how to fix wolverines character

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by truth

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]

Originally Posted by truth

^
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]

Originally Posted by truth

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]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

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]

Originally Posted by sabetoonth

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]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

i was exagherating with Sabretooth's height

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by sabetoonth

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]

Originally Posted by truth

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.