how to fix wolverines character

[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]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

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!!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by truth

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]

Originally Posted by truth

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by danoyse

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]

Originally Posted by truth

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.

Originally Posted by truth

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?

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]

Originally Posted by ALittlePush

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]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

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]

Originally Posted by truth

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!!

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]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.....

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]

Originally Posted by Infinity9999x

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.