how to fix wolverines character

[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]

Originally Posted by WolverineXtreme

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by not_a_victim

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]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

....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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by not_a_victim

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]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

....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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

I like Jackman in the role.

I agree.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by danoyse

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by truth

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.

Originally Posted by truth

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]

Originally Posted by truth

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]

Originally Posted by truth

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.