Logan. And honestly, I'm hoping that something falls through and Fox drops the series, and then in a decade or so Marvel will get the rights back and finally do Wolverine right.

[x-fan]

The bolded part was one of my biggest problems with Origins (and the fact that it was written pretty poorly).

I tend to agree with Origins (the original 2001 comic) take on Wolverine. He's a good guy that's had a whole ton of crap piled on him in his life, so he's become a very grizzled and hard person, but a good heart lies under all that gristle.

However, Wolverine did go through a period when he was a very bad person. He killed a lot of people. And to be honest, as cool as it was to see Deadpool own a room of people, we needed scenes of Wolverine doing that. We needed to see Wolverine go in, carve up a room of goons and enjoy it. Because THAT's the part of him that he tries to hide later in life. That animal inside him that wants to fight, and LOVES to fight. That's the side of him that he's scared of.

All the lines about "you're not an animal" ect. ect. fell flat in that movie because they didn't do anything to explore that area of Wolverine. He was more of a goody goody in Origins then he was in X1 or X2.

Also, Wolverine: Origins messed up by not going into the horrors Weapon X inflicted upon Logan. They did more then put metal in him. They tortured him physically, but more importantly, they tortured him mentally. They tried to erase his humanity and tried to turn him into an animalistic killing machine. That's another reason why he has to struggle so much against his violent impulses, because of the intense trauma that Weapon X inflicted upon his psyche.

The past Wolverine movie did a lot of damage to the character of Logan. And honestly, I'm hoping that something falls through and Fox drops the series, and then in a decade or so Marvel will get the rights back and finally do Wolverine right.



1000 times I agree, unfortunately if it takes a decade Christian Kane will be to old for the part.

[Infinity9999x]

1000 times I agree, unfortunately if it takes a decade Christian Kane will be to old for the part.

Unfortunately, I think it will be at least that long until we see marvel regain the X-men rights. Fox is still pushing ahead with their X-men movies, which, no matter how hard I try, I just can't find the will to get excited for. Wolverine: Origins was easily the weakest of the three, and I have no faith that they'll be getting any better. I just want them to let it die so we can start over.

The most frustrating aspect though, is that a good portion of the cast was so perfect. Stewart was spot on as Prof X. Jackman was a pretty darn solid Wolverine (they just should have used some camera magic to make him look shorter). Schrieber as Sabertooth was great, McKellen was wonderful as Magneto, Reynolds as Wade Wilson was a fanboy dream, and Marsden looked pretty spot on as Cyclops, he just didn't get a whole lot to do.

I would have loved to see the casts we've gotten in better scripts. And I'm not even saying X1 or X2 were bad movies. They were good, but I think we could have gotten something a little more in tune with the comics and just as good.

[UnionJack]

he needs blood and cigars, and alchohol, and ya know, to get violent again

this!

[Excelsior.]

Get rid of Hugh Jackman.

You guys can flame away. I am sick of tall, pretty boy Wolvy.

[x-fan]

Get rid of Hugh Jackman.

You guys can flame away. I am sick of tall, pretty boy Wolvy.

no flames from me, been saying for years that he was too tall, like him he is great in most of the films he makes, but he was mis-cast for the short fire cracker called wolverine.

[UnionJack]

The bolded part was one of my biggest problems with Origins (and the fact that it was written pretty poorly).

I tend to agree with Origins (the original 2001 comic) take on Wolverine. He's a good guy that's had a whole ton of crap piled on him in his life, so he's become a very grizzled and hard person, but a good heart lies under all that gristle.

However, Wolverine did go through a period when he was a very bad person. He killed a lot of people. And to be honest, as cool as it was to see Deadpool own a room of people, we needed scenes of Wolverine doing that. We needed to see Wolverine go in, carve up a room of goons and enjoy it. Because THAT's the part of him that he tries to hide later in life. That animal inside him that wants to fight, and LOVES to fight. That's the side of him that he's scared of.

All the lines about "you're not an animal" ect. ect. fell flat in that movie because they didn't do anything to explore that area of Wolverine. He was more of a goody goody in Origins then he was in X1 or X2.

Also, Wolverine: Origins messed up by not going into the horrors Weapon X inflicted upon Logan. They did more then put metal in him. They tortured him physically, but more importantly, they tortured him mentally. They tried to erase his humanity and tried to turn him into an animalistic killing machine. That's another reason why he has to struggle so much against his violent impulses, because of the intense trauma that Weapon X inflicted upon his psyche.

The past Wolverine movie did a lot of damage to the character of Logan. And honestly, I'm hoping that something falls through and Fox drops the series, and then in a decade or so Marvel will get the rights back and finally do Wolverine right.

I agree with you 10000000000000% but it was Fox who made it and they wanted to make a ton of cash ... from kids, they don't give a crap about the character or his fans they just want families to go, enjoy it, then buy there little brat lots of toys for him to throw away withing a month.

[Infinity9999x]

I agree with you 10000000000000% but it was Fox who made it and they wanted to make a ton of cash ... from kids, they don't give a crap about the character or his fans they just want families to go, enjoy it, then buy there little brat lots of toys for him to throw away withing a month.

I know, it's very frustrating. And if TDK showed us anything, it's that an intelligent, darker superhero flick can work. We don't have to make Wolverine a hard R (though I would say the character could certainly call for it). A hard pg-13 with a good script would work too.

[UnionJack]

I know, it's very frustrating. And if TDK showed us anything, it's that an intelligent, darker superhero flick can work. We don't have to make Wolverine a hard R (though I would say the character could certainly call for it). A hard pg-13 with a good script would work too.

Urg balls to TDK already, yes it was good but I'm very much over it.
I just think as of now Wolverine is far too watered down to redeem himself to where the fans want to see him, unless the next film is a total 180 and shows his rage rather and tears, which I very much doubt.
It will be another film where Fox shove in as many characters as they can so Marvel can't use them in a good way, probably cast another ****** musician to act poorly, no blood, no rage, no suit, just wife beater and most big soft hairy Wolvie the kiddies can lap up!

[Infinity9999x]

Urg balls to TDK already, yes it was good but I'm very much over it.
I just think as of now Wolverine is far too watered down to redeem himself to where the fans want to see him, unless the next film is a total 180 and shows his rage rather and tears, which I very much doubt.
It will be another film where Fox shove in as many characters as they can so Marvel can't use them in a good way, probably cast another ****** musician to act poorly, no blood, no rage, no suit, just wife beater and most big soft hairy Wolvie the kiddies can lap up!

I understand the sentiment with TDK, it's gotten it's horn tooted quite a bit. Still, besides that, we also have things like the LOTR movies, again Pg-13 movies that have plenty of violence and were pretty adult in terms of storyline, but did very well at the B.O.

I wouldn't mind an R-rated Wolverine (as long as they don't make the punisher with claws like he's been in recent comics). But no studio is ever going to do that. So I just hope we'll get a well written, dark, Pg-13 movie. That would be fine with me. And you could easily do that. Lack of violence wasn't what hurt Wolverine: Origins. Lack of a good story and understanding of the character was.

[UnionJack]

I understand the sentiment with TDK, it's gotten it's horn tooted quite a bit. Still, besides that, we also have things like the LOTR movies, again Pg-13 movies that have plenty of violence and were pretty adult in terms of storyline, but did very well at the B.O.

I wouldn't mind an R-rated Wolverine (as long as they don't make the punisher with claws like he's been in recent comics). But no studio is ever going to do that. So I just hope we'll get a well written, dark, Pg-13 movie. That would be fine with me. And you could easily do that. Lack of violence wasn't what hurt Wolverine: Origins. Lack of a good story and understanding of the character was.

True that and the addition of crappy characters who wasted good screen time!
If they do go to Japan in W2 then I hope we see the animal side of him and some good fun action, not asking for limps flying around, just if you stab someone it is only logical that some blood will be seen!

I would hope oneday we might get an X-Force film I am loving that comic, and he looks totally bad-ass in that suit.

[Infinity9999x]

True that and the addition of crappy characters who wasted good screen time!
If they do go to Japan in W2 then I hope we see the animal side of him and some good fun action, not asking for limps flying around, just if you stab someone it is only logical that some blood will be seen!

I would hope oneday we might get an X-Force film I am loving that comic, and he looks totally bad-ass in that suit.

If they do Japan, I really hope they stay true to the original Miller/Claremont 4ish mini. That mini is pretty much the epitome of my favorite wolverine graphic novel. That story is one of the big stories that's responsible for making Wolverine the multi-layered character he is now. It really delved into Wolverine's psyche and battle with his inner animal.

[Doctor Jones]

I think they could pull off a hard PG-13. We don't need to see blood and guts all around. Because good violence isan't just to see how much blood and guts you throw at the screen every second. It has to be done a certain way. Even though Logan would tear into people, too much blood and guts would get boring and just be overdone. But if LOTR can show Aragorn decapitate four times why not? Kids today can handle violence. I thinkt hey always could. Studios are more worried aout parents. I don't get it. If tv can do it, so can a PG-13 film. I mean kids watch CSI which is alot more violent than most movies today.

[danoyse]

I know, it's very frustrating. And if TDK showed us anything, it's that an intelligent, darker superhero flick can work. We don't have to make Wolverine a hard R (though I would say the character could certainly call for it). A hard pg-13 with a good script would work too.

Exactly. I've been using TDK as an example for ages about how PG-13 could work for a more mature audience, because an R-rated Wolverine movie just ain't gonna happen anytime soon. They could definitely make a good PG-13 movie out of this and not lose any of the impact of his character.

According to this (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/105835-jackman-drops-movie-to-train-for-wolverine-2), Hugh has officially dropped out of another project (which I was really hoping to see, dammit) to begin training for Wolverine 2, which is expected to start shooting early next year.

Since it's going to be the Japan story...maybe some sword-fighting training?

[Infinity9999x]

Exactly. I've been using TDK as an example for ages about how PG-13 could work for a more mature audience, because an R-rated Wolverine movie just ain't gonna happen anytime soon. They could definitely make a good PG-13 movie out of this and not lose any of the impact of his character.

According to this (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/105835-jackman-drops-movie-to-train-for-wolverine-2), Hugh has officially dropped out of another project (which I was really hoping to see, dammit) to begin training for Wolverine 2, which is expected to start shooting early next year.

Since it's going to be the Japan story...maybe some sword-fighting training?

Could be. I hope they stick as close to the original Claremont/Miller four ish mini as possible. I love that story.

It's just hard for me to get excited about a Fox produced X-men product. Origins did a lot of damage to the character, in my opinion more then B&R did to Batman. Now, that might seem like a big statement to make, but this is how I view it.

Batman and Robin was a joke. Everyone realized that, even the general public. It was just flat out bad. Wolverine was, unfortunately, incredibly average. It had speckles of greatness, and speckles of horribleness, but overall it was just very mediocre. It was blah. It didn't take any risks. It dumbed down the character and gave a bad interpretation of what could have been a poignant origin.

But unlike B&R, it wasn't bad enough to get Fox to stop making these movies. It was passable enough for them to feel all right with making more of these mediocre movies and not feel the need to tell a better story.

Now, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't have much faith.

[sabetoonth]

After Predators i do have faith, now that film rocked, and i do know there are differences, i jsut hope that they do less interfering on this one

[Infinity9999x]

After Predators i do have faith, now that film rocked, and i do know there are differences, i jsut hope that they do less interfering on this one

I just hope it has better writing. That was my main complaint about Origins. All the cast was pretty solid. Yeah, lots of people rag on Will I Am, but you know what? I thought he was all right. Certainly not glaringly bad like Hayden Christensen in Star Wars.

The problem was largely the script. It was Wolverine's Origin as told by a little kid's picture book. They toned down all the darker aspects and gave us cookie cutter action fare. And they turned Wolverine from an anti-hero to a Hero, but still tried to keep the storyline about the struggle with his inner animal, which doesn't really work when Wolverine was more tame then X1 or X2.

But hopefully the new movie will fix that.

[sabetoonth]

I liked Wraith

"Big black coat dont scare me Victor."
"I told ya not to bring up the weight, why'd ya have to go and call him blob?"

I was saddened when they killed him

[WeaponXProject]

I just hope it has better writing. That was my main complaint about Origins. All the cast was pretty solid. Yeah, lots of people rag on Will I Am, but you know what? I thought he was all right. Certainly not glaringly bad like Hayden Christensen in Star Wars.

The problem was largely the script. It was Wolverine's Origin as told by a little kid's picture book. They toned down all the darker aspects and gave us cookie cutter action fare. And they turned Wolverine from an anti-hero to a Hero, but still tried to keep the storyline about the struggle with his inner animal, which doesn't really work when Wolverine was more tame then X1 or X2.

But hopefully the new movie will fix that.


I completely agree. The cast got flack before the film was made but I didn't have a problem with the actors. The pace and script were awful and the action was ridiculously bad.

He has been tamed on screen. The way he was in the bar in X-1 is the closest we've come to seeing the actual character come to life. He kept to himself, was dark and scowled at people. Make him mean, with not much to say and trying to keep to himself. I wish the character had more internal monologues than actual lines in the film. I'd rather know what's going on in his head than him joking about "Coo Koo Kachoo".

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I completely agree. The cast got flack before the film was made but I didn't have a problem with the actors. The pace and script were awful and the action was ridiculously bad.

He has been tamed on screen. The way he was in the bar in X-1 is the closest we've come to seeing the actual character come to life. He kept to himself, was dark and scowled at people. Make him mean, with not much to say and trying to keep to himself. I wish the character had more internal monologues than actual lines in the film. I'd rather know what's going on in his head than him joking about "Coo Koo Kachoo".lol

[Wolverine1988]

I just think Wolverine needs a better writer and director, thats what really brought down the movie.

Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine i can't picture anyone as Wolverine except for maybe Gary Sinise.

He was amazing in x1 and x2 he was great as well , though i liked him more in the first one, x3 he was still good but was starting to lighten up.

The one thing id say in defense to why each movie he seemed to become less and less anti hero like because well the characted needed to evolve and i think as the movies progressed Wolverine started to become more of a team player , if he was just the same throughout the movies i think people would have gotten bored of him not to mention i dont think Jackman is the kind of guy who likes to have his charactes evvole and make challenges for him self, just sayin

[X Knight]

speaking of Wolverine, the closest that I've seen to a Wolverine-type character is.......Rambo!

Recently, I went on a Rambo watching binge and watched all 4 of the films. Never saw the 4th film and was too young to remember the 1st 3 when they came out.

But, as I watched the films, I was struck by how similar the characters of Wolverine and Rambo are. I mean, obviously there are differences, but, imo, you could take the stories of the Rambo films, replace Rambo with Wolverine, and I could see that as a Wolverine comic story or graphic novel.

Especially the 4th film. With both characters, you have a man who has seen ( and been through ) some serious **** in his life. He's haunted and traumatized by it ( except Wolverine may not remember it ).

He's grown cynical of the world and humanity at large. He just wants to be left alone, to live a simple, quiet life ( with Rambo, it's in Thailand, with Wolverine it's Japan ). When someone asks him to get involved with some conflict or problem, he tells them to **** off, not his problem.

But, underneath the cold, gruff exterior, there's a man who does have a heart, who does care. And when he gets involved, he really gets involved. That is, things get bloody, body parts fly, and bad guys die....lol.

The phrase "I'm the best at what I do, and what I do isn't very nice" could be applied to both Rambo and Wolverine. Except, you would believe it with Rambo based on what he does in the films. Whenever there's a sticky situation or dangerous mission, you go to Rambo to get the job done.

When Wolverine says that line in Origins, you don't buy it because.....well....he didn't exactly do much.......lol.

In Rambo IV, when Rambo is preparing to save the missionaries, he says something like "Killing is in my blood. When pushed, killing's as easy as breathing." I'm paraphrasing, but that applies to Wolverine as well.

oh...and Stallone's Rambo, while not being 5'3", is NOT the tallest guy in the movie....

So...yeah.....Rambo was closer to how I'd like to see Wolverine on film than Wolverine ever was in the X films, and especially in Origins.....

[chaseter]

1) Practical effects always look better than CGI. Wolverine was filled with atrocious CGI.
2) Make Logan kill more than 4 or 5 people in the entirety of the film. You had a chance to make the breakout of the Weapon X facility awesome and you have him streak naked straight to the door and stab 2 guys.
3) Raw anger. I am tired of Logan being a pussycat. He forgot everything at the end of the last film so what does he have to be angry about now? Leaving his jacket in Gambit's plane?
4) Blood...come on, at least have some blood or de-limbing in the next movie. Logan doesn't have to curse and we don't need to see his butt, so put in some more violence to supplement the PG 13 rating...push the boundaries like TDK did.
5) Stop with the hero good guy crap. Make his choices questionable, make him selfish. Logan isn't a villain but he is not a hero. He may do the right thing but his path there is not the path of a hero.

6) DO NOT LET JACKMAN MAKE CHARACTER DECISIONS.

[CASTER]

BORIGINS sucked...

Sad thing is FIRST CLASS is gonna suck much more...

Damn u FOX, I wont hold my breath for a good WOLVERINE sequel, they'll FAUX it up!

[truth]

Am I the only one in the entire world that thinks Hugh Jackman is STILL wrong for X-men? Too tall? Too nice looking? Not enough of a rough edge? Am I the only one?

[truth]

I just think Wolverine needs a better writer and director, thats what really brought down the movie.

Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine i can't picture anyone as Wolverine except for maybe Gary Sinise.

He was amazing in x1 and x2 he was great as well , though i liked him more in the first one, x3 he was still good but was starting to lighten up.

The one thing id say in defense to why each movie he seemed to become less and less anti hero like because well the characted needed to evolve and i think as the movies progressed Wolverine started to become more of a team player , if he was just the same throughout the movies i think people would have gotten bored of him not to mention i dont think Jackman is the kind of guy who likes to have his charactes evvole and make challenges for him self, just sayin


No. Hugh Jackman is NOT Wolverine

[X Knight]

Am I the only one in the entire world that thinks Hugh Jackman is STILL wrong for X-men? Too tall? Too nice looking? Not enough of a rough edge? Am I the only one?

no, you're not the only one.

I have nothing against Jackman; I just think he shouldn't have been cast as Wolverine in the 1st place.

IMO, one of the 1st requirements when looking for the Wolverine actor should have been "Height - Short to Average." Y'know, anywhere from 5'3" to 5'8" or 5'9". Even if you went with someone 5'9", you cast the other male leads taller ( like Cyclops ) and you give the impression that Wolverine is shorter than most guys.

You certainly do NOT make him among the TALLEST by casting a 6'3" actor. Look at the group shots of the Weapon X team in Origins. Wolverine is among the tallest! The guys who played Wraith and that guy who can contol electrical stuff are shorter than the rest. THAT should be Wolverine.

And setting the height issue aside, they also didn't get Wolverine's savage, feral personality right. The closest we got were when we first saw him in X1 and some scenes in X2. Other than that, Jackman was too "nice" and "pretty boy" and the way Wolverine was written was entirely too soft.....

And the worst part, imo, is that average person's image of Wolverine is Hugh Jackman! People who are not familiar with the comic, and only know Wolverine through the movies, will never know that Wolverine is supposed to be a short guy with a nasty, violent temper who'll rip you to shreds.....

[Nathan]

How to fix him? Do this.

rtncdFU89eY

[Squidboy]

How to fix him? Do this.

rtncdFU89eY

That would've been as perfect as can be. Even when he's being badass, he can still take a second out to be the responsible dad who sends the kid off to safety.

[danoyse]

The level to which I don't give a crap about the height thing is just at epic proportions at this point.

I wasn't a reader of the comics when I saw the first movie, I didn't know he was supposed to be shorter, and was able to notice that it was a great performance of a character I knew nothing about going in. It got me to start reading the comics, something I had no interest in before the movie.

And even now, 10 years later, I've read plenty of Wolverine comics and truly love the character outside of the movies...I still don't care. To me, it's a total non-issue and it doesn't affect the portrayal of the character at all.

I don't care that he's good-looking either. (in fact, I enjoy that. you boys have your eye-candy, we can have ours too) :oldrazz: ) Again, I don't feel any of that affects the portrayal of the character...and I say that now as someone who reads the comics.

He needs a better damn script, not to be shorter and uglier. That's just nitpicking.

[x-fan]

Danoyse, what fans want is to see is what the comics has portrayed since 73. Wolverine was designed to be a short, violent, bad tempered little man with a chip on his shoulder, a chip that one gets from being picked on a lot when young and small. I know this cause I grew up short and small, with the picking (lol.) In Logan's case small and sick. it is no different to Wolverine fans to want this than it would be for Superman fans to want a tall muscular good looking man to be Supes. the argument has been used that Superman has to be tall and built because it effects the character. this is no more true than it is for the Wolverine character. Superman's strength and power do not come from his muscle but the power of the yellow sun so why would he big and strong except it being the way he was designed and drawn. We all want a better script and better Character development, but we also want to see what was created on the screen, not that I'm saying you argue the Supes argument just using it as an example. As for Logan being ugly, I don't believe he has to be, I see him looking a lot like Clint Eastwood, most find him good looking, but that would be ruggedly so not pretty. I personally think Hugh looks wise is dead on, he is just to tall for this role, as a wolverine fan that is the way I see it. I personally would love to see someone (like) Christian Kane in the role, because he isn't so short as to be toooo short and not toooo tall, just average in height.

[Infinity9999x]

The height thing was an annoyance to me, but the bad script and characterization bother me much more. I don't blame Hugh for it either. I wouldn't have minded if they had used camera tricks to make him look shorter (which they could have done) but I don't think Hugh was necessarily miscast. Again, they could have done it with him.

I however, do NOT want to see a 5'3 Wolverine. Yes, he's listed that way in the comics, but he's never drawn that way. I think a 5'7 to 5'9 Wolverine would be best.

Either way though, I wouldn't have minded origins had it included a good script and they still had Hugh be tall. Sure, it would be an annoyance, but if I'm going to pick one thing to fix in this Fox X-men series, it won't be the height. Fix the crappy writing first, the height is just icing on the cake.

[danoyse]

Danoyse, what fans want is to see is what the comics has portrayed since 73. Wolverine was designed to be a short, violent, bad tempered little man with a chip on his shoulder, a chip that one gets from being picked on a lot when young and small. I know this cause I grew up short and small, with the picking (lol.) In Logan's case small and sick. it is no different to Wolverine fans to want this than it would be for Superman fans to want a tall muscular good looking man to be Supes. the argument has been used that Superman has to be tall and built because it effects the character. this is no more true than it is for the Wolverine character. Superman's strength and power do not come from his muscle but the power of the yellow sun so why would he big and strong except it being the way he was designed and drawn. We all want a better script and better Character development, but we also want to see what was created on the screen, not that I'm saying you argue the Supes argument just using it as an example. As for Logan being ugly, I don't believe he has to be, I see him looking a lot like Clint Eastwood, most find him good looking, but that would be ruggedly so not pretty. I personally think Hugh looks wise is dead on, he is just to tall for this role, as a wolverine fan that is the way I see it. I personally would love to see someone (like) Christian Kane in the role, because he isn't so short as to be toooo short and not toooo tall, just average in height.



And I get that. But at this point...once I hear that argument start up, I stop reading it. To negate an entire performance just over the stupid height issue after all of these years, I think it's just such a moot argument. I'm a huge fan of the character now, and I can go back and watch the movies and still not care that he's too tall.

[danoyse]

The height thing was an annoyance to me, but the bad script and characterization bother me much more. I don't blame Hugh for it either. I wouldn't have minded if they had used camera tricks to make him look shorter (which they could have done) but I don't think Hugh was necessarily miscast. Again, they could have done it with him.

It's not Hugh's fault he's tall! :oldrazz:

He looks even taller in person...and honestly, seeing him up close, you'd never know he was the guy who played Wolverine when he's just looking like a normal person.

I however, do NOT want to see a 5'3 Wolverine. Yes, he's listed that way in the comics, but he's never drawn that way. I think a 5'7 to 5'9 Wolverine would be best.

Either way though, I wouldn't have minded origins had it included a good script and they still had Hugh be tall. Sure, it would be an annoyance, but if I'm going to pick one thing to fix in this Fox X-men series, it won't be the height. Fix the crappy writing first, the height is just icing on the cake.

Exactly. I just read this quote from an interview with Lauren Shuler Donner about the X-Men series:

http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/film/article/lauren-shuler-donner-on-x-men-first-class-110069

Q: Did you take any lessons from the Wolverine prequel?

Lauren Shuler Donner: Well, we have another Wolverine that we’re going to do, The Wolverine Saga, with Mariko, The Japanese Story, that miniseries. But that we pretty much follow the comic pretty closely, as closely, really closely.

Why are they just figuring that out now? :doh:

[truth]

The level to which I don't give a crap about the height thing is just at epic proportions at this point.

I wasn't a reader of the comics when I saw the first movie, I didn't know he was supposed to be shorter, and was able to notice that it was a great performance of a character I knew nothing about going in. It got me to start reading the comics, something I had no interest in before the movie.

And even now, 10 years later, I've read plenty of Wolverine comics and truly love the character outside of the movies...I still don't care. To me, it's a total non-issue and it doesn't affect the portrayal of the character at all.

I don't care that he's good-looking either. (in fact, I enjoy that. you boys have your eye-candy, we can have ours too) :oldrazz: ) Again, I don't feel any of that affects the portrayal of the character...and I say that now as someone who reads the comics.

He needs a better damn script, not to be shorter and uglier. That's just nitpicking.

I think you really need to appreciate what the creators of the character did. Just saying you don't give a crap about his height, is disrespecting a CRUCIAL aspect of his character.

Comics are a visual medium. A lot of casting is not about how well you act, but how you LOOK. The great Brando can't do ALL roles, because he may not have looked the part for some roles.

Hugh Jackman is a fine actor. He out-acted Bale in Prestige, in my opinion. But for Wolverine, him being tall is a big deal. He exhudes the wrong aura needed for Wolverine. A MAJOR part of Wolverine's character and what has made him so loved for so long is because he is different. He's not the guy that gets all the girls. He's the outsider, who is violent, short and with a temper. That is the opposite of Jackman. Not matter how hard Hugh tries, and he did in the role, he just can't do what Nicholson or Hoffman could have done in their younger days. Yes, they are much better actors but the role of Wolverine is more suited to them because of their features and their IMAGE.

You need to respect how important the visual image of Wolverine is. It goes hand-in-hand with the performance.

[truth]

Danoyse, what fans want is to see is what the comics has portrayed since 73. Wolverine was designed to be a short, violent, bad tempered little man with a chip on his shoulder, a chip that one gets from being picked on a lot when young and small. I know this cause I grew up short and small, with the picking (lol.) In Logan's case small and sick. it is no different to Wolverine fans to want this than it would be for Superman fans to want a tall muscular good looking man to be Supes. the argument has been used that Superman has to be tall and built because it effects the character. this is no more true than it is for the Wolverine character. Superman's strength and power do not come from his muscle but the power of the yellow sun so why would he big and strong except it being the way he was designed and drawn. We all want a better script and better Character development, but we also want to see what was created on the screen, not that I'm saying you argue the Supes argument just using it as an example. As for Logan being ugly, I don't believe he has to be, I see him looking a lot like Clint Eastwood, most find him good looking, but that would be ruggedly so not pretty. I personally think Hugh looks wise is dead on, he is just to tall for this role, as a wolverine fan that is the way I see it. I personally would love to see someone (like) Christian Kane in the role, because he isn't so short as to be toooo short and not toooo tall, just average in height.


Great point. I feel that people would be up in arms if someone like Jeremy Renner or Michael Rooker (a good choice for Wolverine) were cast as Superman. They are good actors, that just have the WRONG look.

[danoyse]

I think you really need to appreciate what the creators of the character did. Just saying you don't give a crap about his height, is disrespecting a CRUCIAL aspect of his character.

Comics are a visual medium. A lot of casting is not about how well you act, but how you LOOK. The great Brando can't do ALL roles, because he may not have looked the part for some roles.

Hugh Jackman is a fine actor. He out-acted Bale in Prestige, in my opinion. But for Wolverine, him being tall is a big deal. He exhudes the wrong aura needed for Wolverine. A MAJOR part of Wolverine's character and what has made him so loved for so long is because he is different. He's not the guy that gets all the girls. He's the outsider, who is violent, short and with a temper. That is the opposite of Jackman. Not matter how hard Hugh tries, and he did in the role, he just can't do what Nicholson or Hoffman could have done in their younger days. Yes, they are much better actors but the role of Wolverine is more suited to them because of their features and their IMAGE.

You need to respect how important the visual image of Wolverine is. It goes hand-in-hand with the performance.

I respect the fact that he's short in the comics, but it still doesn't matter to me that he's a foot taller in the movies. It's never crossed my mind once while watching them. I don't even consider it a "MAJOR" part of his character, as you say.

[x-fan]

The difference is that you started reading the books after you saw the movies, we read the books then saw the movies and for us it was miscasting. Sure they could have used trick, but they didn't so miscasting, and as some others have said, Hugh is too nice a block, he can pull off some degree of anger, but he can't sustain it.

[Infinity9999x]

I think you really need to appreciate what the creators of the character did. Just saying you don't give a crap about his height, is disrespecting a CRUCIAL aspect of his character.

Comics are a visual medium. A lot of casting is not about how well you act, but how you LOOK. The great Brando can't do ALL roles, because he may not have looked the part for some roles.

Hugh Jackman is a fine actor. He out-acted Bale in Prestige, in my opinion. But for Wolverine, him being tall is a big deal. He exhudes the wrong aura needed for Wolverine. A MAJOR part of Wolverine's character and what has made him so loved for so long is because he is different. He's not the guy that gets all the girls. He's the outsider, who is violent, short and with a temper. That is the opposite of Jackman. Not matter how hard Hugh tries, and he did in the role, he just can't do what Nicholson or Hoffman could have done in their younger days. Yes, they are much better actors but the role of Wolverine is more suited to them because of their features and their IMAGE.

You need to respect how important the visual image of Wolverine is. It goes hand-in-hand with the performance.

Well, to an extent. But I would argue a good actor can overcome visual challenges. Keaton as Batman for example.

However, this issue of height against Hugh being cast is, quite frankly, stupid. In film he can LOOK SHORTER. The problem is not his height, it's the director's lack of really going for the signature Wolverine look. They could have done that with Hugh. They just needed to get more creative with filming. Sure, it would have been more of a pain in the ass, and easier to cast a shorter person, but they could have done it.

Also, I really don't get the idea that Wolverine "doesn't" get girls, or the notion he is ugly. He's never been ugly. He's rugged, but he gets lots of ladies if you've ever read the comics.

And again, I just want Fox to fix the cruddy script writing. Then I'll start piping up about height. It's classic problem solving. Tackle the REALLY important stuff first. However, it is good news to hear that they're staying close to the 4ish mini that Claremont and Miller wrote. Best, and most influential, Wolverine story told in my opinion.

[danoyse]

The difference is that you started reading the books after you saw the movies, we read the books then saw the movies and for us it was miscasting. Sure they could have used trick, but they didn't so miscasting, and as some others have said, Hugh is too nice a block, he can pull off some degree of anger, but he can't sustain it.

Yes, but I have a ton of friends who were huge comics fans before X1 (it's the reason I wound up seeing it, on their recommendation), and they didn't care about it at all. They've mentioned that he happened to be shorter, but it didn't bother them either.

[truth]

True, the writing is atrocious and that is th FIRST port of call. Origins was really a joke. Like a super and very expensive gag. But I fear it is still the same "we will stick to the comics" talk to appease the fans, but it will get watered down to PG 13 tripe.

Back to Jackman. There is the height issue but for me, when watching X1 and the others, he just did not do it for me. That could be his height, it could be his lack of embodying the character or just his acting. I just never felt that the character really had the effect he should have on you. Wolverine should jump out at you.

Many have cited Nicholson in Wolf. You can cite Nicholson in anything. The guy grabs your attention. He really owns that screen and you can't help but take notice. That is what Wolverine should be.

[danoyse]

Well, to an extent. But I would argue a good actor can overcome visual challenges. Keaton as Batman for example.

However, this issue of height against Hugh being cast is, quite frankly, stupid. In film he can LOOK SHORTER. The problem is not his height, it's the director's lack of really going for the signature Wolverine look. They could have done that with Hugh. They just needed to get more creative with filming. Sure, it would have been more of a pain in the ass, and easier to cast a shorter person, but they could have done it.

Also, I really don't get the idea that Wolverine "doesn't" get girls, or the notion he is ugly. He's never been ugly. He's rugged, but he gets lots of ladies if you've ever read the comics.

And again, I just want Fox to fix the cruddy script writing. Then I'll start piping up about height. It's classic problem solving. Tackle the REALLY important stuff first. However, it is good news to hear that they're staying close to the 4ish mini that Claremont and Miller wrote. Best, and most influential, Wolverine story told in my opinion.

Exactly. To me it's like they've got a great Wolverine, and they're not doing right by him in these movies, at least not since X2. He really does love the character (I did see Hugh not get annoyed when some idiot shouted "WOLVERINE!!" outside the stage door of his play last year, which was impressive, since I was ready to slug the guy myself), and I think if they get a team behind a move that really knows the character and a director who can really handle the material...they can still make a great movie, at least give him a great finale to his run in the movie series.

[danoyse]

Back to Jackman. There is the height issue but for me, when watching X1 and the others, he just did not do it for me. That could be his height, it could be his lack of embodying the character or just his acting. I just never felt that the character really had the effect he should have on you. Wolverine should jump out at you.

And that's fine. I disagree, but that's fine too. :yay:

But when it's solely the height thing, I just think it's the least important issue in the discussion. It may be a big deal to some, but it's just not an issue for me.

Many have cited Nicholson in Wolf. You can cite Nicholson in anything. The guy grabs your attention. He really owns that screen and you can't help but take notice. That is what Wolverine should be.

But that was Nicholson playing Nicholson in that movie. I wouldn't use that as a comparison to anything else.

[Infinity9999x]

True, the writing is atrocious and that is th FIRST port of call. Origins was really a joke. Like a super and very expensive gag. But I fear it is still the same "we will stick to the comics" talk to appease the fans, but it will get watered down to PG 13 tripe.

Back to Jackman. There is the height issue but for me, when watching X1 and the others, he just did not do it for me. That could be his height, it could be his lack of embodying the character or just his acting. I just never felt that the character really had the effect he should have on you. Wolverine should jump out at you.

Many have cited Nicholson in Wolf. You can cite Nicholson in anything. The guy grabs your attention. He really owns that screen and you can't help but take notice. That is what Wolverine should be.

While I agree an R-rated Wolverine wouldn't be bad (as opposed to people who want an R-rated Bats) I think a Pg-13 Wolverine could work just fine. LOTR and TDK are two fine examples of handling dark, and violent material in a pg-13 film.

Also, I do agree that all the film incarnations of Wolverine didn't quite hit the right mark, I don't blame it on Hugh. Even in X1, at his most anti-hero esque, they still wrote him fairly tame. And there's nothing Hugh can do about that.

And I think Nicholson (younger obviously) wouldn't have been a bad Wolverine, certainly different. Clint Eastwood is always the obvious fantasy cast for me. However, I always wondered how Russel Crowe would have done in the role.

[Squidboy]

You could argue that every character in the movies was shafted, because none of them are 100% like the source material. Rogue didn't get her white streaks until the end of the movie, Mystique is scaly and naked WITHOUT A SKULL ON HER HEAD, Toad was green, Storm and Jean didn't have the right eye colors (I know, right? What kind of monsters cast this movie). Point is, if you're going to nitpick something about the character's portrayal, then it better be something worth complaining about. Nightcrawler is my favorite character and no amount of scars or shark teeth could take away from the sheer joy of him getting the live action treatment. Compare those changes in character appearance to a foot in height and then you have the right to complain.

[truth]

Let me give y'all an example.

Do you think that there was any real conscious thought when the artist that created Wolverine made him short and menacing? Just think about that for a moment. I'm sure that those of you who have ever drawn or tried to make characters, the height of the character is an important aspect. It's not just a visual thing, but it's part of the personality you want to give a character.

It's a fact. Short people are different from tall people. All the short people I have known have always had a certain characterisitic based on the fact of people teasing them because of their size, and them always having to make that extra effort to get noticed. It's been happening since the beginning of time and will always happen.
All tall people I have met are mostly the same. They all share the fact that they have to look down on MOST people, and others commenting on how tall they are. Their personalities are in stark contrast to short people.

Back to the drawings. If I am creating a character and I make him short, I do so for a reason. I just don't make him short just for the sake of it. Something in my head is saying that this character has to be short because I envision a trait for this kind of character. Taking Wolverine as the example, we see how he has been portrayed in the comics and the cartoon series. He is menacing and always with a short-temper and anger issue. I am sure that the artist working with the writer decided that to best portray this guy's PARTICULAR rage, it has to come from a short guy.
Remember, tall people DO get angry also and are menacing. Sabretooth as an example. But the manner in which he is angry and menacing is in different taste to how Wolverine is angry and menacing.
I tell you this now. Do you think Wolverine would have been as popular as he is now if he was made to look as tall and graceful as Hugh Jackman back in the beginning?

[x-fan]

the Problem is they made him the A type hero, tall good looking , and good natured except when he get angry. Did I like Hugh as wolverine in 2000, yes I had waited 20 years to see him on the big screen, him being Wolverine. but even then. he was too tall and by the end of the movie too light, but it kept getting lighter per movie.

[WolverineXtreme]

Let me give y'all an example.

Do you think that there was any real conscious thought when the artist that created Wolverine made him short and menacing? Just think about that for a moment. I'm sure that those of you who have ever drawn or tried to make characters, the height of the character is an important aspect. It's not just a visual thing, but it's part of the personality you want to give a character.

It's a fact. Short people are different from tall people. All the short people I have known have always had a certain characterisitic based on the fact of people teasing them because of their size, and them always having to make that extra effort to get noticed. It's been happening since the beginning of time and will always happen.
All tall people I have met are mostly the same. They all share the fact that they have to look down on MOST people, and others commenting on how tall they are. Their personalities are in stark contrast to short people.

Back to the drawings. If I am creating a character and I make him short, I do so for a reason. I just don't make him short just for the sake of it. Something in my head is saying that this character has to be short because I envision a trait for this kind of character. Taking Wolverine as the example, we see how he has been portrayed in the comics and the cartoon series. He is menacing and always with a short-temper and anger issue. I am sure that the artist working with the writer decided that to best portray this guy's PARTICULAR rage, it has to come from a short guy.
Remember, tall people DO get angry also and are menacing. Sabretooth as an example. But the manner in which he is angry and menacing is in different taste to how Wolverine is angry and menacing.
I tell you this now. Do you think Wolverine would have been as popular as he is now if he was made to look as tall and graceful as Hugh Jackman back in the beginning?

^this

I think the height issue affects ppl differently. For some, it doesn't really matter. And I respect that.

But, for others, like myself, it IS a big deal. And that's because, that's how Wolverine was originally intended to be. For me, it IS part of his character.

Just like truth said, the creators made a conscious decision to make Wolverine short. Now whether it was originally 5'5" or 5'3", the fact is, Wolverine was intentionally created to be shorter than the typical male superhero.

And the reason why I'm particularly passionate about the issue is because I'm Wolverine's height! I'm 5'3" inches myself. Even if by some miracle, at the age of 27, I'm able to grow a bit more, I'm still going to be stuck around this height. So....yeah...I'm a short guy myself. Just like Wolverine.

The ironic thing is, I didn't realize Wolverine was actually my height until X1 came out. To prepare myself for the movie, I started reading about the characters online. I was shocked to learn that Wolverine was actually my height! And then I looked up the actor playing him in X1 and was disappointed to see he was 6'3"! I was like.........wtf!!

And this disappointment continued after seeing X1. I started buying and reading Wolverine comics. And I saw a character in those comics who was supposed to be short....my height.

So....yeah.....maybe it's because I'm short myself that I have this viewpoint on the whole height. Maybe that's why, for me, it is such a big deal.

The only hope that I can have is that after Jackman is done with the role.....at some point in the future they'll probably reboot the whole X-men franchise......and maybe then we can get a shorter actor to play the role.

[Excelsior.]

. He really does love the character .

oh yes. He loves the money it brings him.

Do you think Wolverine would have been as popular as he is now if he was made to look as tall and graceful as Hugh Jackman back in the beginning?

Is it a good thing he is popular? At the expense of other X-men getting shafted.




The only hope that I can have is that after Jackman is done with the role.....at some point in the future they'll probably reboot the whole X-men franchise......and maybe then we can get a shorter actor to play the role.

Heh, Jackman won't leave till he can squeeze every cent out of the character and in the process utterly destroying Wolverine's dignity in the general publics eye.

Its already halfway there.

[Wolverine1988]

Wow, alot of Hugh Jackman haters on this site.

I personally thought Hugh Jackman owned the role in x1, i think that was his best and in x2 he was great as well, i enjoyed him in x3 as well not as much as the first two but it was still good..

Only one i can agree that wasnt very good was the wolverine movie,and it wasnt just jackmans wolverine that was a letdown i felt the whole thing sucked

[Infinity9999x]

Let me give y'all an example.

Do you think that there was any real conscious thought when the artist that created Wolverine made him short and menacing? Just think about that for a moment. I'm sure that those of you who have ever drawn or tried to make characters, the height of the character is an important aspect. It's not just a visual thing, but it's part of the personality you want to give a character.

It's a fact. Short people are different from tall people. All the short people I have known have always had a certain characterisitic based on the fact of people teasing them because of their size, and them always having to make that extra effort to get noticed. It's been happening since the beginning of time and will always happen.
All tall people I have met are mostly the same. They all share the fact that they have to look down on MOST people, and others commenting on how tall they are. Their personalities are in stark contrast to short people.

Back to the drawings. If I am creating a character and I make him short, I do so for a reason. I just don't make him short just for the sake of it. Something in my head is saying that this character has to be short because I envision a trait for this kind of character. Taking Wolverine as the example, we see how he has been portrayed in the comics and the cartoon series. He is menacing and always with a short-temper and anger issue. I am sure that the artist working with the writer decided that to best portray this guy's PARTICULAR rage, it has to come from a short guy.
Remember, tall people DO get angry also and are menacing. Sabretooth as an example. But the manner in which he is angry and menacing is in different taste to how Wolverine is angry and menacing.
I tell you this now. Do you think Wolverine would have been as popular as he is now if he was made to look as tall and graceful as Hugh Jackman back in the beginning?

Okay, to begin with the whole personality examination on short vs. tall is pretty much moot. People are different. That's just the way it is. I've know shy short people, extroverted short people, angry short people, calm, friendly, grouchy ect. ect. Same with tall.

Trying to base someone's personality solely off height is stupid, because hundreds of factors go into a persons personality. And it depends on the person how big a factor their height plays.

Now, I do agree that Wolverine's height was always meant to be important to the character. But forget all this in-depth examination of the psyche of short people. The answer to why his height is important can be drawn from one simple thing: His Name. Wolverine. A short, vicious, incredibly persistent, and tough animal.

Now, I will have to say, that after seeing Hugh in Origins, I'd be more apt to name him Bear then Wolverine, because Hugh was gigantic.

However, the main argument I have against this is that Jackman COULD have been made to look shorter. This is not his fault. And Jackman worked well with what he had in X1 and X2. The fact of the matter is, the scripts for all of the movies, even the first two, didn't let Wolverine really cut loose the way he's supposed to. Again, that's not Jackman's fault.

I would like to see a shorter Wolverine in the future. Around 5'7 to 5'9ish. I don't want to see a 5'3 Wolverine, simply because he's not drawn like that in comics, today anyways. He's much closer to a 5'8 height.

[danoyse]

Okay, to begin with the whole personality examination on short vs. tall is pretty much moot. People are different. That's just the way it is. I've know shy short people, extroverted short people, angry short people, calm, friendly, grouchy ect. ect. Same with tall.

Trying to base someone's personality solely off height is stupid, because hundreds of factors go into a persons personality. And it depends on the person how big a factor their height plays.

Now, I do agree that Wolverine's height was always meant to be important to the character. But forget all this in-depth examination of the psyche of short people. The answer to why his height is important can be drawn from one simple thing: His Name. Wolverine. A short, vicious, incredibly persistent, and tough animal.

Now, I will have to say, that after seeing Hugh in Origins, I'd be more apt to name him Bear then Wolverine, because Hugh was gigantic.

However, the main argument I have against this is that Jackman COULD have been made to look shorter. This is not his fault. And Jackman worked well with what he had in X1 and X2. The fact of the matter is, the scripts for all of the movies, even the first two, didn't let Wolverine really cut loose the way he's supposed to. Again, that's not Jackman's fault.

I would like to see a shorter Wolverine in the future. Around 5'7 to 5'9ish. I don't want to see a 5'3 Wolverine, simply because he's not drawn like that in comics, today anyways. He's much closer to a 5'8 height.

^All of this. :up:

[truth]

^this

i think the height issue affects ppl differently. For some, it doesn't really matter. And i respect that.

But, for others, like myself, it is a big deal. And that's because, that's how wolverine was originally intended to be. For me, it is part of his character.

Just like truth said, the creators made a conscious decision to make wolverine short. Now whether it was originally 5'5" or 5'3", the fact is, wolverine was intentionally created to be shorter than the typical male superhero.

And the reason why i'm particularly passionate about the issue is because i'm wolverine's height! I'm 5'3" inches myself. Even if by some miracle, at the age of 27, i'm able to grow a bit more, i'm still going to be stuck around this height. So....yeah...i'm a short guy myself. Just like wolverine.

The ironic thing is, i didn't realize wolverine was actually my height until x1 came out. To prepare myself for the movie, i started reading about the characters online. I was shocked to learn that wolverine was actually my height! And then i looked up the actor playing him in x1 and was disappointed to see he was 6'3"! I was like.........wtf!!

And this disappointment continued after seeing x1. I started buying and reading wolverine comics. And i saw a character in those comics who was supposed to be short....my height.

So....yeah.....maybe it's because i'm short myself that i have this viewpoint on the whole height. Maybe that's why, for me, it is such a big deal.

The only hope that i can have is that after jackman is done with the role.....at some point in the future they'll probably reboot the whole x-men franchise......and maybe then we can get a shorter actor to play the role.


^

this!!!!!!

[truth]

As "Nuff Said" commented, Jackman is really killing the character. Sorry, but he is PARTLY to blame for the abomination that was that film. He literally just was there. No aura, no emotion, nothing like Wolverine. Sorry, he is just too damn nice.

I really want someone else in the role. Really guys, is it such a bad thing to want the best? IE, someone who LOOK like Wolverine in the comics and IS a very good actor.

[truth]

You realize that Bryan Singer is to blame for all of this.

Now, you can try and attack me for being homophobic or you can see the dots connect. Bryan looked at Wolverine in the comics and chose Hugh Jackman. Bryan knew that Christopher Reeve was a classically trained actor and picked Brandon Routh. Bryan goes for looks and for people who look aesthetically pleasing. I believe his sexual persuasion has an influence on that.
Before you rush and attack me on that, just think about it for a moment.

[danoyse]

You realize that Bryan Singer is to blame for all of this.

Now, you can try and attack me for being homophobic or you can see the dots connect. Bryan looked at Wolverine in the comics and chose Hugh Jackman. Bryan knew that Christopher Reeve was a classically trained actor and picked Brandon Routh. Bryan goes for looks and for people who look aesthetically pleasing. I believe his sexual persuasion has an influence on that.
Before you rush and attack me on that, just think about it for a moment.

I think you need to be real careful about making this point.

[Infinity9999x]

You realize that Bryan Singer is to blame for all of this.

Now, you can try and attack me for being homophobic or you can see the dots connect. Bryan looked at Wolverine in the comics and chose Hugh Jackman. Bryan knew that Christopher Reeve was a classically trained actor and picked Brandon Routh. Bryan goes for looks and for people who look aesthetically pleasing. I believe his sexual persuasion has an influence on that.
Before you rush and attack me on that, just think about it for a moment.

You do realize that Christopher Reeve was an unknown just like Routh? And you do realize that in film, classically trained actors can be just as good, or worse then actors with no training?

Bryan Singer directed two good movies. They had problems with them, I agree, but I would ask how much input he had in the script. I do think that they could have been better, but to say that he ruined the x-men is foolish.

Secondly, if you think picking attractive actors for lead roles is a trait that homosexuals own, then all of hollywood must be homosexual. It's industry standard, it has been literally since cinema was invented. Studious don't like to take chances by casting unattractive people in lead roles. Sometimes they will, but they like to play it safe.

As for your earlier comment, the only blame I could see going to Hugh for Origins is the fact that he was a producer. But I would really want to look into that and see how much creative control he had. Tim Burton is listed as a "producer" for Batman Forever. He literally did nothing on the project. JS just gave him the credit because Burton gave him his blessing to make the film.

If Hugh said the script was wonderful, I do place some of the blame on Origins on him. If he had no control over the script, I don't blame him. Here's the crux of it.

EVEN GREAT ACTORS CAN'T DO MUCH WITH A CRAP SCRIPT.You literally could have put Oscar winners in every role in that movie, and it still would have been bad, because the script was bad. Plain and simple. I don't blame that on Hugh, and that's why I disagree with your assessment. You need to realize that actors very often don't have any control over what is written.

[Project862006]

Hugh was'nt even the original choice lol

[danoyse]

And on the subject of Christopher Reeve...he was also exceptionally good-looking (omg, those eyes :hrt: ), and probably would have been complained about had the internet existed in the 1970s when he was cast, since he was an unknown theater actor and was reportedly quite scrawny when he auditioned for the role (even he referred to himself as a "skinny WASP" at the time).

Christopher Reeve did two great Superman movies and two awful Superman movies - and he did have some creative control over Superman IV, which was easily the worst of the series, despite being a classically trained actor.

And did I mention he was really good looking?

Good-looking actors being cast in major superhero roles didn't start because Bryan Singer happens to be gay. :whatever:

[WolverineXtreme]

And on the subject of Christopher Reeve...he was also exceptionally good-looking (omg, those eyes :hrt: ), and probably would have been complained about had the internet existed in the 1970s when he was cast, since he was an unknown theater actor and was reportedly quite scrawny when he auditioned for the role (even he referred to himself as a "skinny WASP" at the time).

Christopher Reeve did two great Superman movies and two awful Superman movies - and he did have some creative control over Superman IV, which was easily the worst of the series, despite being a classically trained actor.

And did I mention he was really good looking?

Good-looking actors being cast in major superhero roles didn't start because Bryan Singer happens to be gay. :whatever:

yeah....I really don't see how Singer's sexuality has anything to do with his casting choices......or the quality of his films.

And for the record, my complaints about Jackman's portrayal have nothing to do with Jackman himself ( other than maybe becoming a bit too "complacent" in how he portrayed Wolverine in X3 and Origins. )

Jackman is not the one directing or writing the movies. The person I blame is.......Singer.

Singer is the one who chose to cast a tall actor ( be it Dougray Scott or Jackman ) to play Wolverine.

As a comparison, I like to bring up Watchmen. The character Rorschach is short in the original graphic novel ( he's like 5'6" or 5'7" I believe ). And his height is part of his character. He wears lifts as Rorschach and when the cops capture him and discover that, they make fun of him.

Well, when the director cast the movie Rorschach, who did he cast to play the character? A guy who his > 6'0"? No, he cast Jackie Earle Haley who is like 5'5" or 5'6". IOW....a short actor to play a short character.

And the general consensus seems to be that Jackie owned the role of Rorschach. He proved that you don't have to be typical tall and handsome to play a leading male role ( or a guy who kicks ass ).

THAT is what Wolverine should have been when X1 came out. The actor playing him should have demonstrated that you don't have to be tall to play the leading role or to be a kick ass character. That actor should have become the "face" of Wolverine ( and of the X-men movies ) just like Jackman did ( for better or for worse ).

And the actor doesn't have to be exactly 5'3" either. I say anything up to 5'9" would be acceptable, provided you cast taller male actors to play the other roles.

I mean, look at some 5'6" UFC fighters like Sean Sherk or Tyson Griffin. Those guys are not tall, but they're built like a ******* beast ( especially Sherk in the pics I've seen of him ). An actor of that height, with that build, would have been more appropriate for Wolverine than Jackman.

but.....alas....none of this came to pass. And that's because the director, Singer, chose to ignore that aspect of the character........

That's Singer's fault....not Jackman's.....

[danoyse]

yeah....I really don't see how Singer's sexuality has anything to do with his casting choices......or the quality of his films.

Because it doesn't. :cwink:

As a comparison, I like to bring up Watchmen. The character Rorschach is short in the original graphic novel ( he's like 5'6" or 5'7" I believe ). And his height is part of his character. He wears lifts as Rorschach and when the cops capture him and discover that, they make fun of him.

Well, when the director cast the movie Rorschach, who did he cast to play the character? A guy who his > 6'0"? No, he cast Jackie Earle Haley who is like 5'5" or 5'6". IOW....a short actor to play a short character.

And the general consensus seems to be that Jackie owned the role of Rorschach. He proved that you don't have to be typical tall and handsome to play a leading male role ( or a guy who kicks ass ).

But for me, unlike X-Men, I had read Watchmen before I saw the movie, and I thought Jackie was the most perfectly cast role. But it wasn't because of his height. I didn't notice he was short when I read Watchmen, and I didn't notice he was short when I saw the movie.

His performance, on the other hand, was the best part of the movie. He was brilliant in that film. His looks didn't matter because he wears a mask for almost all of the film anyway. The only thing that mattered to me was his acting, which was great, especially in his last scene.

[truth]

Guys, are you REALLY going to compare Reeve to Routh? You realize Routh can't act. You realize he did not go to the Giulliard Acting School that Reeve went to. You realize that. Reeve was unknown, but back then, ain't no way you are hiring a chap JUST based on his features.

Sorry but, the effect that Jackie Earle had would not be the same effect that a tall guy had. I mean, this argument is pretty straightforward. IT DOES MATTER. Even Jackman said at comic-con: "And they said I was too tall!!" He knows that it's a crucial aspect but he felt he overcame that.
I didn't.

Let's take another example. I hope y'all have seen Midnight Cowboy...hopefully. If not, just watch a trailer for it on the Tube. It's a great movie about the strange friendship between characters played by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman.
The casting of this was VERY important. The Dustin Hoffman character HAD to be short. Everything about him, what he says, how he walks and how he operates all lends itself to him being short. Jon Voight's character HAS to be tall because his character only lends itself to a taller person.
You guys need to appreciate why there are such things as CASTING DIRECTORS. You also need to appreciate the intentions of artists AND writers who will say a novel for example "the man had a short, scrawny frame about him". These are important aspects. Bryan Singer ain't bigger than a character that has existed for YEARS.

[hopefuldreamer]

Biggest mistake they made with Wolverine, was making him the centre of every single X-men movie so far.

Wolverine is a great character within the group, and sticks out as memorable because of he's so different from the rest of them that it makes you wonder why he's in the team.

He's the guy who constantly tries to get his own way on missions, but who's hotheadedness usually ends up getting them in trouble. He's the guy that will square up to Cyclops, but still eventually back down and respect that they are all in it together.

Pushing him into the limelight, making everything about him, making it seem as though every decision he makes is the right one and others should listen to him, making him into this glorified hero that deserves to be in charge, was the mistake.

[Project862006]

wolverine was always gonna be more popular front and center or not

anti hero who is a feral beast of a man who has claws and slices people up

[Infinity9999x]

Guys, are you REALLY going to compare Reeve to Routh? You realize Routh can't act. You realize he did not go to the Giulliard Acting School that Reeve went to. You realize that. Reeve was unknown, but back then, ain't no way you are hiring a chap JUST based on his features.

Sorry but, the effect that Jackie Earle had would not be the same effect that a tall guy had. I mean, this argument is pretty straightforward. IT DOES MATTER. Even Jackman said at comic-con: "And they said I was too tall!!" He knows that it's a crucial aspect but he felt he overcame that.
I didn't.

Let's take another example. I hope y'all have seen Midnight Cowboy...hopefully. If not, just watch a trailer for it on the Tube. It's a great movie about the strange friendship between characters played by Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman.
The casting of this was VERY important. The Dustin Hoffman character HAD to be short. Everything about him, what he says, how he walks and how he operates all lends itself to him being short. Jon Voight's character HAS to be tall because his character only lends itself to a taller person.
You guys need to appreciate why there are such things as CASTING DIRECTORS. You also need to appreciate the intentions of artists AND writers who will say a novel for example "the man had a short, scrawny frame about him". These are important aspects. Bryan Singer ain't bigger than a character that has existed for YEARS.

To begin with, I completely disagree with your assessment of JEH's acting. You honestly think his performance would have been any different if he was tall? No, that's complete and utter B.S. Plain and simple.

I'm a studying actor, I realize the importance of casting. I also realize that physical appearance can factor into this. However, even when an actor is miscast, their performance can rise above it. Keaton as Batman for example.

And where exactly do you get off claiming Routh can't act? How many movies have you seen him in? Also, think about the scripts of the shows he's been in. Next, I would argue that Reeve was in two FAR WORSE movies then Routh. But again, this just goes to my earlier point, which you don't seem to grasp that a crappy script will make even great actors look crappy.

Hugh is a good actor. He did well with what he had. He's never had a script that was all that great. And honestly, the height thing COULD have worked with Hugh. It was just Singer not wanting to put the extra work in.

[truth]

Gary Oldman.

The man has been in some horrendous stuff, with horrible scripts. He still has risen above and been the most memorable thing about those films.
A bad actor and a great script, makes for a story with great potential that was letdown by poor acting.

A great actor with a poor script, leads to a bad movie that has its only saving grace being the performance.

And I'm sorry, if you look at Dylan Dog the trailer, Routh CAN'T act. He just can't. A poor script won't tell you to have no emotion. I am sure Jim Caviezel could have delivered the lines Routh was given with far more purpose.

"When explorers found it, there was nothing left"

Routh delivered this so badly that I can't comprehend how he is in the industry. A better actor would have done more with that line and that script. As ordinary and cheap as it was, copying Puzo's original.

How was Keaton miscast? Where does it say or show in the Batman comics that Batman HAS to be large and muscle-bound? The crucial aspect of Batman's character is his darkness, mystery and seriousness. His body-frame is NOT crucial to his character.

BUT, you are still right. An actor can put in performance that makes you rethink the character, which is what Keaton brilliantly did. However, Jackman did not do enough off his own back to put in a memorable performance. It was just...good. I don't want good. I want amazing. And the actors are there in abundance to give you...AMAZING.

[truth]

Biggest mistake they made with Wolverine, was making him the centre of every single X-men movie so far.

Wolverine is a great character within the group, and sticks out as memorable because of he's so different from the rest of them that it makes you wonder why he's in the team.

He's the guy who constantly tries to get his own way on missions, but who's hotheadedness usually ends up getting them in trouble. He's the guy that will square up to Cyclops, but still eventually back down and respect that they are all in it together.

Pushing him into the limelight, making everything about him, making it seem as though every decision he makes is the right one and others should listen to him, making him into this glorified hero that deserves to be in charge, was the mistake.


It's the elementary mistake that people don't seem to care about.

[Infinity9999x]

Gary Oldman.

The man has been in some horrendous stuff, with horrible scripts. He still has risen above and been the most memorable thing about those films.
A bad actor and a great script, makes for a story with great potential that was letdown by poor acting.

A great actor with a poor script, leads to a bad movie that has its only saving grace being the performance.

And I'm sorry, if you look at Dylan Dog the trailer, Routh CAN'T act. He just can't. A poor script won't tell you to have no emotion. I am sure Jim Caviezel could have delivered the lines Routh was given with far more purpose.

"When explorers found it, there was nothing left"

Routh delivered this so badly that I can't comprehend how he is in the industry. A better actor would have done more with that line and that script. As ordinary and cheap as it was, copying Puzo's original.

How was Keaton miscast? Where does it say or show in the Batman comics that Batman HAS to be large and muscle-bound? The crucial aspect of Batman's character is his darkness, mystery and seriousness. His body-frame is NOT crucial to his character.

BUT, you are still right. An actor can put in performance that makes you rethink the character, which is what Keaton brilliantly did. However, Jackman did not do enough off his own back to put in a memorable performance. It was just...good. I don't want good. I want amazing. And the actors are there in abundance to give you...AMAZING.

All right, to begin with, you're criticizing Routh off a trailer. I'm sorry, but at least watch the movie. I'm not going to take someone's opinion with too much weight if you don't actually watch the entire movie. Watching just the trailer for X3, I would say that the movie must have been epic and amazing. Same with Spider-man 3. We both know this isn't the case.

Secondly, sometimes an actor can rise above the script (but I would have to watch which Oldman film you're talking about to know your examples) but more often then not, they don't. McGreggor had to give some horrible lines in the Prequels of Star Wars...and they were still horrible. Portman looked like a bad actress in them as well. Both are very talented actors. They just had bad scripts.

And are you seriously saying there's nothing about Batman that says he's a tall, handsome, extremely fit and physically imposing man? Have you ever read any Batman comics? I'd direct you to Batman Year One, The Man who falls, heck even Hush has a quick overview of Bruce's life in which it details how he trained his body to peak perfection in all forms of fighting, intense weight training, and gymnastics. It's literally part of his origin.

Keaton was miscast for the role. Looks wise. But he pulled off a good performance.

And I would argue that any other actor with the past X-men scripts would not have given us AMAZING, because the scripts were not AMAZING. None of them let Wolverine let loose. Even with an actor that looked the part perfectly, we would still have problems, because even in X1, where Wolverine was the most anti-hero-esque, he was still much more toned back from what he is in the comics.

[danoyse]

It's the elementary mistake that people don't seem to care about.

No one is saying that in this thread. This particular forum is regards to a sequel to Wolverine, a movie where this character will be the main focus of the movie. We have other forums regarding the other X-Men films where you can discuss Wolverine's expanded role to your heart's content.

I should also remind you that this is not a Brandon Routh thread.

Christopher Reeve and Hugh Jackman have more in common than you think - they were both classically trained actors (Hugh passed on a soap opera gig in Australia to attend drama school), and they were both acclaimed stage actors when they were cast -both seemingly out of nowhere- in their respective superhero roles. And they both continued working in theater after having major success in superhero films.

They both starred in two great movies as Superman and Wolverine, and two not-great movies as Superman and Wolverine. Reeve had writing credits and partial creative control on the last Superman movie, Jackman was a producer on the last Wolverine movie.

Christopher Reeve will always be my favorite Superman, but III and IV were dreadful, even he wasn't very good in them, and he certainly couldn't save them.

You're argument is this ridiculous notion that Singer was "too gay" to logically cast Wolverine (or Superman, for that matter), but he did cast a guy with a real acting background who played the part with the most success when the scripts were at their best. And he wasn't Singer's first choice. It was a originally Dougray Scott, who was also good looking, and reasonably tall as well.

Infinity's samples about the Star Wars prequels were right on target - and forget Ewan and Natalie, I remember seeing Hayden Christensen in Life as a House before seeing AOTC and thinking, this kid is great, he's perfect for Darth Vader. He got a Golden Globe nomination for that movie. But he got stuck with this awful script and terrible characterization, and now he's considered this awful actor, which I don't always think is fair, because he's all right when he has the right material.

A terrible script is a killer, even for the most perfectly cast actors.

[ALittlePush]

I think Hugh Jackman plays a great Wolverine. Yes, the last two films softened the character down a bit too much, but I still think Jackman did well with what he had to work with. I do think that they could go darker with the character though, whilst still keeping it within the PG-13 rating.

[C. Lee]

How many people here liked the movie JAWS?
How many people here liked Richard Dreyfuss in JAWS?
How many people here read the novel JAWS?

[truth]

^
Yes to everything but the last one. What's your point?

[truth]

And no, Hugh does not play a GREAT Wolverine. Great is a mighty big word.

[C. Lee]

^
Yes to everything but the last one. What's your point?
The book was a major success before the movie was made.
Matt Hooper in the book was a 6'2" blonde Captain America looking guy.
Richard Dreyfuss isn't.

[C. Lee]

And no, Hugh does not play a GREAT Wolverine. Great is a mighty big word.

YOUR opinion. ALittlePush's opinion is different from yours. Isn't the world a wonderful place.

[sabetoonth]

The book was a major success before the movie was made.
Matt Hooper in the book was a 6'2" blonde Captain America looking guy.
Richard Dreyfuss isn't.
yea its an adaption, i dont think many people are jumping on Liev for not beign 8 feet tall and blone

[C. Lee]

yea its an adaption, i dont think many people are jumping on Liev for not beign 8 feet tall and blone

Yeah, I noticed that. I've read tons of complaints that Jackman is too tall....but very few that Liev is too short.

[x-fan]

That's because Sabertooth isn't 8 feet tall, in the comics, he is 6'6" and liev is 6'4" close enough. Look height is part of it writing is part of it acting is part of it(it) being what was wrong with the movie character. what can be done to fix it, get someone Like Stallone or Gibson to Direct, cause the Studios will not mess with them and they will get to make a good movie, because they are who they are, if you keep Jackman, use movie magic to shorten him up and last, let the comic writer give the script a go and see how it turns out, because they understand the Character and will get him right, that or just story board the 4 part mini, not everyone has read it and especially not the GA.

[danoyse]

The book was a major success before the movie was made.
Matt Hooper in the book was a 6'2" blonde Captain America looking guy.
Richard Dreyfuss isn't.

I read Jaws in high school. And I loved Richard Dreyfuss in the movie. :up:

Harry Potter has distinctive green eyes in all of the HP books. Daniel Radcliffe has blue eyes. They did try to adjust this in the first film, but the green contacts hurt his eyes so in the movies his eyes were changed to blue.

They also tried to give Emma Watson Hermione's two front buck teeth in the first film, but she couldn't talk with the fake teeth so they dropped it.

The point is...sometimes you try to put those parts of the character into the movie, but the logistics don't allow it. I remember hearing the commentary track on X1, and they did mention that they tried adjust the height between Wolverine and the other characters, but it was a pain to do (because most of the main cast besides Hugh was quite tall) and it took up too much time on an already tight schedule, so they had to let it go.

[truth]

Erm, eye colour is not as big a deal as the body frame of someone.

I think someone mentioned Keaton as an example of miscasting. Bruce Wayne, like Clark Kent and most other comic protagonists were drawn in the Caucasian archetypal manner. Wide jaw, chiselld features, wide shoulders, tall and muscly. There was nothing that made Bruce Wayne distinctive, physically. It was his perosnality and past.

As for the Dreyfuss example. Spielberg was right. The man gave a memorable performance and would have been much better than a dull Captain America type character. Jackman did NOT give a memorable performance.

Back on the topic at hand. My hopes for Wolverine 2 are low. Hugh Jackman is no Stallone or Eastwood. Those men are rare and create things from the ground up. Jackman is just an actor. He is too involved. The project needs someone with a vision who won't take BS from any studio head. Simple as.

[WolverineXtreme]

if an actor's ( or actress' ) performance can trump physical details, like height, then I propose the opposite scenario to the Jackman/Wolverine issue we're discussing.

If it's ok for a tall actor ( like Jackman ) to play a character that was originally created to be short ( like Wolverine ), would it then be ok for a short actor to play a tall character?

Let's say....the most iconic hero of them all.......Superman.

What would happen if, in the next Superman film, they cast a short-average height actor to play Superman. IDK.....someone who's 5'8".....or......gasp!......5'5".

Let's this actor, despite his height, looks the part physically and absolutely nails the role in his portrayal of both Clark Kent and Superman. He has great screen presence and chemistry with Lois, etc.

Let's also say the movie itself is great ( great story writing, great characterization, great action, etc. ).

IOW....all the stars align for the next Superman actor and movie.....well....except that the actor is short.

Would ppl readily accept him as the new Superman? Would ppl say "OMG....he's perfect for the role.....he's a great Superman.....I can't imagine anyone else playing the role!" (which alot of ppl are saying about Jackman playing Wolverine )?

Would ppl, in defending that casting choice, argue that "height doesn't matter" ( especially if we got a great actor who can act )?

Probably not.......

They would cry foul and immediately say that guy is too short for the role. Superman is supposed to be tall. That actor doesn't look the part, well, because he's too short!

Yet, for some strange reason, that doesn't seem to work in reverse.

We can't say Jackman doesn't look the part because he's a full 1 foot taller than what Wolverine is supposed to be without someone on the other side saying "height doesn't matter." Or, "Jackman makes a perfect Wolverine."

By that same logic, height shouldn't matter with Superman. After all, technically, his height really has nothing to do with his powers. A person of any size ( short, average, tall ) could have all the powers of Superman. If Superman did exist in the real world, there's no rule that says he HAS to be a tall guy.

Just like, a tall guy could have all of Wolverine's powers ( like Jackman in the movies ).

But, height does matter. The way a character looks does matter. Especially when you are dealing with a VISUAL medium like comic books. These characters were created, drawn, and written with a certain set of physical and personaliy traits. Espcially when they have a unique, recognizable look.

Superman is tall, muscular, square jawed, broad shouldered, etc. the "perfect" male physique.

Wolverine is short, stocky, and hairy......with a wild hairdo and a nasty personality.

that's how these characters were created, how they've been portrayed throughout all these years in their primary medium ( comic books ). that's their "image."

Having different eye color is not as important ( it can be easily changed ), unless it is absolutely essential to the character.

Height, however, is a trait that's not easily changed or fixed. And I'm not talking about a 2-3 inch height difference. I'm talking about a full foot.

Superman is supposed to be....what.....6'2"? Would a 5'2" actor play Superman?

No?

Then why should a 6'3" actor play a 5'3" character?

If Singer said that they tried to make Jackman look shorter in X1 but gave up because it was too much work or took too much time, then that means Singer was aware that Wolverine was supposed to be shorter. But he chose to not to include that aspect of the character because it was too much work and he didn't have enough time.

Well.....to that problem I have a very simple solution.

DON'T CAST SUCH A ******* TALL ACTOR!!

There, problem solved.

[sabetoonth]

That's because Sabertooth isn't 8 feet tall, in the comics, he is 6'6" and liev is 6'4" close enough. Look height is part of it writing is part of it acting is part of it(it) being what was wrong with the movie character. what can be done to fix it, get someone Like Stallone or Gibson to Direct, cause the Studios will not mess with them and they will get to make a good movie, because they are who they are, if you keep Jackman, use movie magic to shorten him up and last, let the comic writer give the script a go and see how it turns out, because they understand the Character and will get him right, that or just story board the 4 part mini, not everyone has read it and especially not the GA.
i was exagherating with Sabretooth's height
if an actor's ( or actress' ) performance can trump physical details, like height, then I propose the opposite scenario to the Jackman/Wolverine issue we're discussing.

If it's ok for a tall actor ( like Jackman ) to play a character that was originally created to be short ( like Wolverine ), would it then be ok for a short actor to play a tall character?

Let's say....the most iconic hero of them all.......Superman.

What would happen if, in the next Superman film, they cast a short-average height actor to play Superman. IDK.....someone who's 5'8".....or......gasp!......5'5".

Let's this actor, despite his height, looks the part physically and absolutely nails the role in his portrayal of both Clark Kent and Superman. He has great screen presence and chemistry with Lois, etc.

Let's also say the movie itself is great ( great story writing, great characterization, great action, etc. ).

IOW....all the stars align for the next Superman actor and movie.....well....except that the actor is short.

Would ppl readily accept him as the new Superman? Would ppl say "OMG....he's perfect for the role.....he's a great Superman.....I can't imagine anyone else playing the role!" (which alot of ppl are saying about Jackman playing Wolverine )?

Would ppl, in defending that casting choice, argue that "height doesn't matter" ( especially if we got a great actor who can act )?

Probably not.......

They would cry foul and immediately say that guy is too short for the role. Superman is supposed to be tall. That actor doesn't look the part, well, because he's too short!

Yet, for some strange reason, that doesn't seem to work in reverse.

We can't say Jackman doesn't look the part because he's a full 1 foot taller than what Wolverine is supposed to be without someone on the other side saying "height doesn't matter." Or, "Jackman makes a perfect Wolverine."

By that same logic, height shouldn't matter with Superman. After all, technically, his height really has nothing to do with his powers. A person of any size ( short, average, tall ) could have all the powers of Superman. If Superman did exist in the real world, there's no rule that says he HAS to be a tall guy.

Just like, a tall guy could have all of Wolverine's powers ( like Jackman in the movies ).

But, height does matter. The way a character looks does matter. Especially when you are dealing with a VISUAL medium like comic books. These characters were created, drawn, and written with a certain set of physical and personaliy traits. Espcially when they have a unique, recognizable look.

Superman is tall, muscular, square jawed, broad shouldered, etc. the "perfect" male physique.

Wolverine is short, stocky, and hairy......with a wild hairdo and a nasty personality.

that's how these characters were created, how they've been portrayed throughout all these years in their primary medium ( comic books ). that's their "image."

Having different eye color is not as important ( it can be easily changed ), unless it is absolutely essential to the character.

Height, however, is a trait that's not easily changed or fixed. And I'm not talking about a 2-3 inch height difference. I'm talking about a full foot.

Superman is supposed to be....what.....6'2"? Would a 5'2" actor play Superman?

No?

Then why should a 6'3" actor play a 5'3" character?

If Singer said that they tried to make Jackman look shorter in X1 but gave up because it was too much work or took too much time, then that means Singer was aware that Wolverine was supposed to be shorter. But he chose to not to include that aspect of the character because it was too much work and he didn't have enough time.

Well.....to that problem I have a very simple solution.

DON'T CAST SUCH A ******* TALL ACTOR!!

There, problem solved.
I'd accept it, no one calls foul on RDJ being shorter the Tony Stark, they put lifts in his shoes, can do the same thing for Superman

[Infinity9999x]

i was exagherating with Sabretooth's height

I'd accept it, no one calls foul on RDJ being shorter the Tony Stark, they put lifts in his shoes, can do the same thing for Superman

Exactly. Again, Jackman gave a solid performance. His height isn't his fault. It's Singer's for not putting the time in to make him look short.

If a short actor does great for Superman, use camera angles/lifts to make him look taller. It can be done. RDJ is one example. Keaton is yet another (I know I use him a lot but he applies to many scenarios).

[Infinity9999x]

I think someone mentioned Keaton as an example of miscasting. Bruce Wayne, like Clark Kent and most other comic protagonists were drawn in the Caucasian archetypal manner. Wide jaw, chiselld features, wide shoulders, tall and muscly. There was nothing that made Bruce Wayne distinctive, physically. It was his perosnality and past.


Are you trying to say that Keaton wasn't miscast? Because, again, Batman is specifically stated as a tall, very muscled and incredibly athletic man. As I pointed out before when you said that Keaton wasn't miscast on a physical aspect (which is flat out wrong), the comics, in terms of his origins, specifically go out of their way to tell us how Bruce Wayne is a physical specimen, and how he perfected his body.

Keaton does not, in any way, fit that description. But his performance rose above it. Also, we get it that you don't think Hugh did a good job. Many of us disagree. That's just opinion.

One thing I've brought up many times though is the fact that none of the scripts were ever that good. None of the scripts let Wolverine let loose in his traditional Wolverine-like manor, as intense as he is in the comics. Even with the perfect actor physically, we would still have problems with how Wolverine was portrayed in the movies because the scripts reign the character in.

[WolverineXtreme]

well, sabetoonth and infinity, you're both more tolerant than others I've come across.

But at least you both are fair. I appreciate that and I respect that.

And that's really the point I was trying to make in my post. A sense of fairness and equality. If "height doesn't matter," then it should be just as acceptable for a short guy to play a much taller character, just as a taller actor playing a shorter character.

[Infinity9999x]

well, sabetoonth and infinity, you're both more tolerant than others I've come across.

But at least you both are fair. I appreciate that and I respect that.

And that's really the point I was trying to make in my post. A sense of fairness and equality. If "height doesn't matter," then it should be just as acceptable for a short guy to play a much taller character, just as a taller actor playing a shorter character.

No problem. I'm a studying actor myself, so more often then not I get annoyed when people try to pin all the blame on someone.

Also, in film especially, a lot of things can be worked around. Height is one of them. On stage, you'd be **** out of luck, (to an extent) but in film, Height doesn't matter quite as much. However, I do realize that your physical appearance does come into play at some point. For example, I'm never going to play Othello, being a white guy. (Unless it's one of those revisionist versions). But, while I do agree Hugh is physically miscast for Wolverine in terms of height, it's something they could have fixed. Singer didn't, but that's not Hugh's fault. And I thought he gave a pretty solid Wolverine for two movies. He's just never had a script that's let him cut loose.

[sabetoonth]

I'm not all that tolerant, sometimes i hope they cast even taller becuase i get tired of people complaining about his height, but thats only when I'm in a bad mood so...

But yea, if they had made hugh look shorter, thatd been great, but they didnt so ya gotta live with it. thats how i see it, and thats why i dont made a big deal out of it, I love the movies becuase theyre the characters brought to life, but also becuase of the changes they make, for one reason or another.

[Ipodman]

I've never had an issue with his height. It's not like his height is gonna affect the character a whole lot.

[Nathan]

Sure. But would you be happy if they'd cast a short actor for Thor and Superman? Wolverine's height as always bothered me a little in the Movie, but you can't always find an actor that's exactly like the comic character. I have to accept that. And aside from the height, I thought he was a good Wolverine. In the first two Movies anyway. X3 and Origins? Man, was he lame.

[truth]

One thing I've brought up many times though is the fact that none of the scripts were ever that good. None of the scripts let Wolverine let loose in his traditional Wolverine-like manor, as intense as he is in the comics. Even with the perfect actor physically, we would still have problems with how Wolverine was portrayed in the movies because the scripts reign the character in.

Are you saying the X1 script was CRAP? It wasn't great, but was it CRAP?

I have acted in films before and I know it's pretty much impossible to deliver a bad line.

Case in point. I'm a tough character like Wolverine and it says in the script that I have to say:

"I do like hit people around like little fairiies because I watch Teletubbies all day. Do you love those cute teletubbies?"

That's pretty much impossible to turn into anything decent. No matter how good an actor is.

BUT, Hugh was not given any of those lines. Fine, he was not cut loose enough...but there was enough there for his character to stand out. It's all about how you deliver the lines.

Another perfect case in point and you'll enjoy this one. Keaton.

Keaton had SCRAPS in Batman. He had maybe about seven or eight lines in the entire movie. But to this day, people still argue that he IS Batman, despite Bale being given MORE lines and having MORE to his character.

Keaton made EVERY line count and made the character memorable.

It comes down to the quality of character. And you know what? With a bit of makeup here and there....Keaton would have made a much better Wolverine. AND HE'S THE RIGHT HEIGHT!!:yay:

But yeah, don't just blame it all on the writers and director. Yes, they are PARTLY to blame but Hugh was not given impossible lines to try and create a unique character out of.

[Ipodman]

Sure. But would you be happy if they'd cast a short actor for Thor and Superman? Wolverine's height as always bothered me a little in the Movie, but you can't always find an actor that's exactly like the comic character. I have to accept that. And aside from the height, I thought he was a good Wolverine. In the first two Movies anyway. X3 and Origins? Man, was he lame.

Well.. they aint gonna cast a uber tall guy to be Wolverine. Hugh Jackman was not too tall, not too short either... Im assuming it was the Wolverine that Bryan Singer wanted to portray and I thought that was fine.

X3 suffered from bad direction. The characters were 'ok' to me... including Shadowcat, Angel and all. Origins was a step up from X3. Wolverine I felt was not portrayed badly as most people think. Story was just abit too overcrowded like X3.

[ALittlePush]

I have acted in films before and I know it's pretty much impossible to deliver a bad line.

What films have you acted in?

I thought the "what have I done" line said by Magneto in X3 was crap. Mckellan's a good actor but that line was just awful.

Also, I'd rather have a good, tall actor play Wolverine than a mediocre, short actor. Also, if a short actor turned out a brilliant performance as Superman, it wouldn't bother me if they were short. Actors can only act out what they're given by the writers. If the writers give an actor a toned down version of a character, that is what the actor is going to perform. Actors don't really have any say over the writing of a character.

[ALittlePush]

Erm, eye colour is not as big a deal as the body frame of someone.

In the HP books, Harry's eyes were important. They were just like his mother's eyes and they were constantly mentioned. They were changed in the movies and no one kicked up a fuss, Why should Wolverine being taller than he is in the comics be any different?

Seeing as Wolverine's height is so important to you, can you give us a list of 5 good actors, who are 5 foot 3, and you think would have made a good Wolverine in 2000.

[truth]

I am not sure of their exact height, but they are within the 5"5 - 5"8 height range

Dougray Scott
Gary Sinise
Michael Keaton
Kiefer Sutherland (just thinking about it, that would definitely be my pick)
Gary Oldman (amazing in ANYTHING)

All of those would have been better choices.

[ALittlePush]

I am not sure of their exact height, but they are within the 5"5 - 5"8 height range

Dougray Scott
Gary Sinise
Michael Keaton
Kiefer Sutherland (just thinking about it, that would definitely be my pick)
Gary Oldman (amazing in ANYTHING)

All of those would have been better choices.

I believe Dougray Scott was initially going to be Wolverine but had to pull out due to scheduling conflict on MI2.

Gary Sinise and Michael Keaton would have been too old for the role.

Kiefer Sutherland is a good actor. However, as much as I like him as an actor, I don't think he would have been right for the part.

Gary Oldman, again, would have been too old for the role and wouldn't have been right for the part. He is perfectly cast as Commissioner Gordon in Nolan's Batman films.

[truth]

Makeup and effects can do wonderful things to make Keaton and Sinise not look TOO old, but without them just plainly looking CG.

Can I ask why Kiefer would not have been right for the part?

Why would Gary, a man that can do ANYTHING, not have been right for this part?

All those actors have put in amazing, CLASSIC performances, all before X1. Something that Hugh hasn't done.

[hopefuldreamer]

This particular forum is regards to a sequel to Wolverine, a movie where this character will be the main focus of the movie.

Fair enough.

I do not believe that they CAN fix the character of Wolverine, without a reboot. In fact, I'm almost completely of the belief that the entire x-men franchise was tainted by the films.

Another sequel to Wolverine is just further cementing that.

I believe that Wolverine should never have been shoved into the limelight. I believe his popularity comes from his being the anti hero to the heroes who are in the spotlight. He is a great side character, a great antithesis. And I believe that turning him into the hero, and playing with his popularity as the gritty one, so that all the other X-Men just became side characters, and in the end pointless, was a huge irreversible mistake.

So how do you fix that?

Well i'd start by not making a sequel at all.

Then i'd wait a good few years, before rebooting the franchise and handling Wolverine with the understanding that should have been there in the first place.

[danoyse]

Erm, eye colour is not as big a deal as the body frame of someone.

In the case of Harry Potter, his eye color was a huge deal and an important part of the story. Radcliffe not having green eyes has been complained about by HP diehards in the same way Hugh's height has been complained about since the movies started.


I have acted in films before and I know it's pretty much impossible to deliver a bad line.

Because you're such a great actor? :whatever:

Please. Bad dialogue is bad dialogue.

Why would Gary, a man that can do ANYTHING, not have been right for this part?

I saw Gary Sinise on Broadway in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and I thought his performance was better than Jack Nicholson's, who won an Oscar for that role. But I can't picture him as Wolverine. It's not that he's a bad actor, he's a great actor. But I just don't see him in the part.

All those actors have put in amazing, CLASSIC performances, all before X1. Something that Hugh hasn't done.

What? He was an award-winning stage actor (which, btw, Gary Sinise also was before becoming a movie/tv star) prior to X1. He'd won a Film Critics Circle award for a film called Erskinville Kings in Australia prior to X1.

Or are you just assuming because you never heard of anything he'd done prior to X1, he hadn't done anything?

[hopefuldreamer]

In the HP books, Harry's eyes were important. They were just like his mother's eyes and they were constantly mentioned. They were changed in the movies and no one kicked up a fuss, Why should Wolverine being taller than he is in the comics be any different?

Seeing as Wolverine's height is so important to you, can you give us a list of 5 good actors, who are 5 foot 3, and you think would have made a good Wolverine in 2000.

I think the reason it's different from the eyes, is that it's much more noticeable.

I don't think it was neccesary to have him be 5'3. Nobody who is 5'3 is going to be right for the role IMO.

I do think it was important to have Cyclops be much taller than Wolverine.

As it was, Cyclops was an inch shorter. Further enhancing the overshadowing as leader of the X-Men.

[danoyse]

I think the reason it's different from the eyes, is that it's much more noticeable.

So is eye color. Especially during the death scene of a particular character who needed Harry to look at him before he died so he could see his eyes one last time.

The most important part of the eye thing really wasn't the color, it was that Harry had his mother's eyes. Which was fixable with a blue-eyed actor.

But...people still complain about his non-green eyes. And hope for an eventual reboot where "they do it right this time."

And again, the point to that was they did try to give him green eyes. It didn't work out, so they changed it.

People bring up LOTR as an example of a way to work around the height issue. Besides the fact that LOTR was filmed after X1...it was terribly expensive to do, in some cases they had to build two different versions of the same set, they had to hire doubles for all of the hobbits, it was a ton of CGI work in some shots.

I don't think X1 nearly had the budget that the LOTR films had, and it certainly didn't have the time. And they did try, according to the commentary track...it just got to be too time consuming and created an additional headache during filming, that in the end they decided to let that one thing go.

[Infinity9999x]

Are you saying the X1 script was CRAP? It wasn't great, but was it CRAP?

I have acted in films before and I know it's pretty much impossible to deliver a bad line.

Case in point. I'm a tough character like Wolverine and it says in the script that I have to say:

"I do like hit people around like little fairiies because I watch Teletubbies all day. Do you love those cute teletubbies?"

That's pretty much impossible to turn into anything decent. No matter how good an actor is.

BUT, Hugh was not given any of those lines. Fine, he was not cut loose enough...but there was enough there for his character to stand out. It's all about how you deliver the lines.

Another perfect case in point and you'll enjoy this one. Keaton.

Keaton had SCRAPS in Batman. He had maybe about seven or eight lines in the entire movie. But to this day, people still argue that he IS Batman, despite Bale being given MORE lines and having MORE to his character.

Keaton made EVERY line count and made the character memorable.

It comes down to the quality of character. And you know what? With a bit of makeup here and there....Keaton would have made a much better Wolverine. AND HE'S THE RIGHT HEIGHT!!:yay:

But yeah, don't just blame it all on the writers and director. Yes, they are PARTLY to blame but Hugh was not given impossible lines to try and create a unique character out of.

Did I say the X1 script was crap? No, I didn't. I said the Origins script was crap, but I never said X1 or X2 were. I said they weren't that good. And I should clarify, I meant that they weren't that good when you're evaluating them on Wolverine's character.

Wolverine was not written the way most of us would have wanted him too. He had some lines that let him be the tough guy...a bit, but nothing like the comics. And honestly, I don't know what your problem with Hugh in X1 or X2 was. I thought he was fine. He did fine with what he had. And you think that he didn't stand out? Well obviously a good portion of the General Public disagree with you, because the X-men movies single handedly made him a superstar. Personality wise, I thought he was fine. I guess you don't, but I'm not exactly sure what you didn't like. Again, he was fine with what he had.

But with that script, no actor would have been the complete, hard-boiled Wolverine you, or honestly, I would have wanted. Because they didn't write him that way.

I think Hugh did make the character memorable in his first two movies. His huge stardom is evidence of that. And to clairify, Keaton is actually a bit tall for what you would want for Wolverine. I believe he's 5''10 to 5'11, just under six foot. I'd rather have someone around 5'8. And I'd like Keaton to bulk up quite a bit.

[truth]

Hugh's stardom is related to the fact that he was written as the most interesting character in the films with more focus on him. It's a problem that numerous people have already commented on

[truth]

Fair enough.

I do not believe that they CAN fix the character of Wolverine, without a reboot. In fact, I'm almost completely of the belief that the entire x-men franchise was tainted by the films.

Another sequel to Wolverine is just further cementing that.

I believe that Wolverine should never have been shoved into the limelight. I believe his popularity comes from his being the anti hero to the heroes who are in the spotlight. He is a great side character, a great antithesis. And I believe that turning him into the hero, and playing with his popularity as the gritty one, so that all the other X-Men just became side characters, and in the end pointless, was a huge irreversible mistake.

So how do you fix that?

Well i'd start by not making a sequel at all.

Then i'd wait a good few years, before rebooting the franchise and handling Wolverine with the understanding that should have been there in the first place.

Yep. A sequel just will further cement the problem. If we are talking and staying on topic on a consquential Wolverine, it needs to be started back up from scratch. Wolverine is not the superstar main man that he is.

Boy did that stuff up the X-men franchise. Thanks Bryan and your writers.

[Infinity9999x]

Hugh's stardom is related to the fact that he was written as the most interesting character in the films with more focus on him. It's a problem that numerous people have already commented on

And people obviously found him compelling. Which was your argument against him.

I do agree on the subject of Wolverine being the center focus of the films, however, it's a hard thing to avoid because the character has literally been one of the most popular X-men since he first appeared. Though, I would much rather see his use limited but really quality, like the Joker in TDK. He's not in every scene, but when he shows up, you know you're in for a treat.

[C. Lee]

It's funny....when they were preparing to make the first XMEN movie...they looked around and saw A XMEN book....and a half dozen Wolverine books...so they think, "wow, these kids really like this Wolverine guy...lets make him important in the movie....becauase the fans are gaga for him".....

yep...it's all Bryan's fault.

[danoyse]

Hugh's stardom is related to the fact that he was written as the most interesting character in the films with more focus on him. It's a problem that numerous people have already commented on

And because he was successful at it. Not to you and a few others, which is fine...but clearly a good deal more were fine with it.


It's funny....when they were preparing to make the first XMEN movie...they looked around and saw A XMEN book....and a half dozen Wolverine books...so they think, "wow, these kids really like this Wolverine guy...lets make him important in the movie....becauase the fans are gaga for him".....

yep...it's all Bryan's fault.

I hadn't read the X-Men comics before I saw the first film, but I knew who Wolverine was.

[Project862006]

wolverine was always gonna be more popular he is a more interesting character

Quikcsilver is more interesting than cyclops

[C. Lee]

The point being to me...Why are people spending so much time complaining about Singer making Wolverine more important that the other XMen when they need to go back and start complaining to MARVEL for doing it first...oh wait, I know, it's more trendy to complain about Singer now.....

[Infinity9999x]

The point being to me...Why are people spending so much time complaining about Singer making Wolverine more important that the other XMen when they need to go back and start complaining to MARVEL for doing it first...oh wait, I know, it's more trendy to complain about Singer now.....

I agree with that. I don't blame Singer for having Wolverine be a center character. He's been huge for a while now, long before Singer. The problem I had was that Wolverine was toned down a bit. And I wasn't incredibly disappointed or anything. X1 and X2 were pretty solid. I just would have liked to see a slightly more edgier Wolverine. And I'm not talking hard R movie here. We can make a good pg-13 Wolverine movie. We just need some good writers.

[C. Lee]

I agree with that. I don't blame Singer for having Wolverine be a center character. He's been huge for a while now, long before Singer. The problem I had was that Wolverine was toned down a bit. And I wasn't incredibly disappointed or anything. X1 and X2 were pretty solid. I just would have liked to see a slightly more edgier Wolverine. And I'm not talking hard R movie here. We can make a good pg-13 Wolverine movie. We just need some good writers.

I have no problem with people who don't like how Wolverine (or any character was written for the movies)...it's when people complain about a movie continuing a concept started by the comics that I have to roll my eyes.

[truth]

Well as many people have commented, Wolverine is popular BECAUSE he is not the MAIN guy. That's the point they missed. We love him because he ain't the leader and he is an outsider and not your regular hero where the spotlight is on him. In the films, they were consciously trying so hard to make him the cool character and everyone service him. I mean, Cyclops and Storm were just pupperts in those films.

Yes, blame Singer and his writers. He's the damn director.

[WolverineXtreme]

I don't think there was anything wrong with making Wolverine the center of attention in the movies, at least in X1.

I mean, storywise, it made sense in X1 to make Wolverine and Rogue the "outsiders" and introduce us to Xavier, his school, and the X-men through Wolverine's and Rogue's eyes.

The problem, though, is that as the series progressed, it became too much "all about Wolverine" and it seemed all the other characters played second fiddle to Wolverine, especially Cyclops.

Now, naturally, when you are dealing with a team with many members, not all characters are going to get equal attention.

But, I think it would have been better if the other characters had receive more attention, detail, and screen time as the series progressed.

[C. Lee]

Well as many people have commented, Wolverine is popular BECAUSE he is not the MAIN guy. That's the point they missed. We love him because he ain't the leader and he is an outsider and not your regular hero where the spotlight is on him. In the films, they were consciously trying so hard to make him the cool character and everyone service him. I mean, Cyclops and Storm were just pupperts in those films.

Yes, blame Singer and his writers. He's the damn director.

How can you not be the main guy when you star in a dozen different comic books?

[Project862006]

Well as many people have commented, Wolverine is popular BECAUSE he is not the MAIN guy. That's the point they missed. We love him because he ain't the leader and he is an outsider and not your regular hero where the spotlight is on him. In the films, they were consciously trying so hard to make him the cool character and everyone service him. I mean, Cyclops and Storm were just pupperts in those films.

Yes, blame Singer and his writers. He's the damn director.
still does'nt get it lol

[truth]

This is actually really simple.

Cyclops is the leader of the X-men and Storm is second-in-command. In ANY of the films, did it ever feel like Cyclops or Storm could lead ANYTHING? No. That's where the script and director messed up.

Wolverine stars in his own comics not becuase he is the main guy, but because people loved the character so much and how different he was.

It's really quite easy to grasp. For some reason, and this is the big problem I have with "fanboys", you seem to just go with the crowd and accept something is good because it is deemed good by critics and so forth. If you think about it, the Xmen films were a failure in properly depicting the comics. On top of that, in their own right they were not very good films. Solid, acceptable...but not very good.

[Project862006]

lolol

X2 is easily top5 comic films i like it better than all of marvel's films

[C. Lee]

This is actually really simple.

Cyclops is the leader of the X-men and Storm is second-in-command. In ANY of the films, did it ever feel like Cyclops or Storm could lead ANYTHING? No. That's where the script and director messed up.

Wolverine stars in his own comics not becuase he is the main guy, but because people loved the character so much and how different he was.

It's really quite easy to grasp. For some reason, and this is the big problem I have with "fanboys", you seem to just go with the crowd and accept something is good because it is deemed good by critics and so forth. If you think about it, the Xmen films were a failure in properly depicting the comics. On top of that, in their own right they were not very good films. Solid, acceptable...but not very good.

That's what makes me laugh the most...because I disagree with you...I am a FANBOY....I am the farthest thing from your interpretation of the word here on the Hype. I constantly talk everywhere on the Hype about how people should not just follow the crowd but have thier own ideas about things. I don't FOLLOW the crowd on anything, I disagree with most popular points, and if I agree with a popular idea...believe me, it's not because everyone else likes it (I'm actually surprised when I like what most of the posters here like)....so calling me a bandwaggoning fanboys makes me laugh.

[truth]

????? Top 5?

So let's see...

In the same league as Batman, Superman, Begins, Sin City, Blade, Superman 2?

Don't think so

[truth]

That's what makes me laugh the most...because I disagree with you...I am a FANBOY....I am the farthest thing from your interpretation of the word here on the Hype. I constantly talk everywhere on the Hype about how people should not just follow the crowd but have thier own ideas about things. I don't FOLLOW the crowd on anything, I disagree with most popular points, and if I agree with a popular idea...believe me, it's not because everyone else likes it (I'm actually surprised when I like what most of the posters here like)....so calling me a bandwaggoning fanboys makes me laugh.

Then this is not directed at you, but there are a large group of people at Comic-Con who falsely represent the fans that really care about this stuff. That's the major problem I have.
Not once have I heard that Jackman was amazing or anything from X-men has been amazing. Blame it on the script. I blame the whole boil of wax (right terms?:yay:) Acting, directing, script, makeup-artist.

Surely, we ought to be championing an AMAZING X-men film. Surely.

Will we get that with a sequel?

[C. Lee]

????? Top 5?

So let's see...

In the same league as Batman, Superman, Begins, Sin City, Blade, Superman 2?

Don't think so

That's called...different strokes for different folks. Different people have different opinions....it's a wonderful world we live in.

[Project862006]

blade WTF

done with you lol

[Infinity9999x]

Well as many people have commented, Wolverine is popular BECAUSE he is not the MAIN guy. That's the point they missed. We love him because he ain't the leader and he is an outsider and not your regular hero where the spotlight is on him. In the films, they were consciously trying so hard to make him the cool character and everyone service him. I mean, Cyclops and Storm were just pupperts in those films.

Yes, blame Singer and his writers. He's the damn director.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "Main guy." No, Wolverine has never been the leader type, but he has, for a long time in the comics, been one of the most prominent characters, and often times has more solo books about him out then actual X-men titles. So the Wolverine-centric traits of the X-men is indeed something that started in the comics (I know, because people have been complaining about it for a while, yet people still seem to buy his books).

[C. Lee]

but there are a large group of people at Comic-Con who falsely represent the fans that really care about this stuff. That's the major problem I have.
Actually...what it sounds like you are saying is....there is a large group of fans who like the movies and how they are done....and there is a large group of fans who don't like the movies and what they have done. Both groups care about the characters...but have different interpretations and expectations of them.
Not once have I heard that Jackman was amazing or anything from X-men has been amazing.
That very statement is amazing. Because I myself have heard many people say that Jackman and the movies were amazing.

Blame it on the script. I blame the whole boil of wax (right terms?:yay:) Acting, directing, script, makeup-artist.
The actual term is BALL OF WAX. You blame them all for what you see as a failure. Others praise them all for what they see as a success.

Surely, we ought to be championing an AMAZING X-men film. Surely.I have spoke on this before. I acknowledged that the makers of the XMEN movie had a choice to make.

Choice one - follow the books continuity fromm 45+ years ago and start at the very beginning with Prof X, Marvel Girl, Cyclops, Angel, and a non hairy/non beast looking Beast....and endure the complaints of where's Wolverine, why isn't Beast hairy, why are they calling Jean Marvel Girl and why is she so powerless from the young fans who know nothing of the past.

or

Choice two - pull in bits and pieces from throughout the 45+ years of continuity and feature the current popular characters and storylines....and endure the complaints they are getting.

Not an easy choice...but I can understand thier going with Choice B.

As a side note....I personally grew up reading the books of Choice A (I started reading comics in the mid 60's, and stopped reading them regularily in the mid 80's)...I would love to see a movie based upon these books...but then most of the things I would love to see movies based upon would not interest most of the teens around here.
Will we get that with a sequel?
Will we get a movie based upon the original XMEN series with a sequel...well, if it's a sequel then it can't be based upon them...so the answer is no.

[ALittlePush]

Makeup and effects can do wonderful things to make Keaton and Sinise not look TOO old, but without them just plainly looking CG.

Can I ask why Kiefer would not have been right for the part?

Why would Gary, a man that can do ANYTHING, not have been right for this part?

All those actors have put in amazing, CLASSIC performances, all before X1. Something that Hugh hasn't done.

It's not the age factor as such for Keaton and Sinise. Like you said, they could be made to look younger, however, the keyword in your post is that they could be made to "not look TOO old", i.e you're suggesting they would have looked old for the role without makeup and effects. With the budget constraints on X1, do you really think they would have wasted money on casting an older actor, just to make him look younger in every scene he's in, when it would just be cheaper and easier to cast a younger actor for the part. It's not just the age though, it's the physical aspect of the role and the prospect of more sequels. Same with Oldman, can you seriously imagine them throwing themselves around in the Wolverine/Deathstryke fight in X2.

As for Kiefer Sutherland, he has a very distinctive voice and is quite softly spoken. Nothing about him screams Wolverine. It's hard to explain but he just wouldn't be right for Wolverine. Could he play a part in an X-Men film? sure, but could he play Wolverine? No.

Don't get me wrong, they are all good actors and Sutherland is one of my favourites, however, none of them would be right for Wolverine.

Jackman, for me, is Wolverine. So he's tall, so what?

[truth]

I really have a problem with people saying Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine.

All we've had his him, so there is nothing else to compare him to.

We can now say that Keaton IS Batman or Reeve IS Superman because other actors have come and have not surpassed them in those roles.

[C. Lee]

I really have a problem with people saying Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine.
I think your main problem is Hugh Jackman.....not what others call him.

All we've had his him, so there is nothing else to compare him to.
Partly true...but we have had only one person play Wonder Woman too....and it's hard to picture anyone but Lynda Carter in the role. It's not really that there is no one to compare to her...but that she was perfect for the role.

We can now say that Keaton IS Batman or Reeve IS Superman because other actors have come and have not surpassed them in those roles.

See...that's the thing about opinions....you feel no one has surpassed Keaton, others don't feel the same way.

[Ziggyman]

Need less moping and more badass-ery...

[truth]

The main problem with this Wolverine franchise and part 2 is that Mister Hugh has too much creative control. I am now hearing as a rumor that he wants Aranofsky in to direct. It's he like he OWNS the franchise. You know why he can think that way? The airheads at comic-con that go ga-ga over him when he arrives there.
It's like danoyse's comments of how "hot" he is. You see, we should be talking about the actor of Wolvering putting in a great acting performance....not how "hot" he is.

Sorry guys, Hugh is wrong for the role but more importantly, his involvement in all aspects will not allow the franchise to flourish. A director coming in will not do HIS own full vision

[GuestStar2004]

making money comes before getting the character right, thats how FOX thinks, and what does that mean? show off hugh as being a sex symbol, playing on the character as a good guy hero

as for singer... well technically he to blame for wolverine being the main spotlight but i think he did it for proberly the right reasons at the time, x1 introducing us to the xmen, x2 his origin which hinted in x1, but he did an amazing cliff hanger for jean gray so its a shame that the mo he was off the project they started the wolverine has to be the main character... oh ms berry wants more screen time lets write that in also, and introduce loads of other characters just so we can see them :)

as for wolverines hieight? its not important if the character is written right then no one would care

[danoyse]

The main problem with this Wolverine franchise and part 2 is that Mister Hugh has too much creative control. I am now hearing as a rumor that he wants Aranofsky in to direct. It's he like he OWNS the franchise. You know why he can think that way? The airheads at comic-con that go ga-ga over him when he arrives there.
It's like danoyse's comments of how "hot" he is. You see, we should be talking about the actor of Wolvering putting in a great acting performance....not how "hot" he is.

Sorry guys, Hugh is wrong for the role but more importantly, his involvement in all aspects will not allow the franchise to flourish. A director coming in will not do HIS own full vision

Oh, so now everyone who disagrees with you is an airhead? Please.

We don't know how much creative control he had - and he certainly didn't have it when he was cast, seeing as how he was a late replacement for Dougray Scott and the movie had already started filming when he got that part. He didn't have creative control over X2, and yes, he was a producer on X3 and XMO, but he didn't write those scripts and we really don't know what kind of input we had. Remember there were also stories of Fox briefly firing Gavin Hood and repainting sets and demanding the movie be more kid-friendly.

And no, I don't think Hugh should have creative control over the character and I think a sequel should go forward with a director who knows the material, understands the character and has experience with action films. Something the last director didn't have. I'd like it to get the hell away from Fox, too...but unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

I'm not sure about Aronofsky as the director of Wolverine sequel because he's never done a film like this before, but he got one hell of a criminally underlooked performance out of Hugh in The Fountain. So the prospect of him directing him as Wolverine is intriguing at the very least.

And I don't care if my thinking Hugh as Wolverine is hot makes you mad. In fact, I'll make you even madder and say he is damn hot. And I thought he gave a great performance as Wolverine - better in the first two movies, when the scripts were better, but he's definitely one of my favorite superhero movie performances of the last 10 years.

You don't like Hugh as Wolverine, that's fine. If you're opinion and you're entitled to it. Just like I'm entitled to mine. It's a wonderful world we live in.

[Doctor Jones]

Aronofsky directing Hugh as Wolverine is a dream come true.

[C. Lee]

The main problem with this Wolverine franchise and part 2 is that Mister Hugh has too much creative control. I am now hearing as a rumor that he wants Aranofsky in to direct. Your opinion. Other people don't agree. Aronofsky is a good director...that could be interesting.
It's he like he OWNS the franchise. You know why he can think that way?The airheads at comic-con that go ga-ga over him when he arrives there.
So...his fans are airheads. Nice. You're really racking up the offensive comments towards others.
It's like danoyse's comments of how "hot" he is. You see, we should be talking about the actor of Wolvering putting in a great acting performance....not how "hot" he is.Why can't she talk about how hot he is? In every forum at the HYpe the boys talk about how hot any woman is. Why is she not allowed to do the same with the male actors?
Sorry guys, Hugh is wrong for the role but more importantly, his involvement in all aspects will not allow the franchise to flourish.
Again...there are many who disagree with you.
A director coming in will not do HIS own full vision I'd say that depends on the director and FOX studios.

[danoyse]

Aronofsky directing Hugh as Wolverine is a dream come true.

I love The Fountain...I'm actually hoping he does this one....although he probably won't. :csad:

[truth]

I've got my fingers crossed for Aranofsky doing Batman.

I'm thinking that Cronenberg would handle the dramatic aspects of Wolverine a lot better than Darren. He would understand the character. But again, the actor needs to be changed.


I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, if I was, I apologise. It's just quite annoying how the media deem...THOSE...people at comic-con as being the fan community. So if they like it, then it's okay. Some of us here on forums like this get looked over while others just don't even bother and just wait until it's done right.

All I'm saying is, you will be suprised by how many people really don't like where all this is going. I'm sure if they brought in an actor with the right height, right look and acting-chops...A LOT of people will be saying how they finally got Wolverine right.

All we need is to have a look at the other side of the fence.

[danoyse]

I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, if I was, I apologise. It's just quite annoying how the media deem...THOSE...people at comic-con as being the fan community. So if they like it, then it's okay. Some of us here on forums like this get looked over while others just don't even bother and just wait until it's done right.

You do realize a lot of people here attend Comic Con, right? They're not random people brought in off the street.

All I'm saying is, you will be suprised by how many people really don't like where all this is going. I'm sure if they brought in an actor with the right height, right look and acting-chops...A LOT of people will be saying how they finally got Wolverine right.

All we need is to have a look at the other side of the fence.

I wouldn't be surprised. We have a whole X-Men forum where people give their different opinions, which we're all entitled to. You should stop trying to make ridiculous assumptions about everyone who disagrees with you.

[C. Lee]

I've got my fingers crossed for Aranofsky doing Batman.

I'm thinking that Cronenberg would handle the dramatic aspects of Wolverine a lot better than Darren. He would understand the character. But again, the actor needs to be changed.


I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, if I was, I apologise. It's just quite annoying how the media deem...THOSE...people at comic-con as being the fan community. So if they like it, then it's okay. Some of us here on forums like this get looked over while others just don't even bother and just wait until it's done right.

All I'm saying is, you will be suprised by how many people really don't like where all this is going. I'm sure if they brought in an actor with the right height, right look and acting-chops...A LOT of people will be saying how they finally got Wolverine right.

All we need is to have a look at the other side of the fence.

Have you spent any time actually reading anything here besides this thread? Many of our posters attended SDCC...many attend lots of cons....I attend cons.....there are threads of all types here complaining or praising every concievable aspect of these or any comic based films.

[C. Lee]

Looks like I need to type faster and stop playing princesses and Batman with my daughter between my posts...danoyse keeps saying stuff before me.

[sabetoonth]

gotta step up your game C heh

[C. Lee]

gotta step up your game C heh

But she's so darn cute in her Batman suit playing with Cinderella and Batman action figures....

[danoyse]

Looks like I need to type faster and stop playing princesses and Batman with my daughter between my posts...danoyse keeps saying stuff before me.

It sounds better coming from two of us, it's all good. :up:

Besides, Cinderella and Batman sounds way more fun than this. :cwink:

[UnionJack]

I think the height thing is taken abit too far, by now I am used to a tall movie Wolverine and a start comic look.

The thing that bugs me most is how watered down he has become, he has no rage at all, the video game of Origins was SOOOO much better than the film, tho cut scenes showed what we really should have got, but Fox are greedy and want to make a ton of money from children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EocXtLAAAc

The general audience don't know that in the comics for the past 35years Wolverine has a Rambo style body count, they see a hairy guy with claws, all be it blunt one's now.

We will never get a hard 13pg/R-rated Wolverine film as it won't make as much money for Fox no matter how many comic fans go see it. The flash back to Weapon X is the closest we got to his Origin.

Even if the "next" Wolverine is shorter he won't be the savage wild man that we know and love he will be the same soft uncle who looks after all the wittle kiddies.
It's a sad conclusion but probably a real one!


For the next film to rate higher for me I'd like to see:
- Some blood, we got it in the flash back why not now?!
- A change of clothing I'm tired of the jeans/wife beater look now its awful, give him some soft of suit, his X-Force suit is badass
- Better CGI practical can't always be used but at least spent more then £5 on it and don't rush it!
- Don't fill it with needless characters/actors like Will.am.i he was fudging appalling and wasted screen time and money!
- GIVE US SOME REAL RAGE!

[UnionJack]

I love The Fountain...I'm actually hoping he does this one....although he probably won't. :csad:

The Fountain is one of my Top5 of all time, totally overlooked but for me its perfect.

[hopefuldreamer]

Well as many people have commented, Wolverine is popular BECAUSE he is not the MAIN guy. That's the point they missed. We love him because he ain't the leader and he is an outsider and not your regular hero where the spotlight is on him. In the films, they were consciously trying so hard to make him the cool character and everyone service him. I mean, Cyclops and Storm were just pupperts in those films.

Yes, blame Singer and his writers. He's the damn director.

I think the idea that Singer is blameless for our faults with the films is insane. Of course he's too blame. It's his creative vision, his handling of the superhero franchise. And when I compare it to Superman Returns, i am totally sure I simply do not like the way he handles Superheroes.

I don't think there was anything wrong with making Wolverine the center of attention in the movies, at least in X1.

I mean, storywise, it made sense in X1 to make Wolverine and Rogue the "outsiders" and introduce us to Xavier, his school, and the X-men through Wolverine's and Rogue's eyes.

The problem, though, is that as the series progressed, it became too much "all about Wolverine" and it seemed all the other characters played second fiddle to Wolverine, especially Cyclops.

Now, naturally, when you are dealing with a team with many members, not all characters are going to get equal attention.

But, I think it would have been better if the other characters had receive more attention, detail, and screen time as the series progressed.

Absolutely agreed. It wasn't quite as irksome in the first film, because their limelight had a point... it was a way of introducing us to the X-men without starting it at the beginning.

It just should have evolved from there and never did.

[The Executioner]

Have Wolverine go abe **** all the time like John Rambo in the Rambo mvies but more violent.

[x-fan]

I note everyone wants Logan to be violent, the thing is Logan doesn't wish to be violent, he just gets that way when pushed and the more he is pushed the more violent he gets, but really he just wants to be left alone.

[C. Lee]

I note everyone wants Logan to be violent, the thing is Logan doesn't wish to be violent, he just gets that way when pushed and the more he is pushed the more violent he gets, but really he just wants to be left alone.

You didn't know that if they show him as a sociopathic amoral killer who slaughters hundreds by cutting them into tiny little shreds with buckets of blood flowing....it will make him truer to his comic roots?....or not.

[Doctor Jones]

I agree with x-fan. Logan is a much more complex character than that. Of course we all want to see Logan in a rage and killing, but there has to be reasoning behind that. The violence too I think. I don't think you should just splatter blood everywhere for the sake of it. It can become overbearing and be too much. Yes, even by Wolverine's standards. I think if you over do it, it becomes senseless and even tasteless. Violence isn't really tasteful, but I'm talking about the execution of the violence. It shouldn't be guts and blood flying around in every frame. It should be exact. Or it becomes stale.

[x-fan]

I'd like a sceen where Logan is fighting, using his martial arts skills( he is a master i=of 14 styles) then as the fight goes badly then he gets mad, then madder then goes berserk and totally rips everything apart.

[GuestStar2004]

mr hugh jackman is starting to look like an older wolverine now, that aint good for the pr-xmen 1 status

[truth]

Was watching X1 last night as it was on TV. Ha, have not seen it in such a long time.

One scene stood out for me. When Wolverine grabs Cyclops in Xavier's office. You know Cyclops looked like the smaller, weedier chump while Wolverine towered over him and looked like the bigger bully. As someone mentioned which would have worked, Hugh should have been Cyclops. But then Cyclop's character was like watching paint dry. WHO ARE THESE DAMN WRITERS?!!!!

Please, Wolverine's character DOES need fixing...BOTH the actor and the writing. And no, this is not an opinion...IT IS FACT. Opinions get us nowhere and is pointless. Let's get down to the truth and make the product right.

[Infinity9999x]

Was watching X1 last night as it was on TV. Ha, have not seen it in such a long time.

One scene stood out for me. When Wolverine grabs Cyclops in Xavier's office. You know Cyclops looked like the smaller, weedier chump while Wolverine towered over him and looked like the bigger bully. As someone mentioned which would have worked, Hugh should have been Cyclops. But then Cyclop's character was like watching paint dry. WHO ARE THESE DAMN WRITERS?!!!!

Please, Wolverine's character DOES need fixing...BOTH the actor and the writing. And no, this is not an opinion...IT IS FACT. Opinions get us nowhere and is pointless. Let's get down to the truth and make the product right.

Someone wasn't very good with definitions in school were they?

[sabetoonth]

:hehe: BURN!

[hopefuldreamer]

This is actually really simple.

Cyclops is the leader of the X-men and Storm is second-in-command. In ANY of the films, did it ever feel like Cyclops or Storm could lead ANYTHING? No. That's where the script and director messed up.

Totally agreed. Probably sums up my problem with the whole franchise. It's not that I hated what Hugh did with Wolverine, it's ^this... and Rogue of course...

Well, it depends on what you mean by "Main guy." No, Wolverine has never been the leader type, but he has, for a long time in the comics, been one of the most prominent characters, and often times has more solo books about him out then actual X-men titles. So the Wolverine-centric traits of the X-men is indeed something that started in the comics (I know, because people have been complaining about it for a while, yet people still seem to buy his books).

Which is why no one would have minded an X-men movie franchise with a Wolverine spin off. Would make perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense, is making an X-men movies franchise in which Wolverine is the main character, the most important of the X-men, the one that everyone is interested in, the strongest, the bravest, the main love story is his and Jeans... I mean by the end of X3 he was practically the leader of the X-men, once they'd gotten cyclops out of the way.

I really have a problem with people saying Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine.

All we've had his him, so there is nothing else to compare him to.

We can now say that Keaton IS Batman or Reeve IS Superman because other actors have come and have not surpassed them in those roles.

I agree. I think there could be plenty of people who could play a great Wolverine. Hugh plays a good one, but he's not the be all and end all.


See...that's the thing about opinions....you feel no one has surpassed Keaton, others don't feel the same way.

I think he was just saying 'we' as in the royal 'we' as in people in general. People can say that Keaton is Batman or Reeve is Superman comapared to all the other people who have tried. You can't do that with Wolverine.


One scene stood out for me. When Wolverine grabs Cyclops in Xavier's office. You know Cyclops looked like the smaller, weedier chump while Wolverine towered over him and looked like the bigger bully.

It's stuff like that that makes me angry.

I don't wanna be one of these fans that gets angry because writers and directors don't stick absolutely to the material.

I don't mind changes to storylines, changes to backstories, changes to timelines.

But I do mind changes to characterisation. Certain relationships being changed. Certain parts of appearance.

I can't help it.

So when I look at Cyclops, and I look at Rogue, and I don't at all see the characters I know and have grown up with in either of them, it makes me angry.

And then when I see Wolverine, centre of attention, with Cyclops love interest and with Rogue looking up at him puppy eyed, and practically having his own importance shoved down his throat by everyone, it makes me even madder.

It's wrong, stupid, unneccesary, arrogant and disrespectful.

The only thing that can fix it is a time machine.

[Infinity9999x]

Totally agreed. Probably sums up my problem with the whole franchise. It's not that I hated what Hugh did with Wolverine, it's ^this... and Rogue of course...



Which is why no one would have minded an X-men movie franchise with a Wolverine spin off. Would make perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense, is making an X-men movies franchise in which Wolverine is the main character, the most important of the X-men, the one that everyone is interested in, the strongest, the bravest, the main love story is his and Jeans... I mean by the end of X3 he was practically the leader of the X-men, once they'd gotten cyclops out of the way.



I agree. I think there could be plenty of people who could play a great Wolverine. Hugh plays a good one, but he's not the be all and end all.





See, I have no problem with that. What annoys me is that Truth is parading around saying that Hugh played a horrible Wolverine, and also mixing up the definition between opinion on fact.

I like Hugh, but I think we could get a better Wolverine performance as well. I think Hugh himself could give a better one with a better script. And I think in the future, someone could come along and very easily out perform Hugh.

I don't think Hugh has done a horrible job with the character. I think he's done pretty well with what he's had. And the main problems you're listing all have to do with writing. It wasn't as bad in the first two X-men movies, but X3 was just bad, with Wolverine taking over the leader role. But again, that is to an extent an extension of the comics. Wolverine did lead the X-men for a while in the comics. I personally hate that, but it's not just the movies that have been doing this to Wolverine. The comics have been doing it too. It's unfortunate, because that happens when writers don't understand that Wolverine works best in the anti-hero, outsider role within the group. Not the leader.

[hopefuldreamer]

See, I have no problem with that. What annoys me is that Truth is parading around saying that Hugh played a horrible Wolverine, and also mixing up the definition between opinion on fact.

I like Hugh, but I think we could get a better Wolverine performance as well. I think Hugh himself could give a better one with a better script. And I think in the future, someone could come along and very easily out perform Hugh.

I don't think Hugh has done a horrible job with the character. I think he's done pretty well with what he's had. And the main problems you're listing all have to do with writing. It wasn't as bad in the first two X-men movies, but X3 was just bad, with Wolverine taking over the leader role. But again, that is to an extent an extension of the comics. Wolverine did lead the X-men for a while in the comics. I personally hate that, but it's not just the movies that have been doing this to Wolverine. The comics have been doing it too. It's unfortunate, because that happens when writers don't understand that Wolverine works best in the anti-hero, outsider role within the group. Not the leader.

ITA

You know what the weird thing is?

When I first saw the X-Men and X2, I enjoyed them. I mean I didn't like cyclops or rogue particularly, but i was capable of enjoying the movies for what they were.

I think it's probably because they were pretty much the first to come along in my generation, and the spawn the rise of the Superhero, so I wasn't overly critical.

But when you look back on them now, after seeing what so many other directors have managed to achieve with other Superheroes, especially Nolan, you start to get a bit more critical.

I start to go 'well actually, they were good action movies, but they were terrible and unfaithful adaptations of the comics characters.'

I definitely do think Hugh could have been loads better with a better script. I mean I think he's great at being Wolverine in action, but I always thought the acting in scenes between him and Jean was awful... they just had no chemistry... but then none of the cast had any chemistry...

I challenge anyone to find me a single reason why someone's who's favourite X-men character is Cyclops (the leader of the X-men, Xavier's first student, the guy with the strong morals and good judgement that you know you can trust to do the right thing) might enjoy any of the films.

And if you can't then stop trying to defend them as good comic book adaptions.

[Infinity9999x]

ITA

You know what the weird thing is?

When I first saw the X-Men and X2, I enjoyed them. I mean I didn't like cyclops or rogue particularly, but i was capable of enjoying the movies for what they were.

I think it's probably because they were pretty much the first to come along in my generation, and the spawn the rise of the Superhero, so I wasn't overly critical.

But when you look back on them now, after seeing what so many other directors have managed to achieve with other Superheroes, especially Nolan, you start to get a bit more critical.

I start to go 'well actually, they were good action movies, but they were terrible and unfaithful adaptations of the comics characters.'

I definitely do think Hugh could have been loads better with a better script. I mean I think he's great at being Wolverine in action, but I always thought the acting in scenes between him and Jean was awful... they just had no chemistry... but then none of the cast had any chemistry...

I challenge anyone to find me a single reason why someone's who's favourite X-men character is Cyclops might enjoy any of the films.

And if you can't then stop trying to defend them as good comic book adaptions.

Oh, I agree with that. I still enjoy the first two movies, because when I watch a movie I try to evaluate it solely on its basis as a movie. For example, I realize Spider-man 2 is a very, very good movie. As an adaptation of one of my favorite characters, I find it very lacking.

My favorite character was always Wolverine, so as a kid, I had no problem with the first two movies. Sure, they changed a lot, but since I never thought I would see superhero adaptations of my favorite characters, I was geeked that I was just getting these movies.

I thought the writing was okay, but at times it just fell flat. The "love triangle" between Jean, Scott, and Logan always fell flat to me, mostly because Cyclops was written as such a boring character. If they had written Cyclops more likable, (and Marsden can play likable) then it would have been more dynamic. We needed someone who was used to writing ensembles.

[truth]

See, I have no problem with that. What annoys me is that Truth is parading around saying that Hugh played a horrible Wolverine, and also mixing up the definition between opinion on fact.

I like Hugh, but I think we could get a better Wolverine performance as well. I think Hugh himself could give a better one with a better script. And I think in the future, someone could come along and very easily out perform Hugh.

I don't think Hugh has done a horrible job with the character. I think he's done pretty well with what he's had. And the main problems you're listing all have to do with writing. It wasn't as bad in the first two X-men movies, but X3 was just bad, with Wolverine taking over the leader role. But again, that is to an extent an extension of the comics. Wolverine did lead the X-men for a while in the comics. I personally hate that, but it's not just the movies that have been doing this to Wolverine. The comics have been doing it too. It's unfortunate, because that happens when writers don't understand that Wolverine works best in the anti-hero, outsider role within the group. Not the leader.

THIS MAN! When did I say Hugh Jackman played a CRAP or HORRIBLE Wolverine? I said he was not cast well. I think I mentioned before that he out-acted Bale in Prestige. The man is a very good actor. It's just that he was in the wrong role.

Please, can you stop blaming the script? Please? This was not a case of him not being unleashed and more dynamic, there was ENOUGH in there for Jackman to really make it a memorable character. He just looked too damn nice. Too friendly. You never felt uneasy around him, never threatened. Again, cast Jackman as Cyclops (making his character more interesting) and then cast Kiefer Sutherland as Wolverine and THERE is where you will get a much better dynamic.

Yes, the script was not great and it was average, but Jackman did not evoke a strong enough aura to make you BELIEVE he was the character in the comics and cartoons that we have seen

[truth]

As the guy said a few posts back....TIME MACHINE to fix all this.

[hopefuldreamer]

Oh, I agree with that. I still enjoy the first two movies, because when I watch a movie I try to evaluate it solely on its basis as a movie. For example, I realize Spider-man 2 is a very, very good movie. As an adaptation of one of my favorite characters, I find it very lacking.

My favorite character was always Wolverine, so as a kid, I had no problem with the first two movies. Sure, they changed a lot, but since I never thought I would see superhero adaptations of my favorite characters, I was geeked that I was just getting these movies.

I thought the writing was okay, but at times it just fell flat. The "love triangle" between Jean, Scott, and Logan always fell flat to me, mostly because Cyclops was written as such a boring character. If they had written Cyclops more likable, (and Marsden can play likable) then it would have been more dynamic. We needed someone who was used to writing ensembles.

God I hate that love triangle. So much I don't think I can ever put it into words. I was just re watching X-men the other day, and I identified the exact point where the movie begins to suck. When Wolverine first wakes up in the institute, and Jean gently moves her hand down his arm to his hand... that slight sexual innuendo is enough to ruin the rest of the movie for me... because it's obvious that this is their intention... to play on the sexual attraction of these two characters. And to make this work, they have to make Cyclops not very likeable, or you would end up thinking Jean is a *****.

Without that love triangle, the movies may not have sucked quite so much.


THIS MAN! When did I say Hugh Jackman played a CRAP or HORRIBLE Wolverine? I said he was not cast well. I think I mentioned before that he out-acted Bale in Prestige. The man is a very good actor. It's just that he was in the wrong role.

Please, can you stop blaming the script? Please? This was not a case of him not being unleashed and more dynamic, there was ENOUGH in there for Jackman to really make it a memorable character. He just looked too damn nice. Too friendly. You never felt uneasy around him, never threatened. Again, cast Jackman as Cyclops (making his character more interesting) and then cast Kiefer Sutherland as Wolverine and THERE is where you will get a much better dynamic.

Yes, the script was not great and it was average, but Jackman did not evoke a strong enough aura to make you BELIEVE he was the character in the comics and cartoons that we have seen

I totally disagree.

It's the storyline that made it impossible to see Jackman as anything but nice. He's playing a nice guy. He's been written as the grizzly bear with a heart of gold.

Again all this is emphasised by his and Jean's 'love'.

[x-fan]

God I hate that love triangle. So much I don't think I can ever put it into words. I was just re watching X-men the other day, and I identified the exact point where the movie begins to suck. When Wolverine first wakes up in the institute, and Jean gently moves her hand down his arm to his hand... that slight sexual innuendo is enough to ruin the rest of the movie for me... because it's obvious that this is their intention... to play on the sexual attraction of these two characters. And to make this work, they have to make Cyclops not very likeable, or you would end up thinking Jean is a *****.

Without that love triangle, the movies may not have sucked quite so much.





I totally disagree.

It's the storyline that made it impossible to see Jackman as anything but nice. He's playing a nice guy. He's been written as the grizzly bear with a heart of gold.

Again all this is emphasised by his and Jean's 'love'.


Lets call it script and Director then, If the script ha been better, less people would have been upset by it. Singer could have pulled better performances from some of the actors, but didn't. I have already said this was part of the problem, but casting closer to source material is a must as well, do these three things and much less issues with the new movie when it comes. Oh and forget that first three movies and origins happened clean slate in my mind problem solved

[Infinity9999x]

THIS MAN! When did I say Hugh Jackman played a CRAP or HORRIBLE Wolverine? I said he was not cast well. I think I mentioned before that he out-acted Bale in Prestige. The man is a very good actor. It's just that he was in the wrong role.

Please, can you stop blaming the script? Please? This was not a case of him not being unleashed and more dynamic, there was ENOUGH in there for Jackman to really make it a memorable character. He just looked too damn nice. Too friendly. You never felt uneasy around him, never threatened. Again, cast Jackman as Cyclops (making his character more interesting) and then cast Kiefer Sutherland as Wolverine and THERE is where you will get a much better dynamic.

Yes, the script was not great and it was average, but Jackman did not evoke a strong enough aura to make you BELIEVE he was the character in the comics and cartoons that we have seen

My mistake, you never said Jackman sucked, however, your opinion that he didn't make the character memorable is just that, an opinion. I thought he did a fine job.

And no, I will not stop blaming the script, because, contrary to what you may think, I do NOT think the script had the qualities to make Wolverine the truly dynamic character I enjoy in the comics. Even in X1 he was toned down.

But again, this is all opinion. I understand that you disagree, and I have no problem with that, because I realize that my opinion is not fact.

[truth]

Okay people, it's time for an example.

Michael Keaton.

I've said it before on this thread but I shall explain it further.

What exactly was Keaton given? He hardly had anything! In that first movie, he had about six to eight lines. BUT, despite what Bale has done, people STILL go back to Keaton and say he is Batman. You see, Keaton was able to take what little he had on the script and give a memorable performance that still have people on the street referring him to Batman.

Jackman was given a lot more than Keaton and I saw X1. He was not written as a cuddly teddy bear. It was clear he was an outsider who was different from the others. I am telling you, put Kiefer Sutherland in that same role with those same lines and you will be amazed by the difference. It's the delivery of the line combined with how you look. I don't know what other way to say it or put it. I was staring at a damn Weapon X comic at Forbidden Planet a few days ago and the guy I am seeing there is not the guy up on the screen. The guy in the comic LOOKS, the key word, LOOKS interesting.
Am I getting warmer now?

[Wolverine1988]

Okay people, it's time for an example.

Michael Keaton.

I've said it before on this thread but I shall explain it further.

What exactly was Keaton given? He hardly had anything! In that first movie, he had about six to eight lines. BUT, despite what Bale has done, people STILL go back to Keaton and say he is Batman. You see, Keaton was able to take what little he had on the script and give a memorable performance that still have people on the street referring him to Batman.

Jackman was given a lot more than Keaton and I saw X1. He was not written as a cuddly teddy bear. It was clear he was an outsider who was different from the others. I am telling you, put Kiefer Sutherland in that same role with those same lines and you will be amazed by the difference. It's the delivery of the line combined with how you look. I don't know what other way to say it or put it. I was staring at a damn Weapon X comic at Forbidden Planet a few days ago and the guy I am seeing there is not the guy up on the screen. The guy in the comic LOOKS, the key word, LOOKS interesting.
Am I getting warmer now?


I thought Hugh Jackman was great as Wolverine in x1, alot of instances showed his anti hero self.

Him telling rogue to get out, i mean its not like some homeless guy was in the back it was a 17 year old innocent looking girl , you have to be pretty big ass to tell her to eff off at first glance, granted he went to go pick her up but that whole dialogue scene with Rogue and Wolverine in the car was great, i mean if you were Rogue wouldn't you be pretty timid? Not just the fact that he has metal claws coming out of his hands, but Hugh Jackman hade a very intimidating presence in that car.

Also him waking up after being taken in and first thing he does is grab jean greay from behind like she was a hostage?If i was jean grey i would have **** my self.

Not to mention the first time he meets the x men in xaviers office the fact that he just doesn't like Cyclops from the get go and was ready to toss him around just for standing in his way.


A few more instances i dont feel like typing up buti felt in that movie reallly captured Wolverines bad side and his on the edge personality.

And to the people saying Wolverine got "softer" as the movies progressed, The character had to progress, Wolverine at the begning went from this loner who didn't like being apart of any team to a guy who felt accepted for once in his life and a part of something , while at the same time obviously he still hade shades of his on the edge, anti hero sides.

[hopefuldreamer]

Okay people, it's time for an example.

Michael Keaton.

I've said it before on this thread but I shall explain it further.

What exactly was Keaton given? He hardly had anything! In that first movie, he had about six to eight lines. BUT, despite what Bale has done, people STILL go back to Keaton and say he is Batman. You see, Keaton was able to take what little he had on the script and give a memorable performance that still have people on the street referring him to Batman.

Jackman was given a lot more than Keaton and I saw X1. He was not written as a cuddly teddy bear. It was clear he was an outsider who was different from the others. I am telling you, put Kiefer Sutherland in that same role with those same lines and you will be amazed by the difference. It's the delivery of the line combined with how you look. I don't know what other way to say it or put it. I was staring at a damn Weapon X comic at Forbidden Planet a few days ago and the guy I am seeing there is not the guy up on the screen. The guy in the comic LOOKS, the key word, LOOKS interesting.
Am I getting warmer now?

Actually, for me, your much much colder.

1. Why are you so obsessed with the idea of kiefer in the role? It's actually baffling me.

2. I'm not the biggest fan of Keaton... i'd say Bale IS Batman for me, but that's just my opinion and not a widely shared one.

3. When they eventually reboot X-men, people will still look back at Hugh and say he IS wolverine IMO.

[truth]

1. Kiefer Sutherland may not be the obvious choice, but he has the acting, the presence, the size and the voice to make a VERY good Wolverine that people would not expect. Sutherland is one SCARY dude, Hugh isn't

2. Keaton is Batman

3. That's their concern. Let's get an alternative first, before we can say anyone is anyone. We haven't seen the other side of the coin yet

[C. Lee]

I thought the writing was okay, but at times it just fell flat. The "love triangle" between Jean, Scott, and Logan always fell flat to me, mostly because Cyclops was written as such a boring character. If they had written Cyclops more likable, (and Marsden can play likable) then it would have been more dynamic.
To me, that was kind of the point of the scenes....Cyclops and Jean were in thier relationship so long, that it was at the "everything is fine, everything is smooth, everything is non drama" point....so the introduction of Wolverine was the introduction of the dangerous bad boy that stirred the pot.

[truth]

Erm, there was NO relationship between Cyclops and Jean. I think we can all agree Cyclops was shafted in the film to promote Wolverine's character.

[C. Lee]

Erm, there was NO relationship between Cyclops and Jean. I think we can all agree Cyclops was shafted in the film to promote Wolverine's character.

Erm, there WAS a relationship between Cyclops and Jean....it may not have been the one you wanted or portrayed the way you wanted...but it existed.

[Wolverine1988]

I dont get Kiefer Sutherland either, just because he can play a intense yelling character doesn't mean he can play Wolverine.

Hugh Jackman just looks so much like Wolverine , only other actor right now i could see as a Wolverine is Gary Sinise.I am suprised his name isn't mentioned enough as an alterante for Wolverine

[Infinity9999x]

Okay people, it's time for an example.

Michael Keaton.

I've said it before on this thread but I shall explain it further.

What exactly was Keaton given? He hardly had anything! In that first movie, he had about six to eight lines. BUT, despite what Bale has done, people STILL go back to Keaton and say he is Batman. You see, Keaton was able to take what little he had on the script and give a memorable performance that still have people on the street referring him to Batman.

Jackman was given a lot more than Keaton and I saw X1. He was not written as a cuddly teddy bear. It was clear he was an outsider who was different from the others. I am telling you, put Kiefer Sutherland in that same role with those same lines and you will be amazed by the difference. It's the delivery of the line combined with how you look. I don't know what other way to say it or put it. I was staring at a damn Weapon X comic at Forbidden Planet a few days ago and the guy I am seeing there is not the guy up on the screen. The guy in the comic LOOKS, the key word, LOOKS interesting.
Am I getting warmer now?

I see your viewpoint, I just don't agree. I thought Jackman was fine for what he was given. And I personally wouldn't have cast Sutherland as Wolverine, I wanted someone like Crowe.

But again, I doubt I would have liked either of them more then Hugh, since the character wasn't written the way I wanted him to be. I though Hugh did fine. You don't. That's fine.

As I said before, that's called an opinion. Which is not a fact, contrary to what you may believe.

[danoyse]

Was watching X1 last night as it was on TV. Ha, have not seen it in such a long time.

One scene stood out for me. When Wolverine grabs Cyclops in Xavier's office. You know Cyclops looked like the smaller, weedier chump while Wolverine towered over him and looked like the bigger bully. As someone mentioned which would have worked, Hugh should have been Cyclops. But then Cyclop's character was like watching paint dry. WHO ARE THESE DAMN WRITERS?!!!!

Please, Wolverine's character DOES need fixing...BOTH the actor and the writing. And no, this is not an opinion...IT IS FACT. Opinions get us nowhere and is pointless. Let's get down to the truth and make the product right.

Sounds like it's still an opinion to me.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I don't think Wolverine has EVER been bad in any of the X-films. It's the sh***y f***ing stories they've written for the last two features which have killed them. Hugh Jackman was fine.

[truth]

key word: fine.

Shouldn't Wolverine be more than fine? Script or no script, an amazing actor will always give YOU SOMETHING special.

[Infinity9999x]

key word: fine.

Shouldn't Wolverine be more than fine? Script or no script, an amazing actor will always give YOU SOMETHING special.

No, that's a foolish way to view actors. A great actor can only do so much with a crappy script. Anthony Hopkins is a great actor. In Alexander, he wasn't very good. Ben Kingsly, great actor, in Prince of Persia, he didn't do anything special. Dustin Hoffman in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, Natalie Portman and Ewan McGreggor in Star Wars, Jeremy Irons in Dungeons And Dragons, George Clooney and Uma Thurman in Batman and Robin, Micheal Caine in Jaws 4: The Revenge, and Robert DiNero in Rocky and Bulwinkle.

The list could go on and on. Bad scripts can only have so much done with them. Bad dialogue is bad dialogue, no matter who says it.

[Squidboy]

Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan weren't their best in The Last Stand either, so I agree that a bad script is bad no matter who reads the lines

[C. Lee]

No, that's a foolish way to view actors. A great actor can only do so much with a crappy script. Anthony Hopkins is a great actor. In Alexander, he wasn't very good. Ben Kingsly, great actor, in Prince of Persia, he didn't do anything special. Dustin Hoffman in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, Natalie Portman and Ewan McGreggor in Star Wars, Jeremy Irons in Dungeons And Dragons, George Clooney and Uma Thurman in Batman and Robin, Micheal Caine in Jaws 4: The Revenge, and Robert DiNero in Rocky and Bulwinkle.

The list could go on and on. Bad scripts can only have so much done with them. Bad dialogue is bad dialogue, no matter who says it.



Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan weren't their best in The Last Stand either, so I agree that a bad script is bad no matter who reads the lines
Logic and rationality....I like it, refreshing.

[hopefuldreamer]

1. Kiefer Sutherland may not be the obvious choice, but he has the acting, the presence, the size and the voice to make a VERY good Wolverine that people would not expect. Sutherland is one SCARY dude, Hugh isn't

Tell you what, find me a clip of him being scary, and i might get it... right now, i just don't.


2. Keaton is Batman

What a great well written response to my opinion on Keaton and Bale... now i understand your point of view :whatever:


3. That's their concern. Let's get an alternative first, before we can say anyone is anyone. We haven't seen the other side of the coin yet

There is no other side of the coin... the next guy might end up playing Wolverine exactly like Hugh (i.e. Brandon Routh in SR)

And i was pointing out that the trend is to prefer the original for nostalgic reasons. Classic is cool.

Erm, there was NO relationship between Cyclops and Jean. I think we can all agree Cyclops was shafted in the film to promote Wolverine's character.

There was a relationship in the sense that the audience knew they were a couple... but beyond that it was like watching strangers on the subway. They had no chemistry.

In fairness, Marsden was the only thing that I liked about Cyclops, Jean and the whole triangle. I like him as an actor. I think he was terrible for the role, but at least I actually still felt like he was conveying emotions... despite having no lines to work with that actually gave him that opportunity.

Famke on the other hand... i mean i'm not sure if it was intentional... but she was playing it as though Jean obviously didn't love Scott, and hadnt done for a while, but had just stuck with him until Wolverine came along and heated up her juices.

No, that's a foolish way to view actors. A great actor can only do so much with a crappy script. Anthony Hopkins is a great actor. In Alexander, he wasn't very good. Ben Kingsly, great actor, in Prince of Persia, he didn't do anything special. Dustin Hoffman in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, Natalie Portman and Ewan McGreggor in Star Wars, Jeremy Irons in Dungeons And Dragons, George Clooney and Uma Thurman in Batman and Robin, Micheal Caine in Jaws 4: The Revenge, and Robert DiNero in Rocky and Bulwinkle.

The list could go on and on. Bad scripts can only have so much done with them. Bad dialogue is bad dialogue, no matter who says it.



Yup yup yup.

[Squidboy]

Tell you what, find me a clip of him being scary, and i might get it... right now, i just don't.

I don't think Wolverine needs to really be scary, so much as threatening, and Sutherland can pull that off without needing to be too over the top. In the first season of 24 he very calmly explained to a man that if he didn't get what he wanted, he'd force a towel down the guy's throat and let it partially digest inside of him, before tearing the towel out (and the lining of his stomach with it). So I can kind of see how Kiefer could make a good Wolverine, just because of the presence he can carry, but I wouldn't particularly want him to play that role.

[truth]

Lost Boys, Stand By Me, Phone Booth and pretty much the whole of 24 prove that Kiefer can play Wolverine.

And yes, it's not about being SCARY, wrong choice of words. It's about having that PARTICULAR presence that Wolverine should have.



Ha, Hopeful, so you are comparing Hugh to Christopher Reeve with the whole classic nostalgic thing. Please, get back down to Earth. Hugh is a BILLION, GAZILLION miles away from what Reeve did. Hugh was solid but someone else can do A LOT better.

[ALittlePush]

Lost Boys, Stand By Me, Phone Booth and pretty much the whole of 24 prove that Kiefer can play Wolverine.

And yes, it's not about being SCARY, wrong choice of words. It's about having that PARTICULAR presence that Wolverine should have.

I think the words you might be looking for is menacing presence. Lost Boys is one of my favourite films but when I'm watching it, the thought of Sutherland playing Wolverine never ever crosses my mind. It's not so much that he couldn't play Wolverine but more, IMO, he shouldn't. I would love for Sutherland to have a role in an X-Men film. However, I don't think Wolverine should be that role. Sutherland just doesn't feel right for Wolverine.

Ha, Hopeful, so you are comparing Hugh to Christopher Reeve with the whole classic nostalgic thing. Please, get back down to Earth. Hugh is a BILLION, GAZILLION miles away from what Reeve did. Hugh was solid but someone else can do A LOT better.

Just out of curiosity, What exactly is it that you have against Hugh Jackman (aside from height obviously)? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your whole argument on why Jackman wasn't that good a Wolverine seems to stem from the fact that he's tall.

[GuestStar2004]

i think Hugh Jackman played a good wolverine in X1, but as the films went on he started to act like he knew he was playing a sex god to girls, and that it was all about image not character

[truth]

I think the words you might be looking for is menacing presence. Lost Boys is one of my favourite films but when I'm watching it, the thought of Sutherland playing Wolverine never ever crosses my mind. It's not so much that he couldn't play Wolverine but more, IMO, he shouldn't. I would love for Sutherland to have a role in an X-Men film. However, I don't think Wolverine should be that role. Sutherland just doesn't feel right for Wolverine.



Just out of curiosity, What exactly is it that you have against Hugh Jackman (aside from height obviously)? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your whole argument on why Jackman wasn't that good a Wolverine seems to stem from the fact that he's tall.


Apart from his height, he is wrong for Wolverine. Wrong aura. He has the features, but just does not come across as menacing, scary, threatening or uneasy. I felt too comfortable when he was around in the screen. It's like he was trying too hard to be uneasy and tough. It should come natural, it just didn't with him.

[Infinity9999x]

Apart from his height, he is wrong for Wolverine. Wrong aura. He has the features, but just does not come across as menacing, scary, threatening or uneasy. I felt too comfortable when he was around in the screen. It's like he was trying too hard to be uneasy and tough. It should come natural, it just didn't with him.

I understand that you feel that way. I just disagree.

I think Hugh was hampered by the script. Not to a big degree until X3 and Origins, And as I said above, great actors can suffer from poorly written scripts.

[truth]

I'm sorry, but the X1 script was not poor. The X3 one was, the X1 script was just standard. You put a better actor in there, he can take standard words and make them into something special.

Gary Oldman for example who is amazing in EVERYTHING. Crap script, average script, weird script.

But again, the X1 script was not poorly written.

[Squidboy]

If he were a little younger and a great deal taller, I could see Kiefer making a great Sabretooth. Especially if you go by Lost Boys alone, I could definitely have seen him playing the role in the late 80's/early 90's. I would say Omega Red if he was taller as well (he can fake a Russian accent, from what I remember), but they could always swap the characters' positions by having a short, scrappy Arkady facing off against a slightly taller Wolverine. But then Dolph Lundgren would be out of a job, so there's really no winning for Kiefer in a Wolverine movie.

[ALittlePush]

If he were a little younger and a great deal taller, I could see Kiefer making a great Sabretooth. Especially if you go by Lost Boys alone, I could definitely have seen him playing the role in the late 80's/early 90's.

I agree with this.:yay:

[Infinity9999x]

I'm sorry, but the X1 script was not poor. The X3 one was, the X1 script was just standard. You put a better actor in there, he can take standard words and make them into something special.

Gary Oldman for example who is amazing in EVERYTHING. Crap script, average script, weird script.

But again, the X1 script was not poorly written.

Well, I haven't seen all of Gary Oldman's movies, and of the ones I've watched none of them have been bad scripts. Except possibly the 5th Element. That script wasn't great, but he did pretty good as the over-the top villain. I'd have to see a movie with a truly bad script and see how he fares. Because as I've shown above, even great actors can't do much with bad scripts. To expect them to rise above it is foolish. Bad dialogue is bad dialogue, regardless of who is saying it.

And X1 was not poorly written, but in terms of Wolverine's character, it was not written the way I wanted it to be. It was close, but there were things I would have liked them to do differently. And I personally think that Hugh was fine in X1, and I really doubt that anyone else would have been all that better.

But I didn't have a problem with Hugh.

[danoyse]

Well, another example about rising above the material would be The Boy From Oz...which was by no means a "great" musical. It was pretty good, better than I thought it would be, but it was nothing spectacular. However, Hugh's performance in that show was mind-blowing. I've been going to Broadway shows since the 80s and it was easily one of the best performances I've ever seen.

They actually closed the show down when he went on vacation rather than let the understudy go on, because no one wanted to see it if he wasn't there.

So Hugh is certainly capable of dealing with material that may not be as great as it should be. Whether someone likes it or not is another matter.

[not_a_victim]

yeah....I really don't see how Singer's sexuality has anything to do with his casting choices......or the quality of his films.

And for the record, my complaints about Jackman's portrayal have nothing to do with Jackman himself ( other than maybe becoming a bit too "complacent" in how he portrayed Wolverine in X3 and Origins. )

Jackman is not the one directing or writing the movies. The person I blame is.......Singer.
Singer is the one who chose to cast a tall actor ( be it Dougray Scott or Jackman ) to play Wolverine.

As a comparison, I like to bring up Watchmen. The character Rorschach is short in the original graphic novel ( he's like 5'6" or 5'7" I believe ). And his height is part of his character. He wears lifts as Rorschach and when the cops capture him and discover that, they make fun of him.

Well, when the director cast the movie Rorschach, who did he cast to play the character? A guy who his > 6'0"? No, he cast Jackie Earle Haley who is like 5'5" or 5'6". IOW....a short actor to play a short character.

And the general consensus seems to be that Jackie owned the role of Rorschach. He proved that you don't have to be typical tall and handsome to play a leading male role ( or a guy who kicks ass ).

THAT is what Wolverine should have been when X1 came out. The actor playing him should have demonstrated that you don't have to be tall to play the leading role or to be a kick ass character. That actor should have become the "face" of Wolverine ( and of the X-men movies ) just like Jackman did ( for better or for worse ).

And the actor doesn't have to be exactly 5'3" either. I say anything up to 5'9" would be acceptable, provided you cast taller male actors to play the other roles.

I mean, look at some 5'6" UFC fighters like Sean Sherk or Tyson Griffin. Those guys are not tall, but they're built like a ******* beast ( especially Sherk in the pics I've seen of him ). An actor of that height, with that build, would have been more appropriate for Wolverine than Jackman.

but.....alas....none of this came to pass. And that's because the director, Singer, chose to ignore that aspect of the character........

That's Singer's fault....not Jackman's.....

Two points about the bolded text above:
The scene that really brings this out in X3 is the scene where he is walking towards Dark Phoenix, and she is blasting his skin and muscle off his body, and he keeps moving forward...Wolverine would have been in an absolute raging frenzy if this had happen in the comics. He would have kept moving forward, but he would have been in a berserker rage when he finally got to her, not awed and fawning over her. If Jackman has any handle on the character, he would have known this, and played it that way.
Conversely, if the writer or director had any handle on the character, they would have written it that way. No one involved seems to have a real grip on the character of Wolverine.

[not_a_victim]

if an actor's ( or actress' ) performance can trump physical details, like height, then I propose the opposite scenario to the Jackman/Wolverine issue we're discussing.

If it's ok for a tall actor ( like Jackman ) to play a character that was originally created to be short ( like Wolverine ), would it then be ok for a short actor to play a tall character?

Let's say....the most iconic hero of them all.......Superman.

What would happen if, in the next Superman film, they cast a short-average height actor to play Superman. IDK.....someone who's 5'8".....or......gasp!......5'5".

Let's this actor, despite his height, looks the part physically and absolutely nails the role in his portrayal of both Clark Kent and Superman. He has great screen presence and chemistry with Lois, etc.

Let's also say the movie itself is great ( great story writing, great characterization, great action, etc. ).

IOW....all the stars align for the next Superman actor and movie.....well....except that the actor is short.

Would ppl readily accept him as the new Superman? Would ppl say "OMG....he's perfect for the role.....he's a great Superman.....I can't imagine anyone else playing the role!" (which alot of ppl are saying about Jackman playing Wolverine )?

Would ppl, in defending that casting choice, argue that "height doesn't matter" ( especially if we got a great actor who can act )?

Probably not.......

They would cry foul and immediately say that guy is too short for the role. Superman is supposed to be tall. That actor doesn't look the part, well, because he's too short!

Yet, for some strange reason, that doesn't seem to work in reverse.

We can't say Jackman doesn't look the part because he's a full 1 foot taller than what Wolverine is supposed to be without someone on the other side saying "height doesn't matter." Or, "Jackman makes a perfect Wolverine."

By that same logic, height shouldn't matter with Superman. After all, technically, his height really has nothing to do with his powers. A person of any size ( short, average, tall ) could have all the powers of Superman. If Superman did exist in the real world, there's no rule that says he HAS to be a tall guy.

Just like, a tall guy could have all of Wolverine's powers ( like Jackman in the movies ).

But, height does matter. The way a character looks does matter. Especially when you are dealing with a VISUAL medium like comic books. These characters were created, drawn, and written with a certain set of physical and personaliy traits. Espcially when they have a unique, recognizable look.

Superman is tall, muscular, square jawed, broad shouldered, etc. the "perfect" male physique.

Wolverine is short, stocky, and hairy......with a wild hairdo and a nasty personality.

that's how these characters were created, how they've been portrayed throughout all these years in their primary medium ( comic books ). that's their "image."

Having different eye color is not as important ( it can be easily changed ), unless it is absolutely essential to the character.

Height, however, is a trait that's not easily changed or fixed. And I'm not talking about a 2-3 inch height difference. I'm talking about a full foot.

Superman is supposed to be....what.....6'2"? Would a 5'2" actor play Superman?

No?

Then why should a 6'3" actor play a 5'3" character?

If Singer said that they tried to make Jackman look shorter in X1 but gave up because it was too much work or took too much time, then that means Singer was aware that Wolverine was supposed to be shorter. But he chose to not to include that aspect of the character because it was too much work and he didn't have enough time.

Well.....to that problem I have a very simple solution.

DON'T CAST SUCH A ******* TALL ACTOR!!

There, problem solved.

Much applause for this post. You have nailed the argument.
Look over at the Superman Returns/Reboot casting thread for a PRIME example of this. Several actors are named as ideas for Supes, but a LOT of them are jumped on as being too short, such as Matthew Bomer. (I know Bomer is listed as being 5' 11" on IMDB, but he is realistically arount 5' 9" tall.)

[Infinity9999x]

Two points about the bolded text above:
The scene that really brings this out in X3 is the scene where he is walking towards Dark Phoenix, and she is blasting his skin and muscle off his body, and he keeps moving forward...Wolverine would have been in an absolute raging frenzy if this had happen in the comics. He would have kept moving forward, but he would have been in a berserker rage when he finally got to her, not awed and fawning over her. If Jackman has any handle on the character, he would have known this, and played it that way.
Conversely, if the writer or director had any handle on the character, they would have written it that way. No one involved seems to have a real grip on the character of Wolverine.

....That's completely and utterly wrong. Have you read the original Phoenix saga? Wolverine, during a fight with Dark Phoenix, does finally get to Jean, he has her by the neck and has the opportunity to kill her, but he can't bring himself to do it.

Wolverine has been shown to control his rages with people he loves. My problem with the above mentioned scene is that IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN WOLVERINE. It should have been Cyclops. But this isn't Hugh's fault. It's the writing.

Secondly, he was too tall for the role, but they could have made him look shorter.

[not_a_victim]

....That's completely and utterly wrong. Have you read the original Phoenix saga? Wolverine, during a fight with Dark Phoenix, does finally get to Jean, he has her by the neck and has the opportunity to kill her, but he can't bring himself to do it.

Wolverine has been shown to control his rages over people he loves. My problem with the above mentioned scene is that IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN WOLVERINE. It should have been Cyclops. But this isn't Hugh's fault. It's the writing.

Secondly, he was too tall for the role, but they could have made him look shorter.

I'm not talking about once he GETS to her, I'm talking about rage fueling his ability to march forward through the pain of having his flesh stripped from his body. Unless I am mistaken, Wolverine's healing factor does not keep him from experiencing pain like anyone else.

[not_a_victim]

Looks like I need to type faster and stop playing princesses and Batman with my daughter between my posts...danoyse keeps saying stuff before me.

You better not EVER stop playing princesses and Batman with your daughter. My son is 10, and I'd give my right arm to be able to go back in time and play Legos and Hotwheels with him...he's past it now.

[LOBO3315a]

Here's where I think they went wrong with Wolvie's character: not enough kill shots. Wolverine should have so much blood and gore on him and body parts of his enemies laying around, that it should look like a scene from Shogun Assasin. I wonder how Quentin Tarantino would have directed the character?

[Infinity9999x]

I'm not talking about once he GETS to her, I'm talking about rage fueling his ability to march forward through the pain of having his flesh stripped from his body. Unless I am mistaken, Wolverine's healing factor does not keep him from experiencing pain like anyone else.

He was getting the crap kicked out of him by DP in the original saga as well. But that's the point. Wolverine has shown to control his rages when it involves the people he loves.

In the 4ish mini series by Claremont and Miller, Wolverine is in the midst of a beserker rage, and then he sees Mariko and it snaps him out of it.

[not_a_victim]

....That's completely and utterly wrong. Have you read the original Phoenix saga? Wolverine, during a fight with Dark Phoenix, does finally get to Jean, he has her by the neck and has the opportunity to kill her, but he can't bring himself to do it.

Wolverine has been shown to control his rages with people he loves. My problem with the above mentioned scene is that IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN WOLVERINE. It should have been Cyclops. But this isn't Hugh's fault. It's the writing.

Secondly, he was too tall for the role, but they could have made him look shorter.

Actually, you make my point for me.
He intended to kill her when he got there, just got cold feet ONCE HE WASN'T EXPERIENCING THE PAIN ANYMORE.

[truth]

Can we come into agreement after all these posts that Hugh Jackman needs to eject himself from the role and for someone better to come in?

I'm getting sick and tired of this whole "blame the script" argument. Let's put some blame on Hugh as well. Please.

[C. Lee]

Can we come into agreement after all these posts that Hugh Jackman needs to eject himself from the role and for someone better to come in?

I'm getting sick and tired of this whole "blame the script" argument. Let's put some blame on Hugh as well. Please.

I like Jackman in the role.

[K'Prime]

To be honest who cares if wolverine is 6'3?.I'm use to marvel having multiple universes and interpretations of characters.Making Nick fury Black in the Ulti universe allows Samuel Jackson to play him on the big screen so im good with it. its about being able to see the character.and lots of people saw wolverine in Jackman.Granted a taller more pretty boy interpretation of wolverine.but wolverine none the less

[ALittlePush]

I like Jackman in the role.

I agree.

[Infinity9999x]

Can we come into agreement after all these posts that Hugh Jackman needs to eject himself from the role and for someone better to come in?

I'm getting sick and tired of this whole "blame the script" argument. Let's put some blame on Hugh as well. Please.

No, because as I and others have stated multiple times, we don't think Hugh has done that bad. He was bad when the scripts were bad. In the first two movies he was fine. The only blame I'll give him is for X3, because he did have some power in terms of being a producer and possibly a writer. However, I have no idea how much he had.

But when he had good scripts, he gave a good performance. You didn't like it. That's fine. It's called an opinion. An opinion is not a fact, as you tried to state earlier in the thread. Everyone has one, and a few people have a contrary opinion to yours.

not_a_victim,

Earlier in your post you specifically said He would have kept moving forward, but he would have been in a berserker rage when he finally got to her, not awed and fawning over her.

I'm talking about once he actually gets to her. He wouldn't have been raging out when he got to Jean. And Wolverine has shown abilities to endure great amounts of pain without raging out. When he was "saving" Elsie Dee he was burned horribly by walking through a burning building and he didn't lose it.

It really depends on the situation. Against Jean, I don't think Wolverine would ever really go into a beserker rage, because he loves her.

However, I do agree that we needed to see more of Logan's struggle to control the animal inside him. But again, I blame that on the writers. We only really saw one time where Logan was able to go into "rage mode" and that was in X2. The Wolverine/Sabertooth battle in X1 would have been perfect for a full on animalistic brawl, but they didn't write it that way.

That was really my biggest complaint about the X-men series with Wolverine. The writers almost completley ignored the animal vs. man battle that goes on inside Logan. ...And then when they tried to do it in Origins, they just wrote it horribly.

[danoyse]

Can we come into agreement after all these posts that Hugh Jackman needs to eject himself from the role and for someone better to come in?

I'm getting sick and tired of this whole "blame the script" argument. Let's put some blame on Hugh as well. Please.

At what point did you draw the conclusion that we all agree with you now?

[truth]

Okay, I'll come at it in a different angle.


You won't meet many people who didn't like Keaton's Batman or Bale's Batman in Begins, TDK was a whole NOTHER ball game.

You won't meet many people that did not like Reeves's pefromance as Superman.

Those were all unanimously great or classic perfomances. Not fine, not average, but classic. Again, Keaton had SCRAPS in Batman but a lot of people still view him as Batman DESPITE Bale having a lot more lines and more to do.

All I have been hearing is that Hugh was fine, Hugh was okay, Hugh wasn't bad. Problem is, as this thread has shown, there are still people that really don't like what he has done with the character. They are people, like myself, who feel strongly for the character in the same way as Batman and Superman and just feel that someone else needs to come in right now to fix Wolverine and make him NOT fine, but make him great.

Fact is, with Hugh being lauded and praised so much with Yes-men around him, he won't dig deep to give a GREAT Wolverine. You need to get someone who is hungry and who will offer us a genuine Wolverine

[C. Lee]

I think Jackman was great as Wolverine. My wife thinks Jackman was great as Wolverine. My two brothers, thier wives, and thier collective kids thought Jackman was great as Wolverine. My friends and many other various relatives think Jackman was great as Wolverine.

The only people I have heard that complain about Jackman playing Wolverine are various people here at the Hype (not saying that only some people at the Hype complain, just saying that I don't go to other sites).

[danoyse]

Okay, I'll come at it in a different angle.


You won't meet many people who didn't like Keaton's Batman or Bale's Batman in Begins, TDK was a whole NOTHER ball game.

You won't meet many people that did not like Reeves's pefromance as Superman.

Those were all unanimously great or classic perfomances. Not fine, not average, but classic. Again, Keaton had SCRAPS in Batman but a lot of people still view him as Batman DESPITE Bale having a lot more lines and more to do.

All I have been hearing is that Hugh was fine, Hugh was okay, Hugh wasn't bad. Problem is, as this thread has shown, there are still people that really don't like what he has done with the character. They are people, like myself, who feel strongly for the character in the same way as Batman and Superman and just feel that someone else needs to come in right now to fix Wolverine and make him NOT fine, but make him great.

Fact is, with Hugh being lauded and praised so much with Yes-men around him, he won't dig deep to give a GREAT Wolverine. You need to get someone who is hungry and who will offer us a genuine Wolverine

I have twice seen Hugh Jackman on the street in New York when people on the same street have screeched "WOLVERINE!!!!" at the top of their lungs at the sight of him. They seemed to like him as Wolverine a lot.

You don't like him. And you're not the only one. And that's fine. But your opinion is not the only opinion, as demonstrated by this thread. And you haven't spoken to "everyone." Plenty of people do like him - and more than just "fine." You'll find a whole spectrum of opinions on the matter in many different places.

And there are plenty of people who didn't like Keaton as Batman. People actually protested the studio when he was cast. I hear people talking about him more as Ken in Toy Story 3 than I do as Batman anymore.

[truth]

I have twice seen Hugh Jackman on the street in New York when people on the same street have screeched "WOLVERINE!!!!" at the top of their lungs at the sight of him. They seemed to like him as Wolverine a lot.

You don't like him. And you're not the only one. And that's fine. But your opinion is not the only opinion, as demonstrated by this thread. And you haven't spoken to "everyone." Plenty of people do like him - and more than just "fine." You'll find a whole spectrum of opinions on the matter in many different places.

And there are plenty of people who didn't like Keaton as Batman. People actually protested the studio when he was cast. I hear people talking about him more as Ken in Toy Story 3 than I do as Batman anymore.


1. Can you please tell me who those people were that screamed "Wolverine!" I take it they were girls? IE, girls do screaming...not boys, I hope.

2. Yes, even I would have protested when he was CAST. But after, go on the Youtube sites and forums, people STILL see him as Batman. Don't know about the Toy Story thing as I am not really into those movies. I can GUARANTEE you that when people see him on the street, they won't refer to him as Ken but as Batman

[truth]

I think Jackman was great as Wolverine. My wife thinks Jackman was great as Wolverine. My two brothers, thier wives, and thier collective kids thought Jackman was great as Wolverine. My friends and many other various relatives think Jackman was great as Wolverine.

The only people I have heard that complain about Jackman playing Wolverine are various people here at the Hype (not saying that only some people at the Hype complain, just saying that I don't go to other sites).

You think he was "great"?

Let us put that word in context...great.

Reeve was GREAT as Superman. Nicholson and Ledger were GREAT as Joker. Snipes was GREAT as Blade. Great is when we are being objective now and NOT subjective. Great is when this is pretty universal and if you don't like it you are in a REAL minority or trying to prove a point.

You must give me a proper argument why you think Hugh was great. Not just your opinion or because you think so. If we have that argument then as this thread is titled, how can we fix Wolverine's character?

So, how was Hugh....GREAT....ie, comparable to Snipes, Reeve and co in their respected roles.

[C. Lee]

I can GUARANTEE you that when people see him on the street, they won't refer to him as Ken but as Batman
I would say Hi Beetlejuice.
You think he was "great"?

Let us put that word in context...great.

Reeve was GREAT as Superman. Nicholson and Ledger were GREAT as Joker. Snipes was GREAT as Blade. Great is when we are being objective now and NOT subjective. Great is when this is pretty universal and if you don't like it you are in a REAL minority or trying to prove a point.

You must give me a proper argument why you think Hugh was great. Not just your opinion or because you think so. If we have that argument then as this thread is titled, how can we fix Wolverine's character?

So, how was Hugh....GREAT....ie, comparable to Snipes, Reeve and co in their respected roles.First thing you need to understand...when talking about things such as an actor's performance...it all comes down to personal preference and opinion. I submit my opinions as opinions...whereas you submit yours as FACT and the TRUTH. With that said (and most likely not understood by you) I will submit my opinions.

Reeve was great as Superman. Nicholson was good as Joker. Ledger was great as Joker. Snipes was great as Blade in BLADE 1 & 2 but mediocre in BLADE 3. Keaton was great as Batman but fair to good as Bruce.

Why did I think Hugh was great as Wolverine? Well...he is so cute and adorable and has such a nice smile...just dreamy. In case you didn't understand that either...that was sarcasm, because of your propensity of asking people who say they like him if they are a girl. You're real subtle with that one.

I thought Hugh was great because to me he looked the part. He looks tough and rugged and dangerous. When he acts mad and loosens his claws he makes me believe that he is willing to with no hesitation rip someone to shreds. He's able to portray disgust, anger, humor, love, wonderment, etc like a great actor can. He has charm and looks dangerous.

[danoyse]

1. Can you please tell me who those people were that screamed "Wolverine!" I take it they were girls? IE, girls do screaming...not boys, I hope.

They were guys.

The first time was after a performance of The Boy From Oz on Broadway in 2004. We were across the street from the stage door after the show. We saw him walk out the door and stop to sign some autographs - that crowd was mostly female.

It was the group of guys who climbed up on the construction scaffolding just up the block (who clearly had not been at the Boy From Oz performance that had just ended) who all screamed "WOLVERINE!!!!!" at the same time, and repeatedly until Hugh finally waved at them with one hand while he was signing autographs with the other.

When he got in his car to go, he rolled down the window to wave at them again as they drove by - the guys on the scaffolding went nuts.

The second time was last year...I saw Hugh headed into the theater (he was doing a play with Daniel Craig called A Steady Rain). Much smaller crowd this time, no guys on scaffolding. I wasn't seeing the show that night, but I was just on my way home from work and caught a lucky break spotting Hugh on his way to work.

I hadn't even turned my ipod off, but I stopped for minute...since I don't always get to see Wolverine on my home from work...but as I was watching him say hi and sign some autographs, the guy behind me screamed "WOLVERINE!!!!" loud enough that I flinched.

And Hugh seemed pretty nice about it. That would have annoyed the crap out of me.

Never seen a woman scream "Wolverine!" at a stage door. Not even once.


2. Yes, even I would have protested when he was CAST. But after, go on the Youtube sites and forums, people STILL see him as Batman. Don't know about the Toy Story thing as I am not really into those movies. I can GUARANTEE you that when people see him on the street, they won't refer to him as Ken but as Batman

And I know people who still call him Mr. Mom. I don't see him solely as Batman, and I thought he was a really good Batman.

[Infinity9999x]

1. Can you please tell me who those people were that screamed "Wolverine!" I take it they were girls? IE, girls do screaming...not boys, I hope.

2. Yes, even I would have protested when he was CAST. But after, go on the Youtube sites and forums, people STILL see him as Batman. Don't know about the Toy Story thing as I am not really into those movies. I can GUARANTEE you that when people see him on the street, they won't refer to him as Ken but as Batman


Honestly, probably not. Keaton was a good Batman. I'll always love B89 because it was the first Batman related thing I saw. But people today, especially the younger generation, don't remember that movie. I have younger cousins in jr. high and high school. They didn't even know that Keaton was in a Batman movie.

Let us put that word in context...great.

Reeve was GREAT as Superman. Nicholson and Ledger were GREAT as Joker. Snipes was GREAT as Blade. Great is when we are being objective now and NOT subjective. Great is when this is pretty universal and if you don't like it you are in a REAL minority or trying to prove a point.

You must give me a proper argument why you think Hugh was great. Not just your opinion or because you think so. If we have that argument then as this thread is titled, how can we fix Wolverine's character?

So, how was Hugh....GREAT....ie, comparable to Snipes, Reeve and co in their respected roles

....all we're doing is discussing OPINIONS. Because that's all you can really say about a performance. Yes, there are technical aspects to acting that we could discuss, but nobody really gets down to that. Keaton being GREAT as Batman is just that, your OPINION. You haven't been stating anything other then opinions, so I find it funny that you expect others to do the opposite.

And I would like to point out that while Reeve was great as Superman, he was also HORRIBLE as Superman in a bad script. Hugh had average scripts. (In terms of Wolverine's character). The scripts barely delved into the dual nature of Wolverine, his sense of honor, and barely let him show any of his true beserker rages. That's not his fault. He did very well with what he had.

[Infinity9999x]

Well, if Aronofsky is directing, I'm somewhat more hopeful for this film. However, I'm worried on a few counts.

To fix Wolverine's character, we need to get him back to what made him popular to begin with. And that was when Claremont introduced his internal battle with his animalistic nature and his desire for peace and balance. The four issue mini series that Claremont wrote in the 80's is arguably one of the best stories to fully delve into Wolverine's struggle with this issue. It's also what this movie is based on.

However, unfortunately, the last Wolverine movie tried to make this a theme in their story...and almost completely failed. Simply because they failed to show Wolverine exhibit any uncontrolled or animal-like nature in the film. I'm worried that because they (poorly) explored the theme that is the central theme in the story they're basing this new film on, they may decide to ditch it, and try to come up with something new.

Which, in my opinion, would be horrible, but I have to admit that I'm pretty nervous about the possibility.

[icelemt38]

I think everyone keeps forgetting that from various articles so far(a few from Deadline and 1 from Roger Friedman) that it has been reported how different the Chris McQuarrie script is. And that is the sole reason this project has attracted so many high profile, great directors. Darren and Hugh have a relationship prior to this deal but I highly doubt Darren would even look at doing this movie unless it had a great script. It's been said multiple times by trustworthy sources that the script is excellent, and really different from the first movie as well.

And plus with a completely new premise and location, there's no need for continuity or anything, it's as if it's a brand new start.