![]() |
|
|
#276 | |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 8,417
|
Quote:
But yeah, an R-rated Fincher on Wolverine would be amazing. But to be honest, I don't think you have to have an R rating for a Wolverine movie to be good. I mean, certain parts of his origin call for it, but a creative director could get around it.
__________________
my veiws on Raimi's Spider-man Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
X-men Short film: http://vimeo.com/41530049 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#277 | |
|
Galactic Crusier
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Multiverse
Posts: 5,761
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#278 |
|
New User - Level 0
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1
|
In my opinion, the reason Hugh Jackman was a bad choice for the Wolverine role follows the same inescapable logic for the character demanding an "R-Rating" to do such a film true justice.
Wolverine was not written to fit the 'mold' of a typical clean-cut superhero. In fact, I believe he was originally written as a villain and just got popular enough to gain superhero status. Wolverine was conceived as being short, stocky, hairy, angry and vicious - like the animal (and hence his name!). These are his defining characteristics as a character and to alter any of them would be to destroy the essence of who he is. Wolverine is angry for a lot of reasons. His life has been defined by tragedy and pain. He is not what most people would consider classically attractive or physically imposing and therefore does not immediately get the girl or intimidate his enemies at first glance. He smokes, drinks, curses and kills - this is not a guy you'd want to take home to meet the folks. The problem with Hollywood is that they want to make him acceptable to a mainstream audience. Let's look at the key criteria Hollywood demand for all their heroes: 1. Tall - The whole point of Wolverine's character is that he's always underestimated by his enemies who don't know him. They just see a feral 'runt' standing in front of them who doesn't look like much. A lot of people might argue that he can't be taken seriously as a threat to the villains if he stands several feet shorter than them. Ummmm...this is why he was written with regenerative powers and an Adamantium skeleton/claws!!!! It doesn't matter how short he is because he'll just cut any enemy down to his own size. He may not be the most powerful mutant, but he is certainly the most tenacious. You can knock him down over and over and he'll just get up and keep on coming at you until he eventually wears you down. 2. Attractive - I agree that Hugh Jackman bears some basic resemblance to Wolverine as drawn in the comics, but he's an idealised 'Hollywood' version. I felt the same way when they cast Thomas Jane as the Punisher. He didn't have a hard enough face to sell the harsh, brutal and traumatic life he had lived. Thomas Jane and Hugh Jackman are pretty boys trying to pass themselves off as the grisled, battle-damaged veterans that Wolverine and the Punisher are by working out in the gym a bit, growing some facial hair and frowning a lot. I actually felt Ray Stevenson was an example of decent casting as Frank Castle in the remake and the "R-Rating" was perfect too (shame about the film overall!). I get the idea that Wolverine in the comics doesn't automatically draw the attention of the ladies and that any attraction they develop for him is built on their uncovering of the man beneath his unconventional appearance and salty demeanor (think Beauty and the Beast) and not because he's been cast with a heart-throb actor. My final complaint is that Wolverine's voice is best when it's really gravelly and deep. Hugh Jackman did a passable job, but in the end he was trying to growl in a tone he just doesn't have. I accept that Hollywood need to 'sugar' up their superhero characters and franchises for the mass market. Take the new Star Trek film - It's exciting, sexy, action-packed, epic and funny......but fundamentally it's NOT REALLY Star Trek in spirit any more. It's a crowd-pleasing sci-fi movie that's given itself the Star Trek label but lost a lot of the underlying philosophy and ideas that made Star Trek what it is (was). But this is a totally different conversation... |
|
|
|
|
|
#279 |
|
DESI
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,569
|
Who could be the new Wolverine any choices please not Tayler Lautner!!
__________________
Summer 2013: Iron Man 3 8.5/10 Star Trek Into Darkness 9/10 Fast And Furious 6 7.5/10 Hangover III 5/10 Man of Steel 8/10 The Wolverine |
|
|
|
|
|
#280 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US
Posts: 925
|
watch leverage, dude playing Elliot, all I have to say in a re-cast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#281 |
|
New User - Level 0
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1
|
i think they should let wolverine display some of his martial arts skills instead of the usual beserker rage. i mean he has mastered every martial arts known to man you would think he would at least use some of his amazing skills
|
|
|
|
|
|
#282 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gamma Quadrant
Posts: 2,059
|
Christian Kane! He was also on Angel as one of Angel's main antagonists. He's good, sings well too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#283 | |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 19,139
|
Quote:
hugh imo is an oscar caliber actor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#284 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gamma Quadrant
Posts: 2,059
|
I wouldn't want Hugh to be replaced, they just need to use movie magic to make him appear shorter. And write him as an anti-social violent dude like he was in the first X-Men
|
|
|
|
|
|
#285 | |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,471
|
Quote:
But I honestly don't think Jane was a pretty boy, to me had more of an old school quality like Steve McQueen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#286 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,471
|
At this point though, with four (soon to be five) movies, what's the point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#287 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,208
|
Stop making him crack jokes. He can have funny one-liners but make sure it is DEADPAN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#288 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: in a house
Posts: 2,309
|
why would you need an oscar worthy performance from Wolverine?
__________________
If you are offended, remain offended. |
|
|
|
|
|
#289 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 19,139
|
i hate that mentality so you just want to settle with an alright tv actor to replace hugh freaking jackman
it is like rebooting batman with david boreanaz when we just had christian bale |
|
|
|
|
|
#290 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US
Posts: 925
|
An Alright TV actor, you mean like that average dude named Christopher reeve, the best super man to date and likely ever?? Give an actor the right director and you don't know what kind of performance you might get, but I can guarantee one thing. Kane would give you a believable angry beast of a man for more than one scene a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#291 |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 19,139
|
chris reeve was a Julliard graduate and theatre actor(much like jackman) not really the same as a passable tv actor
|
|
|
|
|
|
#292 | |
|
Side-Kick
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: in a house
Posts: 2,309
|
Quote:
![]() Halle Berry won an oscar. She was also Storm. Your argument is invalid.
__________________
If you are offended, remain offended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#293 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 401
|
Well for starters....."King Hippo" isn't a Mutant.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|