Confession I have...Hugh Jackman was a horrible Wolverine...

[Hmarrs]

That's why i didn't wanna talk about it because everyone already knows X3 is crap and makes Wolverine the leader.

Gosh how I hated it that it felt so dangblasted forced!!I was lik alright already with the Wolverine thing it was getting shoved down my throat.I like the X-men oh yeah there is a whole team here being ignored.The killed any build up between him and Scott that they were just touching on in the first film.Any real exploration of Weapon X they were aiming for in second one.It was just a mess to me.I personally think Wolverine should have come in around the third film after you build up Scott and the first group and his relationship to Jean.Wolverine origin was really Wolverine 4!!!!

Not really. The only thing that stands out is the height, and that could have been fixed with some clever camera work by Singer...he just apparently didn't want to put the effort in..

I agree on that he did do a fine job in the first film but then I have to agree it kind of goes flat after the truck explosion or after his confrontation with the X-men in the mansion.I only really had a problem with his hieght at that point.

Other then that, Jackman's been fine. My biggest complaints with his Wolverine come from the writing, not anything he's done.

I agree and disagree.yes this may be true of the writing.However Hugh was given more and more control and say and had a big part in where and what over the character as the character evolved.So yes it does wind up being his fault as well.But then he doesn't know better really.
So yes and No!!!!On your statement.

 

[MilkmanDan]

But the first two X-Men movies (i.e. the very good ones)? He nailed the character. To say otherwise is nitpicking.

I disagree. It's more of a conflict of different interpretations of the character. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with this "Han Solo"-version of Wolverine, it's just not how I see the character. I kind of feel about it the way many of you feel about Logan in X3 and "Origins". Like it's watered down and generic. Of course, there has been plenty of interpretations of the character in the comics over the years, so no one version is the only correct one.

 

[Hmarrs]

This is Wolverine...

...whereas - hah! - this really isn't.

Question why does he look like a Wolverine in one and a Jack Rabbit in the other!!!!

 

[TheFuture]

My problem with Hugh Jackman is that he personifies Hollywood's insistence that only pretty boys can handle carrying a movie to a good box office return. Wolverine is an ugly, agressive and short little runt. Jackman's Wolverine is a physically perfect, somewhat agressive and crying tall adonis. I hated watching him because again, he personifes everything I hate about Hollywood; even if the source material clearly dictates that you cannot do something, the suits go ahead and do it anyway.

 

[LostSon88]

I think Hugh Jackman rocked as Wolverine...HOWEVER, I will say that they did soften up the character as the films went on.

His introduction in X1 was perfect. If they had Logan maintain that same attitude throughout the film series, I don't think this thread would exist.

[YT]o9RNjd918tQ[/YT]

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I think Hugh Jackman rocked as Wolverine...HOWEVER, I will say that they did soften up the character as the films went on.

His introduction in X1 was perfect. If they had Logan maintain that same attitude throughout the film series, I don't think this thread would exist.

[YT]o9RNjd918tQ[/YT]

It wouldn't exist. Imo this thread exist only because of Origins and X-3. When there are bad films in a series, it also brings down all the film within a series in a way. If this was 9 years ago, no one would even be questioning Hugh Jackman.

A bad film always highlights the flaws a series got away with in earlier films. Like was said before, the problem with Wolverine was that they made him a leader and FOX played it safe with him. Not many beserker rages, becoming a softer character, and the lack of killing were flaws that were not Jackman's fault at all. They were FOX's fault, and the creative teams fault.

I believe, and TheFuture proved my point, is that people can't get past the fact that a pretty boy nailed the role of Wolverine.

 

[C. Lee]

I believe that people can't get past the fact that a pretty boy nailed the role of Wolverine.

That's my thoughts too. Wolverine may be short and not handsome in the books....but that in no way made his performance bad for me.

 

[LostSon88]

Same...it didn't bother me one bit that Logan was actually taller than Cyclops. Lol.

Some fanboys just to seem to have it in for 'pretty' boys...

 

[roach]

I never thought of Logan as an ugly guy...has to be a reason Jean's attracted to him and he seems to have a rep with the ladies...John Byrne didnt draw him ugly

 

[S. Grundy]

.....

 

[DACrowe]

I don't know what y'all are talking about this video of Jackman simply screams Wolverine:

That's my Wolverine.

Seriously, I love that Jackman is a perfect song-and-dance gentleman who has more versatility than probably any actor to play a superhero to date (though you could make a strong argument for Downey against that). Truly a remarkable showman who despite being handsome, six feet tall and unsurpassed in his ability for high-kicks, owned the angry little runt X-Man. At least in the first couple of films.

 

[Doc Ock]

I loved Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, to me he IS the only Wolverine. But the actual character isn't that impressive to me because of how much he is overused throughput the comics.

 

[sabetoonth]

i like Jackman as Wolverine and i think he did a fantastic job, you cant blame bad writing and bad direction or bad procustion on the actor

 

[TheFuture]

That's my thoughts too. Wolverine may be short and not handsome in the books....but that in no way made his performance bad for me.

The way the likes of yourself go on you'd swear people were being irrational for wanting something that is accurate to the source material.

His performance wasn't bad, but to me it wasn't truly Wolverine, it was just a generic sarcastic action guy role to me.

 

[MilkmanDan]

Double post.

 

[MilkmanDan]

It wouldn't exist. Imo this thread exist only because of Origins and X-3. When there are bad films in a series, it also brings down all the film within a series in a way. If this was 9 years ago, no one would even be questioning Hugh Jackman.

---

I believe, and TheFuture proved my point, is that people can't get past the fact that a pretty boy nailed the role of Wolverine.

Yes, and no. Jackman was extremely entertaining and charismatic in the first two movies and people liked watching him play the role. (Not that he wasn't charismatic in the last two movies as well, but the movies themselves weren't that good.) However, even 9 years ago, there were fans who didn't think Jackman's Wolverine was an accurate rendition of how they saw the character. It was a well-done, rightfully star-making role and I think we all enjoyed it. But whether or not Jackman "nailed" the role in terms of faithfulness to the feel of the character from the comics is debatable and was debated even then.

I never thought of Logan as an ugly guy...has to be a reason Jean's attracted to him and he seems to have a rep with the ladies...John Byrne didnt draw him ugly

Not ugly, as such. But I think ideally he should look weather-beaten, rough and attractive in an unconventional, rugged sort of way.

 

[TheFuture]

I believe, and TheFuture proved my point, is that people can't get past the fact that a pretty boy nailed the role of Wolverine.

I have no problem with pretty boys once the role calls for a pretty boy. It's when Hollywood suits hire pretty boys for roles that are meant for battle-ravaged looks that gets on my nerves.

He didn't nail anything either. I see the 90s animated series as the definitive take on Wolverine, and Jackman was nothing like that.

 

[X Knight]

I agree with this thread. Although I wouldn't say Jackman was a "horrible" Wolverine, he was totally a "miscast" Wolverine.

True, Jackman's performance seemed to get progressively worse as the series moved forward, but I actually felt that way about all the characters ( and the movies ) as a whole.

I blame the director, Singer, not Jackman.

Simply put, Jackman should NEVER have been considered for the role in the 1st place.

You do NOT look for tall, 6 ft and up, actors to play a character who is SHORT and 5'3", IF YOU WANT TO STAY FAITHFUL TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL!

It's the same reason why you wouldn't hire a short, 5'3" actor to play Superman, no matter how much that actor "nails the appearance." Heck, you go to any Superman casting thread, and they consider actors who are 5'10" as "too short" for Superman.

By that standard, Jackman was way "too tall" for the role.

If Singer really wanted to, he coud have found a shorter actor to play Wolverine.

Case in point......Rorschach. In the Watchmen graphic novel, his height is given as 5'6" or 5'7". IOW....he's not that tall, and his height shapes his character. When Snyder cast Watchmen, did he choose some tall, "pretty boy" actor to play Rorschach? No, he chose Jackie Earle Haley, who's short, around 5'6" or 5'7", like Rorschach.

At most, a Wolverine actor should be about 5'8" to 5'9", and you cast taller actors for the other roles ( like Cyclops ). Wolverine should NOT be the tallest guy in the group ( see the Team X group shots in Origins ). He should NOT be as tall, or even taller, than Sabertooth ( again....see Origins ).

Wolverine is short. He's the "runt" of the pack. That's part of who he is and what defines the character.

Jackman should never have been cast in the 1st place.

 

[david icke]

Wolverine is short. He's the "runt" of the pack. That's part of who he is and what defines the character.

so wrong, logan might be short in the books, but he is not the 'runt of the pack', he is the alpha male of the group, his size does not define his character. his temprament defines him, his struggles between the man and the beast inside himself.
the 'runt' thing does lend itself to some nice dialogue here and there in the books, eg there is a great speech he gives at the end of 'black shadow/white shadow' that touches on being the runt, but, for the most part, the speech is about overcoming overwhelming odds and never giving up, and does not have to have come from a shorty to be effective.
edit: the 'runt' aspect is a great framing device for this particular kind of speech, but, at the end of the day, there is nothing in the whole story that would have changed if he had been tall or of average height.

i don't think his height has much bearing on the character ultimately, if someone wants to step forward and give an example of a defining wolverine story that could never have worked without him be a shorty, i would be happy to be proved wrong.
but even if this 'short story' exists, it does not negate the fact that you could take just about any wolverine story, change it to the fact he was of average height, and nothing would be lost from the tale's telling.

 

[Hmarrs]

I don't know what y'all are talking about this video of Jackman simply screams Wolverine:

That's my Wolverine.

Seriously, I love that Jackman is a perfect song-and-dance gentleman who has more versatility than probably any actor to play a superhero to date (though you could make a strong argument for Downey against that). Truly a remarkable showman who despite being handsome, six feet tall and unsurpassed in his ability for high-kicks, owned the angry little runt X-Man. At least in the first couple of films.

Well now wait a second thats debateable:Why?Because while Downey is good he is playing a character who plays the hero:Tony Stark while Jackman is playing the hero himself.So while Downey is one heck of a Tony Stark.Jackman is one heck of a Wolverine.

 

[Hmarrs]

While he may have wound up being a watered down version of himself.To a point where Jackman was no longer playing Wolverine but playing Jackman playing Wolverine.
I can never forget that first scene in the cage,or when he cuts off the rifle barrel.To the point where he confronts Sabertooth in the Snow.I could not shake the feeling of Dejavu,Where I keep asking Myself where have I seen this before.That and a sense of surealism as I watched the same feeling I felt when I watched the Hulk jumping in the desert in the first Hulk.So while he may have fallen away after that.I can say for me he Nailed it and was dead on it at least for the first half of X-men 1.
I think that first half is undisputable.

 

[david icke]

While he may have wound up being a watered down version of himself.To a point where jackman was no longer playing Wolverine but playing jackman playing Wolverine.
I can never forget that first scene in the cage,or when he cuts off the rifle barrel.To the point where he confronts Sabertooth in the Snow.I could not shake the feeling of Dejavu,Where I keep asking Myself where have I seen this before.That and a sense of surealism as I watched the same feeling I felt when I watched the Hulk jumping in the desert in the first Hulk.So while he may have fallen away after that.I can say for me he Nailed it and was dead on it at least for the first half of X-men 1.
I think that first half is undisputable.

yeah, i could not believe how much he/they nailed the character when i saw that movie. it *was* eerie. i couldn't stop watching my bootleg tape of x-men when i got one, i drove my flatmates mad putting on the bar scene everytime i got drunk(which was a lot, lol). the first movie still amazes me to this day, i never thought we'd ever get our comics adapted so well.

 

[DACrowe]

The way the likes of yourself go on you'd swear people were being irrational for wanting something that is accurate to the source material.

His performance wasn't bad, but to me it wasn't truly Wolverine, it was just a generic sarcastic action guy role to me.

But he was close to the source material, at least in the first two films. I agree in X3 and the Wolverine spin-off they turned him into a generic Hollywood action hero, but in the two Singer films, they nailed the character.

Your obsession with height is incredibly nitpicky. Nailing the character in source material is getting an actor who completely is that character and just doesn't look exactly like him. Russell Crowe was amazing as Bud White in LA Confidential, but should he have not been cast because Bud White was a foot taller and about 50 pounds of muscle stronger in the book?

It is great casting. Being six feet tall as opposed to five should not be a disclaimer for being inaccurate to the source material. It is a superficial detail.

 

[sabetoonth]

i agree the height is a stupid reason to say an actor is wrong for the role

 

[X Knight]

^well, if height is not an important factor, then would you be perfectly fine if a short/average height actor was cast as Superman or Batman or some other "tall" hero, even if that actor was amazing and perfectly nailed every other aspect of the character?

Or, how bout a 5'6" actor playing Sabertooth? again, say that actor perfectly nailed the personality of Sabertooth and all other aspects of the character. Would fans cry foul that he's "too short" for the role?

If height is not that big of a deal, then it should be perfectly fine for short actors to play tall characters, and tall actors to play short characters, provided the actor is "right" for the role in all other aspects.

otherwise, it's a double standard.