Days of Future Past Are you tired of Wolverine being overexposed?

[GuestStar2004]

the difference between jackman and RDJ is that yeah they are both popular characters and more time gets given to them but at the same time with RDJ they need to give him screen time worth him being involved because its a stunt man in the iron man suit pretty much most the time and you can't see his face so in the end its like they are doing half iron man and half RDJ and he doesn't want to just be a face on a screen pretending he is in the suit all the time he wants to do the physical stuff, and if you look at the way IM3 turned out you can see they gave him his wish... iron suits that work by themselves... yeah.. while with jackman his always on screen doing everything

In the end i still think they balanced it out better in the avengers

 

[gkokujin]

Wolverine was one of my favorite characters, but in the movies I am completely SICK of seeing him. I hate his movie version.

I hate Halle Berry's portrayal of Storm equally as much as I hate her movie character's version.

yeah...i feel that passionate.

 

[def28]

I'd love to see another solo moving forward from The Wolverine, especially if they get to bring Mariko and Yukio back. Not sure if that will happen at this point, but I'd love it. One of things I especially loved about this film was that it had some kickass female characters.

But DOFP already has a "getting the band back together" vibe going on, as it should, so it needs to involve everyone. Which I can't freaking wait for.

Agreed, Yukio has been the most ass kicking gal in the X-Men universe imo. I'm also glad they didn't kill Mariko. I think theres def more stories to tell with Logan, and I'll be there first line for another solo if they make it, but yeah it's time to remind audiences X-Men is an ensemble.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Imo X2 handled the characters better because each was sent in a mission, they had a purpose for what they did, except Cyke .

In Avengers they didn't have that until the final battle where each had a role to play.

i loved Yukio and hope she returns for another Wolverine sequel or X-Force.

but yeah it's time to remind audiences X-Men is an ensemble.

It's never not been an ensemble. The Wolverine solos aren't X-Men movies, the last main X-Men movie just two years ago. It's not so long that X-Men isn't viewed as an ensemble

 

[First Avenger]

i know many won't agree but i do think the avengers developed and balanced the characters out better then X2 did

Agreed.But X2 did a good job too,they are almost equal in my book.

 

[def28]

It's never not been an ensemble. The Wolverine solos aren't X-Men movies, the last main X-Men movie just two years ago. It's not so long that X-Men isn't viewed as an ensemble

Talking about the OT here. Been 8 years and he's the only one who's been relevant. I think alot of people will agree it's been The Wolverine show. It's a common complaint here. Even by die hard fans.

Logans one of my favorite X-Men, but I def want to see some of the other characters get some of the focus he's had and not be side players anymore.

i know many won't agree but i do think the avengers developed and balanced the characters out better then X2 did

I agree with this.

 

[SAUspartan]

Thats pretty much "Phineas and Ferb: Mission Avengers" fromwhat i've seen.

haha. True. It was titled Mission Marvel though. I watched it cause i was curious. Stan Lee was in it 3 times at least! haha.

It's obvious tho if Disney owned the rights to Wolverine that he likely would have been included so it's probably not fair for me to use the Avengers are overexposed as a retort cause obviously if they could have used Wolverine they would have.

 

[rory]

I disagree that X2 was all that balanced. Yes, characters like Xavier, Magneto, Mystique, Jean, Nightcrawler, Iceman, and Rogue all had little arcs and things to do (and, to a much lesser extent, Storm. Her and Cyclops really got the shaft and all the movies, no matter how much Halle was physically on camera). But Wolverine was needlessly inserted to the center of the plot for one reason: Stryker's role in his adamantium. This aspect wasn't in the comics and was created solely to give Wolverine something to do that was important to the film. To me, that's absolutely a trait of "overexposure."

Sure, I get that the filmmakers felt audiences needed answers about Wolverine's past, and his past is a big part of X-Men mythos. It still could have been done in a way that included everyone, a la the second Ultimate X-Men story arc.

As for Avengers, I never really saw it as the Tony show. Hulk and Black Widow got adequate development, and Captain America played a pretty big role and was the leader he was supposed to be. If anything, Avengers nailed the team dynamic X-Men should have had: yes, give your "most interesting" character a lot of screen time, but still have the leader be the leader. I feel the only ones who were shafted in Avengers were obviously Hawkeye and possibly Thor.

 

[def28]

Yeah, the thing for me was that I felt all The Avengers had very fulfilling screen time by the time it ended with pretty much all the characters. Maybe sould have had some more with Hawkeye but he was focused in on the end battle asolid amount. With X2 I wanted more Storm, Cyclops, Rogue and Iceman fighting as part of the team etc. Still were alot to be desired character wise for me.

For as many characters as it had X2 did a good job going back and forth, but I think at some point an effort has to made to focus a bit more on how the team works as a whole not separated.

 

[First Avenger]

I disagree that X2 was all that balanced. Yes, characters like Xavier, Magneto, Mystique, Jean, Nightcrawler, Iceman, and Rogue all had little arcs and things to do (and, to a much lesser extent, Storm. Her and Cyclops really got the shaft and all the movies, no matter how much Halle was physically on cmera). But Wolverine was needlessly inserted to the center of the plot for one reason: Stryker's role in his adamantium. This aspect wasn't in the comics and was created solely to give Wolverine something to do that was important to the film. To me, that's absolutely a trait of "overexposure."

Sure, I get that the filmmakers felt audiences needed answers about Wolverine's past, and his past is a big part of X-Men mythos. It still could have been done in a way that included everyone, a la the second Ultimate X-Men story arc.

As for Avengers, I never really saw it as the Tony show. Hulk and Black Widow got adequate development, and Captain America played a pretty big role and was the leader he was supposed to be. If anything, Avengers nailed the team dynamic X-Men should have had: yes, give your "most interesting" character a lot of screen time, but still have the leader be the leader. I feel the only ones who were shafted in Avengers were obviously Hawkeye and possibly Thor.

Thor got less dialogues but had lots of great action moments.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Well when you've got 9 teammates (X2) characters having them all together on screen at the same time would be ridiculously hard.

The Avengers had that one key scene of them all together back to back, other than that they also split into mini squads or solos and weren't all on screen foghtinh side by side.

I'd say the key difference between X-Men and Avengers on film, is X-Men is more about personal stories and Avengers is about big spectacle and conflict of egos.

 

[def28]

What are you talking about? It's not difficult to keep them together. Not that keeping them apart for a section is a horrible thing. Depends what script your telling. Theres' obviously a demand to see them fighting together more as a team. Are you saying they shouldn't or that it's impossible? It's kind of what X-Men do.

The Avengers had that one key scene of them all together back to back, other than that they also split into mini squads or solos and weren't all on screen foghtinh side by side.

They were all communicating and working together in the last battle pretty often. That whole movie is about becoming a team and working together.

 

[marcvader]

Well when you've got 9 teammates (X2) characters having them all together on screen at the same time would be ridiculously hard.

The Avengers had that one key scene of them all together back to back, other than that they also split into mini squads or solos and weren't all on screen foghtinh side by side.

I'd say the key difference between X-Men and Avengers on film, is X-Men is more about personal stories and Avengers is about big spectacle and conflict of egos.

The whole final battle had them working in a coordinated effort talking to each other all the while. The long shot showing each of them doing their thing exemplified that. They all had really heroic or iconic shots.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Sadly X-men 2 was a film where they had to write the leader (cyclops) out of the story because they either didn't know what to do with him or they just found he got in the way, which isn't how that character should be treated

And there is a similarity with cyclops being kidnapped and brainwashed and hawkeye being brainwash by Loki but I think hawkeye was better treated for it, perhaps they should have had cyclops do more after being brainwashed rather then just appear at the end and blast his gf

 

[marcvader]

Don't even remind me about Cyclops.

 

[The Batman]

I mean, when Zak Penn openly admits that Fox has purposely molded this franchise around Logan from the beginning, it's hard for me to act like these films are just as much an ensemble as "The Avengers" was.

The only reason I could see RDJ's Iron Man feeling as overexposed as Jackman's Wolverine is mainly down to RDJ playing stark 5 times within the span of 5 years.

Other than that? The MCU franchise has solo films devoted to other characters. The X Films have only had one film that didn't center around Logan, and they couldn't resist throwing in a cameo just to have Jackman in there.

Hawkeye didn't have much screentime in Avengers? Whedon's already talking about giving him and Black Widow strong screentime because the other guys have their own film. Cyclops dosen't have much screentime in X2? Let's not only kill off the character because the actor had the gall to work on his friend/colleague's film, let's have his undeveloped role as xavier's heir go to Ororo and let's have Logan take his role in the romantic component of the phoenix story.

And here's the best part....after having Logan be the lead in three x films and two solo's of his own...let's make him a central character yet AGAIN.

While most people here want Fox to do a bajillion films with the same old OT cast, I have to laugh. Because all that would mean is more films where Jackman is the leading man. It's not like they're gonna suddenly decide to focus on Storm when they have Jackman.

 

[The Batman]

I disagree that X2 was all that balanced. Yes, characters like Xavier, Magneto, Mystique, Jean, Nightcrawler, Iceman, and Rogue all had little arcs and things to do (and, to a much lesser extent, Storm. Her and Cyclops really got the shaft and all the movies, no matter how much Halle was physically on camera). But Wolverine was needlessly inserted to the center of the plot for one reason: Stryker's role in his adamantium. This aspect wasn't in the comics and was created solely to give Wolverine something to do that was important to the film. To me, that's absolutely a trait of "overexposure."

Sure, I get that the filmmakers felt audiences needed answers about Wolverine's past, and his past is a big part of X-Men mythos. It still could have been done in a way that included everyone, a la the second Ultimate X-Men story arc.

As for Avengers, I never really saw it as the Tony show. Hulk and Black Widow got adequate development, and Captain America played a pretty big role and was the leader he was supposed to be. If anything, Avengers nailed the team dynamic X-Men should have had: yes, give your "most interesting" character a lot of screen time, but still have the leader be the leader. I feel the only ones who were shafted in Avengers were obviously Hawkeye and possibly Thor.

Agreed.

I find that, on the X boards the only people claiming that the Avengers was about Iron Man are the ones who are generally annoyed that the X Films are rightly criticized for not doing team dynamics and character screentime as well as The Avengers.

 

[Angamb]

agree with both comments.

 

[Mars123]

Same so great comments hear and summarises foxs treatment of Logan and OT to the tee

 

[xrs13]

Agreed.

I find that, on the X boards the only people claiming that the Avengers was about Iron Man are the ones who are generally annoyed that the X Films are rightly criticized for not doing team dynamics and character screentime as well as The Avengers.

My opinion on the avengers being Tony stark centric is based on watching the film and seeing more time devoted to him than most. oh and also the fact that lets face it Ultron is going to be created through Iron man somehow in age of ultron, not because of being in denial about the x-men's treatment, and I personally feel that that exact reason you have just given is used by people who don't want to listen to anyones opinions but their own.

I hate x3 but you can't say that that film didnt have any team work just because it didnt have a huge action piece that allowed them all to be in different places at one time and communicate through headsets. X3 managed to bring in the danger room showing teamwork which foreshadowed the teamwork at the end of the film.

people see teamwork as "im speaking to you through a headset which must mean we all get equal time devoted to us" but in all honesty the avengers was an iron man and cap film. Thor was the storm of the avengers, Big special effects but little to say. Black widow was xavier, bringing the characters together by having connections to each and then doing something individually here or there, hawkeye was cyc as has been pointed out.

The two films are far more similar than you think but the difference is that the avengers characters had all been partially developed before they created the ensemble. Wolverine and Iron Man are both on par for being over saturated and I dont really care because I like both characters but it annoys me when people say x fans say it because they are basically in denial and I will voice my opinion on that.

 

[def28]

Yeah Cap, Iron man and Black Widow are all real close on screen time. And your right Cap does have the most, so the Stark has the most screen time claim is invalid.

 

[xrs13]

him and cap are apart by like 30 something seconds with cap having more, but my point is that he is still up there in screentime, you cant just say it doesnt count because of a 30 second difference when he also has 3 solo movies. my entire point wasnt that I am saying it is wrong it is that people shoot down the similarity between him and wolverine and use the "it isnt the same because the avengers was more of an ensemble".

If I feel like I see too much Iron Man (which I don't) it is my opinion and not something that I will be told is wrong - it would be nice to see who has more screentime in total in relation to iron man and wolverine .

And my point about The batman saying x-fans in denial is because he said "generally annoyed that the X Films are RIGHTLY criticized for not doing team dynamics and character screentime as well as The Avengers." Rightly means that someone else is wrong, and I am just pointing out it that "rightly" is just his opinion.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

X3 and First Class both had working together as a team final battles.

In X3 they strategised when tricking Magneto into focusing on one while Beast attacked and injected him with the cure.

In First Class Xavier guided Magneto to shaw. Beast battled Azazel and Mystique aided beast by tricking Azazel. Banshee helped Havok escape the soldiers and fought Angel.

As for the Iron Man/Wolverine debate... Iron Man had the most 'key' scenes in the movie, thats why people say it was Iron Man and the Avengers, and he's now taking the most significant contribution of Antman.

 

[xrs13]

I don't care what you were intending to do. Next time, don't put words in my mouth.

I think you will most likely find a lot of people have the same opinion that I do when you say

"I find that, on the X boards the only people claiming that the Avengers was about Iron Man are the ones who are generally annoyed that the X Films are rightly criticized for not doing team dynamics and character screentime as well as The Avengers."

I haven't put any words in your mouth.

By saying that statement you are saying people who share the same opinion about Iron man in the avengers are wrong because your opinion is that the x-men films are rightly criticized, but other people may disagree. Especially on a topic on the X-boards about an x-men character when there are other characters who have had just as much or more over exposure. People are allowed to make comparisons. If you were to make this thread on the avengers board about iron man I would bet someone says "well wolverine has had a lot so I dont see why its such a problem"

 

[def28]

him and cap are apart by like 30 something seconds with cap having more, but my point is that he is still up there in screentime, you cant just say it doesnt count because of a 30 second difference when he also has 3 solo movies.

It gets said all the time that Stark has the most screen time in Avengers and that's not true. Doesn't matter by how much, another Avengers member has the most screen time in that film and thats fact. I was not singling out your post, or discussing solos here.