The Finished/Theatrical Version Of WOLVERINE Has Been Seen!!

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by danoyse

It's funny to watch the looks on the faces of members of the general audience when you explain some of these fanboy grievances with them.

They look mostly like this:

and i roll my eyes when i hear ''men'' talking about their cars. how they are obssesed. i roll my eyes when i hear girls or women talking about clothes like its their world. i roll my eyes when i hear young kids talking how they are every weekend drunk and are on the floor.

its not like we are the only one on this world acting like this.

[Ace of Knaves]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Where is Wolverine being an "animal"? Where is Wolverine doing "terrible things" with Stryker?

Seriously, the biggest problem with this movie is how Wolverine was portrayed. Not Deadpool, not the parade of cameos, but taking comicdom's most famous anti-hero, who had been portrayed as an anti-hero in the previous films, and turning him into a boy scout.

This film wasn't about showing Wolverine as an animal. It was about showing him keeping his humanity, trying to live the quiet life. But with his brother and Stryker trying to drag him back in.

Chewy,

He does fight the "animal" but we don't see enough of the "animal" in the film to understand why he fights it. It's implied with the opening sequences the "kind of work we did together" but Wolverine actually does nothing in that sequence. But, you get the sense that he did a lot and had had enough.

But again, it's definitely not enough and a lot of that has to do with the fact that he's suppose to be the hero to the audience and the hero can't do gruesome things (via Hollywood). It contradicts the anti-hero he is in X-Men, X2, and I can't believe I'm saying this but some parts of X-Men The Last Stand.

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by The Ace of Knaves

This film wasn't about showing Wolverine as an animal. It was about showing him keeping his humanity, trying to live the quiet life. But with his brother and Stryker trying to drag him back in.

Yes, I know. And that is the problem.

There are very clear references to Wolverine doing "horrible things" in X2. In this, he does nothing violent unless provoked. It goes completely against his background in not only the comics, but the previous X-Men movies

Chewy,

You're correct. Again, it has nothing to do with Jackman's performance...but how he's written.

[katie_girl09]

Originally Posted by chaseter

That is the same logic as when someone says my vote doesn't count for elections. Think of how many people say that and what if they actually did something instead of just accepting the possibility that they don't matter?

Great movies can cater to both fans and the general audience.

Ummm... That isn't the same thing at all. I'm just pointing out the business angle of this whole thing. Even if the fans DO boycott the movie, its still going to do incredibly well without them because - wait for it -
they aren't the only ones watching and they are a sharp minority!

[Ace of Knaves]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Yes, I know. And that is the problem.

There are very clear references to Wolverine doing "horrible things" in X2. In this, he does nothing violent unless provoked. It goes completely against his background in not only the comics, but the previous X-Men movies

Well to be fair, they were never gonna make the lead protagonist a brutal killer in a pg-13 summer tent pole.

People need to realize that this film wasn't planned since X-2. Some of the stuff they did or mentioned in X-2 just wouldn't work in a pg-13 film like this.

I loved the brutal experiment flashback in X2, I would of loved it to be like that in this film. But a prolonged scene like that is just never gonna happen in a pg-13 film. It was ok as a quick glimpse, but prolonged? No chance.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by The Ace of Knaves

In your opinion it's mediocre. And I'm not talking about source material.

I'm talking about general audiences not giving one toss about most of the things complained about on here. And they won't.

Character development for example. Every single CAMEO CAMEO character had enough development apart from Wade Wilson.

Cheesy dialogue? Yea there was cheesy dialogue, but there was also some great dialogue. But I suppose that should just be ignored yea?

Plot holes? What plot holes? There isn't massive plot holes in this film. No more so than TDK.

Then everyone is a cameo but Wolverine and Sabretooth.

50% = mediocre. If the film has good dialogue and bad dialogue then that equals mediocre.

I can't list all the plot holes as they are spoilers.

It is my opinion that it is mediocre and I am taking my Last Stand against mediocrity. You yourself have said you were dissapointed but it doesn't matter so you will pay for it anyways...what wonderful rhetoric. Fans are a big part of the movie's box office because they pull in repeat viewings but this won't have good legs. If we all watched this the weekend after instead of opening weekend then it would send a message and yes we can affect the box office but not if you think your 10 dollars doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by danoyse

It's funny to watch the looks on the faces of members of the general audience when you explain some of these fanboy grievances with them.

They look mostly like this:

I have to agree. When I saw the first and second films, I knew nothing about the comics, so never missed anything. Years later, when trying to explain comics stuff to friends who still haven't read any, that was one of the reactions I got. The other was utter confusion. After all, there's over 40 years of history and background (not to mention the retcons) that can't be in the films. And then, there are the alternative futures and detailed parallel Earths. So what if the films set up a different universe to keep it simple? I thought there are thousands of parallel worlds in the M.U... As far as I can see, the movie universe is a just one of them.

This is so much like the LoTR films and the books. The films are fun when you're not trying to compare them to the books. If you do, you'll notice that some characters were robbed of all development, some were cut, some were changed nearly beyond recognition. Non-bookish fans never noticed. You didn't have to read the trilogy and the Silmarillion to understand it, either. That, or the arguments around the new Star Trek film. Some fans call it a crime against TOS - ignoring that it's not what the new film is trying to replace.

On a different note, I just can't imagine a Wolverine movie to be brainy. Sorry. It's got to be action. The next one's gonna be action, too. It's not The Dark Knight, and not Watchmen. It's Wolverine, he's great, but he's not the most sophisticated character out there (imho). I haven't seen it, of course, but that's what I'm expecting.

[calibud]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Where is Wolverine being an "animal"? Where is Wolverine doing "terrible things" with Stryker?

Seriously, the biggest problem with this movie is how Wolverine was portrayed. Not Deadpool, not the parade of cameos, but taking comicdom's most famous anti-hero, who had been portrayed as an anti-hero in the previous films, and turning him into a boy scout.

Yes. Bryan Singer did not have exploring Wolverine's past in mind at all. Otherwise he wouldn't have made him out to have had a violent, immoral life prior to his amnesia. I have no link for this...but I'm fairly sure he even mentioned when he was about to start pre-prod on X3 that Wolverine's past had been explored enough in the first two films. I thought X2 put a good cap on it.

The problem is that Wolverine is the only character proven (proven in terms of merchandise, etc. I'm not saying no other character is capable) to be able to have a successful film franchise and Fox need to cash in on his popularity while they can. You can't do that if you make Wolverine this deplorable, violent war vet who does Black Ops missions with a corrupt General. Of course, that's the film most of us wouldn't mind seeing. But that's also the film most parents don't want their kids reenacting at home.

From a story perspective, this film is like fitting a square peg into a round hole. It's heavily implied that Wolverine was a different person (not entirely, but still different) before X1. And technically they're still using the groundwork Bryan Singer laid down almost ten years ago. But he's still a reluctant hero with a heart of gold.

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by The Ace of Knaves

This film wasn't about showing Wolverine as an animal. It was about showing him keeping his humanity, trying to live the quiet life. But with his brother and Stryker trying to drag him back in.

thaaaaaaaaaaaats the problem for christ sake.

it was normal to show wolverine doing good things in the x-men movies. here he should be an ''nimal'' badass.


lets just stop talking around it. lets just say how it really is. FOX can not sell a badass wolverine movie to kids. at least this is what they think.
it should be a hard PG13 movie of wolverine being a badass mutherf....

[katie_girl09]

Originally Posted by LadyVader

I think it's reasonable to expect movies that cost S**TLOADS of money to be good. And a truly good movie will be an enjoyable experience for general audience and comic book geeks alike.

I'm just trying to be objective. I mean, most of the people on this forum who didn't like the workprint had a childish agenda against Fox to begin with. Wow! Duh, you didn't like it? Really?

Ace,

Then, it can't be a true prequel to X-Men and X2...so why make it all if you're going to contradict those films that set the stage for this film to even exist....

[Ace of Knaves]

Originally Posted by chaseter

Then everyone is a cameo but Wolverine and Sabretooth.

50% = mediocre. If the film has good dialogue and bad dialogue then that equals mediocre.

I can't list all the plot holes as they are spoilers.

It is my opinion that it is mediocre and I am taking my Last Stand against mediocrity. You yourself have said you were dissapointed but it doesn't matter so you will pay for it anyways...what wonderful rhetoric. Fans are a big part of the movie's box office because they pull in repeat viewings but this won't have good legs. If we all watched this the weekend after instead of opening weekend then it would send a message and yes we can affect the box office but not if you think your 10 dollars doesn't matter.

I said I'm disappointed about some aspects of the film, sure. But I'm not writing the film off. I think the good things outweigh the bad things. It really is as simple as that.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by katie_girl09

Ummm... That isn't the same thing at all. I'm just pointing out the business angle of this whole thing. Even if the fans DO boycott the movie, its still going to do incredibly well without them because - wait for it -
they aren't the only ones watching and they are a sharp minority!

It is exactly the same thing. A minority thinking they can't make a difference so they don't try.

calibud,

"From a story perspective, this film is like fitting a square peg into a round hole. It's heavily implied that Wolverine was a different person (not entirely, but still different) before X1. And technically they're still using the groundwork Bryan Singer laid down almost ten years ago. But he's still a reluctant hero with a heart of gold."

You can still do that with this film but get the fine details right so the three films (Wolverine, X-Men, and X2) fit right....otherwise, what's the damn point?

Again, it's not that hard. Bryan Singer made it pretty easy for the filmmakers.

[OoAnd1]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Where is Wolverine being an "animal"? Where is Wolverine doing "terrible things" with Stryker?

Seriously, the biggest problem with this movie is how Wolverine was portrayed. Not Deadpool, not the parade of cameos, but taking comicdom's most famous anti-hero, who had been portrayed as an anti-hero in the previous films, and turning him into a boy scout.

When he was with the Weapon X posse under Stryker. The mission we saw was his last mission with the group. When he noticed he wasn't an evil dude or a mercenary.

Should we have seen him do some bad stuff.. earlier missions.. sure, would have been great. But just because we only saw his last mission and not his first dozen or so doesn't mean they didn't happen or that he never did terrible things.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by katie_girl09

I'm just trying to be objective. I mean, most of the people on this forum who didn't like the workprint had a childish agenda against Fox to begin with. Wow! Duh, you didn't like it? Really?

That is childish to think that everyone that despises this film has an agenda If this film was good, it would get praises...not that hard. Critics will only further validate what a lot of us here were saying a month ago.

[Ace of Knaves]

Originally Posted by J.Howlett

Ace,

Then, it can't be a true prequel to X-Men and X2...so why make it all if you're going to contradict those films that set the stage for this film to even exist....

Well then doesn't it cross your mind that they never meant it as a TRUE prequel?

Seriously, what do people expect? The main protagonist running around slaughtering people like he did in the comics? In a pg-13 film? I wish.

[katie_girl09]

But voting is voting, so the comparison is kinda melodramatic (no offense). You vote just to make a difference and have your opinions heard. Not so for a movie where you go to be entertained. The sad reality of the situation though, is that even in voting, the majority still usually wins out.

[Ace of Knaves]

Originally Posted by chaseter

It is exactly the same thing. A minority thinking they can't make a difference so they don't try.

Well the minority won't make a major difference, not in terms of box office gross anyway. FACT.

Ace,

I'm not saying slaughter or anything of that nature. I'm talking fine story and visual details that could've been easily achieved. I mean, if someone watches Wolverine first, then goes to X-Men and X2 afterwords, the three film contradict themselves in some serious ways...if you're really paying attention.

And the reason this has to be considered a true prequel is because of the star....FACT.

If you had a different actor, we'd be having a totally different conversation.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by katie_girl09

But voting is voting, so the comparison is kinda melodramatic (no offense). You vote just to make a difference and have your opinions heard. Not so for a movie where you go to be entertained. The sad reality of the situation though, is that even in voting, the majority still usually wins out.

Then fire Rothman and hire Obama. He isn't doing so hot being pres right now so maybe the man could make some kick *** movies He was on the cover of Spider-Man so the dude loves superheroes!

[katie_girl09]

Originally Posted by chaseter

That is childish to think that everyone that despises this film has an agenda If this film was good, it would get praises...not that hard. Critics will only further validate what a lot of us here were saying a month ago.

Did I say that everyone who disliked the film disliked it for the same reason? No, I said most of the people. There's a difference.

[Ace of Knaves]

Originally Posted by OoAnd1

When he was with the Weapon X posse under Stryker. The mission we saw was his last mission with the group. When he noticed he wasn't an evil dude or a mercenary.

Should we have seen him do some bad stuff.. earlier missions.. sure, would have been great. But just because we only saw his last mission and not his first dozen or so doesn't mean they didn't happen or that he never did terrible things.

Yea I think they purposely left that to our imagination. I would of preferred to see him on another mission before that. But the dialogue alludes to Logan being a nasty piece of work, but also a bit like B.A Barracus