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

[TheFuture]

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.

It's not just the height, it's the facial features. I think Kurt Russell in death proof had the facial features that say Wolverine. Jackman and his lineless perfect face do not say Wolverine.

Jackman was decent in X1 and X2 but as I said, Wolverine to me is the character I watched every week during the 90s. That raw and pure anger just jumped off the screen, even though it was just a cartoon you could feel the pure feralness of the character. That to me is Wolverine. I didn't feel overwhelmed by Jackman's portrayal, which you should be, you should be overwhelmed by the pure animal nature of Wolverine. All we got was a sarcastic and moderately pissed off Wolverine.

The Hollywood suits knew they wouldn't be able to build the X-men franchise around Wolverine if he was portrayed as his true animal self. God forbid the women wouldn't dig that.

 

[DACrowe]

^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.

Depending on the actor...sure. Why not? While I think Christian Bale is the best Batman to date, easily, Michael Keaton had the most presence in the costume and was far more intimidating with his stares and poses when he was, what 5'10?

Liev Schrieber was awesome as Sabretooth, even if that movie sucked. He was Creed. By your incredibly superficial logic, Tyler Mane was better in the role because he was taller, harrier and more muscular.

It is so shallow to write off Jackman due to height and to me is a complaint on par with many a fanboy cliché. The actor nailed the role so well, people still love seeing him play the part, even if the movie sucks. He got Logan in a nutshell, in my opinion.

 

[david icke]

^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.

no, i disagree, no double standard at all, it depends on the superhero they are representing.

with batman, i prefer a well built guy in the role, why? because he has no superpowers, so for me i prefer that the guy looks like he can handle himself in a fight with more than one opponent at a time.
i was able to put up with keaton's stature as he had other qualities, but i never loved the guy in the role, and when he did his own stunts in br, the fights looked ridiculous.

with wolverine it doesn't matter if he is short or tall, he has superpowers to help him fight.

with superman, i think he has to be tall, he has to carry a certain air about him, he has to embody that ultimate man physicality, and that is basically tall, dark, muscular and handsome, it's all in the name.
folk would joke about the 'S' standing for shortypants man if he were looking up at lois' chin.

and that's why i asked for someone to come forward with a convincing reason as to why logan should be short, and how that would have a bearing on the story. i would like to hear a reason why he can't work the same at average height.

 

[sabetoonth]

^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.

some characters height is an isusue, because Superman is not short, no portrayl has had him short, hes superman is has to be the perfect man, which by modern deifinition is tall muscular and good looking.

and if a5'6'' guy was sabretooth ,they could lift his shoes, like with RDJ as Tony Stark or cam tricks, Sabe is a big guy, he cant be shorter then Logan, because hes suposed to be the big guy that can whoops Logan but stil get whooped BY Logan.and even if height did matter on film, their are camera tricks to make them look right, i mean hell they made Michael Clark Duncan even taller in DD that way

 

[X Knight]

no, i disagree, no double standard at all, it depends on the superhero they are representing.

with batman, i prefer a well built guy in the role, why? because he has no superpowers, so for me i prefer that the guy looks like he can handle himself in a fight with more than one opponent at a time.
i was able to put up with keaton's stature as he had other qualities, but i never loved the guy in the role, and when he did his own stunts in br, the fights looked ridiculous.

with wolverine it doesn't matter if he is short or tall, he has superpowers to help him fight.

with superman, i think he has to be tall, he has to carry a certain air about him, he has to embody that ultimate man physicality, and that is basically tall, dark, muscular and handsome, it's all in the name.
folk would joke about the 'S' standing for shortypants man if he were looking up at lois' chin.

and that's why i asked for someone to come forward with a convincing reason as to why logan should be short, and how that would have a bearing on the story. i would like to hear a reason why he can't work the same at average height.

well, I respectfully disagree.

As you said, Wolverine has powers, so it doesn't matter how tall he is. Well, Superman has powers, too. By that argument, then it shouldn't matter if Superman is tall or short.

But, you then said, I think Superman has to be tall.....to embody ultimate man physicality.....to fit the name "Super"man.

I agree. That's why I feel Wolverine should be short/average ( < 6 ft ). As you said, it's all in the name.

Why did his creators name Wolverine, well, Wolverine? Why did they create Wolverine to be a short, stocky, gruff, savage man, as opposed to
typical male hero mold as Superman ( tall, buff, and handsome )?

Wolverine's creators made a conscious design choice to create Wolverine the way they did. They wanted to evoke/embody the nature of the animal wolverine. And wolverines are small, nasty creatures, with short stocky legs but "muscular" bodies, that challenge much larger opponents.

So, IMO, size/height is a defining characteristic of Wolverine.

It's not just his powers that define him. It's his savage/feral nature, his loner attitude, and....his height.

 

[X Knight]

some characters height is an isusue, because Superman is not short, no portrayl has had him short, hes superman is has to be the perfect man, which by modern deifinition is tall muscular and good looking.

and if a5'6'' guy was sabretooth ,they could lift his shoes, like with RDJ as Tony Stark or cam tricks, Sabe is a big guy, he cant be shorter then Logan, because hes suposed to be the big guy that can whoops Logan but stil get whooped BY Logan.and even if height did matter on film, their are camera tricks to make them look right, i mean hell they made Michael Clark Duncan even taller in DD that way

Well, again, this is why I feel there's a double standard.

You say Superman is NOT SHORT. That's true. Superman is tall, and everyone accepts that.

However, why can't the same be said of Wolverine? Wolverine is NOT TALL. He's short. Look at the comics. He's 5'3". In the Ultimate universe, I believe he was listed as 5'9". His son Daken is listed as 5'9".

So....in the original source material ( the comics )...Wolverine is NOT TALL. He's short/average height.

Up until the movies with Jackman, Wolverine was never portrayed as being tall. Even in the 90's animated show I remember Wolverine was short. Don't know if he was exactly 5'3", but he was definitely NOT TALL.

Why is it ok to say with Superman, yes he has to be big and tall. With Batman, yes he has to be big and tall. With Sabretooth, he has to be big and tall, and bigger than Wolverine?

But, with Wolverine, we can't say.......he has to be short/average height?

 

[david icke]

well, I respectfully disagree.

As you said, Wolverine has powers, so it doesn't matter how tall he is. Well, Superman has powers, too. By that argument, then it shouldn't matter if Superman is tall or short.

But, you then said, I think Superman has to be tall.....to embody ultimate man physicality.....to fit the name "Super"man.

I agree. That's why I feel Wolverine should be short/average ( < 6 ft ). As you said, it's all in the name.

Why did his creators name Wolverine, well, Wolverine? Why did they create Wolverine to be a short, stocky, gruff, savage man, as opposed to
typical male hero mold as Superman ( tall, buff, and handsome )?

Wolverine's creators made a conscious design choice to create Wolverine the way they did. They wanted to evoke/embody the nature of the animal wolverine. And wolverines are small, nasty creatures, with short stocky legs but "muscular" bodies, that challenge much larger opponents.

So, IMO, size/height is a defining characteristic of Wolverine.

It's not just his powers that define him. It's his savage/feral nature, his loner attitude, and....his height.

yeah, but you have still not explained any reason why he could not work as a tall feral man, apart from the cosmetic nature of his name.

i explained why superman would look ridiculous as a short man, you have not explained why wolverine looks ridiculous as a guy of tall/average height.

simple answer is: he doesn't

edit: the iconography is different for each character, wolverine can survive the height difference change, he still has his feral hairdo with the sharp points and the sideburns, the claws, the cigars etc

all superman has is his 'S' symbol and his cape, he is a walking symbol, he is a billboard for goodness and safety. He needs to be a big guy for that outfit to have impact, if you made him a smaller man it would be like reducing his symbolism to an ad on a bus shelter , as opposed to a billboard.

 

[C. Lee]

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.

Uh....go back and re-read the post I made that you quoted. Your response to it makes it sound like I was ranting and raving....all I did was agree with another poster that we both think some people here are jealous of Jackman because he is handsome.

Wanting something that is accurate to the source material is one thing (and something that most people want)......but I have to say from my readings of the HYpe over the years....there ARE many posters here who are irrational about what they want.

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

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it....just as I am entitled to mine.....that's what I love about this big whacky old world.

 

[sabetoonth]

Well, again, this is why I feel there's a double standard.

You say Superman is NOT SHORT. That's true. Superman is tall, and everyone accepts that.

However, why can't the same be said of Wolverine? Wolverine is NOT TALL. He's short. Look at the comics. He's 5'3". In the Ultimate universe, I believe he was listed as 5'9". His son Daken is listed as 5'9".

So....in the original source material ( the comics )...Wolverine is NOT TALL. He's short/average height.

Up until the movies with Jackman, Wolverine was never portrayed as being tall. Even in the 90's animated show I remember Wolverine was short. Don't know if he was exactly 5'3", but he was definitely NOT TALL.

Why is it ok to say with Superman, yes he has to be big and tall. With Batman, yes he has to be big and tall. With Sabretooth, he has to be big and tall, and bigger than Wolverine?

But, with Wolverine, we can't say.......he has to be short/average height?

he doesnt have to be short or average height is what im saying, he can be short, but being tall doesnt do any damage is what im tryin to say. wolverine can work in the short to average ehight range, as he can also work and be tall, imm not saying he cant be shor or average in ehight, but to say jackman is an aweosme Logan becuase hes tall is stupid IMO

yeah, but you have still not explained any reason why he could not work as a tall feral man, apart from the cosmetic nature of his name.

i explained why superman would look ridiculous as a short man, you have not explained why wolverine looks ridiculous as a guy of tall/average height.

simple answer is: he doesn't

edit: the iconography is different for each character, wolverine can survive the height difference change, he still has his feral hairdo with the sharp points and the sideburns, the claws, the cigars etc

all superman has is his 'S' symbol and his cape, he is a walking symbol, he is a billboard for goodness and safety. He needs to be a big guy for that outfit to have impact, if you made him a smaller man it would be like reducing his symbolism to an ad on a bus shelter , as opposed to a billboard.

this is what i was tryin to say last post, but he says it better

 

[x-fan]

One example of why hugh's height was a problem, had to hire a Wrestler to play someone tall enough to be sabes, then when they did hire someone remotely sabes comic height he was to short. Short people have a different out look one life, they are nearly always underestimated. I think hugh did fine, but someone like Gibson or Christian Kane would be great for the role, Mel is getting to old now but an actor like that, And yes he CAN be played by a tall person without hurting the story, but like superman he shouldn't be played by the wrong sized actor. that is a lot of peoples out look most just don't post or care enough to worry about it. Ultimate Wolvie was based on Jackman's movie Wolvie by the way.

 

[sabetoonth]

how tall is Schreiber?
also, i doubt thats why they hired Mane as Sabretooth, he looked the part od being big and kind brutish looking, and hairy too i believe

 

[DarKush]

True, but they would be wrong. Blade, much as I love it, had little influence on X-Men or Spider-Man.

Blade did start the trend. It showed that a 'serious' comic book adaptation of a Marvel property could be popular and profitable. If the relatively unknown Blade could be a success it reinforced the viability of putting out more popular characters/franchises.

 

[sabetoonth]

he is right, though id never heard of blade until about the time the third one came out as far as movies go, though i do remember him on the 90s spidey cartoon

 

[david icke]

Blade did start the trend. It showed that a 'serious' comic book adaptation of a Marvel property could be popular and profitable. If the relatively unknown Blade could be a success it reinforced the viability of putting out more popular characters/franchises.

the trend that started with X-Men was that *all* comic book characters, not just marvels, could make a lot of money if they were adapted faithfully from the books.

for example, this is why daredevil got the red mask and horns when initially fox did not want to go with that, as they thought it was too outlandish.
if it had been down to blade's influence we would have got a daredevil in a leather jacket without his mask.
blade was not adapted from the books faithfully, he was no example of that, or that they could bring in major bucks from working this angle.

X-Men's large bo opening weekend , which was not expected and got the attention of the whole industry, is also probably the reason why the 1st spider-man movie was suddenly moved to the year after it was first scheduled to be released, and given a bigger budget, to allow more filming to be done to make it a 'more ambitious' movie, i remember reading that on the bbc ceefax digital news at the time.

Blade did not have a massive BO impact, and serious superhero movies had been done before.

it was merely the first marvel character that had been done seriously with a decent budget. it did not prove that you could be faithful to the books to the letter, as it was radically diff from the blade of the books.

*that's* what the trend was all about, faithful adaptions bring in the big bucks.
not that 'marvel' movies could be serious.
the trend incorporated far more movies than marvel adaptations, you had hellboy, batman begins, sin city, 300, etc all adapted from the books to the letter.

 

[x-fan]

how tall is Schreiber?
also, i doubt thats why they hired Mane as Sabretooth, he looked the part od being big and kind brutish looking, and hairy too i believe

Sabes in the comics is 6',6" Schreiber is 6',4". and to get the foot height difference from Wolverine to Sabertooth they had to go wrestler. if they had went with a shorter actor for Logan, someone like Schreiber would have been just fine, and we might of gotten more than grunts from Sabertooth in the first movie.

 

[sabetoonth]

BB isnt to the letter but i get what your sayin

i nevr have been bugged as long as Creed isnt short, beign 6'4'' to jackmans 6' or 6'1'' is fine by me, but he cant be short, to me short is like 5'5'' and under, average is over that til 6'' and tall is 6'1'' and up imo, so that part of the arguement is also subject to matter of opinion.

but as long as Victor Creed is played by a capable actor at or above 6' i will not go on a hunting trip

Logan being jsut as tall as Creed is ok imo. and if Creed is taller, it shouldnt be by a huge amount of hiehght, but also the same way around, the Sabretooth actor shouldnt have to look stright down if heshavign a stareoff/down with Logan, but he houldnt stare up either i guess i dont know how to say it

 

[x-fan]

BB isnt to the letter but i get what your sayin

i nevr have been bugged as long as Creed isnt short, beign 6'4'' to jackmans 6' or 6'1'' is fine by me, but he cant be short, to me short is like 5'5'' and under, average is over that til 6'' and tall is 6'1'' and up imo, so that part of the arguement is also subject to matter of opinion.

but as long as Victor Creed is played by a capable actor at or above 6' i will not go on a hunting trip

Logan being jsut as tall as Creed is ok imo. and if Creed is taller, it shouldnt be by a huge amount of hiehght, but also the same way around, the Sabretooth actor shouldnt have to look stright down if heshavign a stareoff/down with Logan, but he houldnt stare up either i guess i dont know how to say it

Hugh is 6',3" tall basically the same height as scheiber, and Sabertooth shouldtower over logan, as that is the dynamic in the source material. you obviously care more for creed, since you want him done right. Here is my problem. If i were making a movie about Abe lincoln and I cast Tom cruise as Abe, do you think he would fit the person he plays? no, he is to short and pretty. On the same token we are casting someone that don't fit the person that the actor is playing IE.. Wolverine by casting a tall man. source material is source material, whether it is fiction or non-fiction. As I said Hugh did fine, but he shouldn't have been cast in the first place. there is someone out there better suited for the role, Christian Kane would be my first choice to take the role. The biggest problem with the movie Logan wasn't Hugh, though that added to the problems. Logan was written to soft, yes even in the first 20 minutes of the first movie, though that was as close as they got to right, the rest was soft and sensitive. Every character in that movie was watered down personality to powers. Cyke was the best written, IF they had given him the leadership role he deserved, but personality and power was dead on and he was cast very well.

 

[david icke]

Hugh is 6',3" tall basically the same height as scheiber, and Sabertooth shouldtower over logan, as that is the dynamic in the source material. you obviously care more for creed, since you want him done right. Here is my problem. If i were making a movie about Abe lincoln and I cast Tom cruise as Abe, do you think he would fit the person he plays? no, he is to short and pretty. On the same token we are casting someone that don't fit the person that the actor is playing IE.. Wolverine by casting a tall man. source material is source material, whether it is fiction or non-fiction. As I said Hugh did fine, but he shouldn't have been cast in the first place. there is someone out there better suited for the role, Christian Kane would be my first choice to take the role. The biggest problem with the movie Logan wasn't Hugh, though that added to the problems. Logan was written to soft, yes even in the first 20 minutes of the first movie, though that was as close as they got to right, the rest was soft and sensitive. Every character in that movie was watered down personality to powers. Cyke was the best written, IF they had given him the leadership role he deserved, but personality and power was dead on and he was cast very well.

what movie and character are you talking about? because logan has always had a sensitive, emotional side, and that was not the predominant character trait after the 1st '20mins' he was still acting like a d*** up until the end of the film, winding up cyclops, trying to make it with his gf, charging off to do his own thing as soon as the 'mission' started with no thought fot teamwork, stealing cyke's bike, trying to sneak off without saying goodbye to rogue etc

and btw, tyler mane was cast waaaaay before jackman. in fact filming had started before they even cast jackman for sure, he was very last minute, a replacement for dougray scott, who had to stay on at the mi2 shoot as it went overtime(thank god, he is rubbish).

and i liked christain kane in angel, but he is not in the same calibre of skills as jackman , he would not have been as good either. cast for the skills first, height second, as height is not the main factor with this character as i said either.
who cares if there is not as much of a height diff between him and sabretooth, there are much more important things to worry about in regards to source material, ie getting the most skilled actor for the job who can embody the conflicting, contradictory nature of the character.

 

[x-fan]

a replacement for dougray scott, who had to stay on at the mi2 shoot as it went overtime(thank god, he is rubbish).

And how tall is Dougery, hint 6',3" my argument still stands, as for what movie, how many times did Logan apologize in the movie. Name one instance he went off for no good reason, Again I am not blaming Jackman for these short comings, that was the writer, I am saying that every actor they auditioned was taller than 6 foot, when they should have been looking for a quality shorter actor. As for Christian, check him out in Leverage Wednesday nights on tnt. He all but is wolverine on that show. I watched the first movie back to back to back to back, on opening night, because Wolvie was done well, but even then I was saying he was to soft, there was some gold in that movie, but it wasn't all gold. Getting knocked out by a piece off would and staying down for hours, getting knocked out against the train wall, again forever, nearly crying for kitty....err rogue when he stabbed her. when she was on the machine at the end.

 

[david icke]

a replacement for dougray scott, who had to stay on at the mi2 shoot as it went overtime(thank god, he is rubbish).

And how tall is Dougery, hint 6',3" my argument still stands, as for what movie, how many times did Logan apologize in the movie. Name one instance he went off for no good reason, Again I am not blaming Jackman for these short comings, that was the writer, I am saying that every actor they auditioned was taller than 6 foot, when they should have been looking for a quality shorter actor. As for Christian, check him out in Leverage Wednesday nights on tnt. He all but is wolverine on that show. I watched the first movie back to back to back to back, on opening night, because Wolvie was done well, but even then I was saying he was to soft, there was some gold in that movie, but it wasn't all gold. Getting knocked out by a piece off would and staying down for hours, getting knocked out against the train wall, again forever, nearly crying for kitty....err rogue when he stabbed her. when she was on the machine at the end.

ok, we are talking about actors here,and to a certain extent portrayal of character, let's stick to that, not about him getting knocked out easier than in the books.

if you have a problem with him getting emotional about stabbing rogue or that he thought she was dead at the end of the film....you do not understand the character of wolverine. It sounds like you are only interested in a cool cipher, that is, a walking tough guy cartoon, without the emotional resonance that makes the character special.
When Claremont suggested to Frank Miller about collaborating on a Wolverine solo series, Miller said he was not interested in doing a one dimensional psycho killer character, and claremont said that was fine because he was not interested in writing about them either. And I am not interested in reading about that kind of boring character either.
If he didn't have that tender caring side he would be a crap character, that's whats good about him, he tries to hide that side with his bad attitude, but when something genuinely tragic happens he will cry, he will be concerned, he will feel it and show it in unguarded moments.
Really, I am quite shocked that you have problems with these moments, how would you have had him react when he stabbed Rogue? Give a gruff 'Call an ambulance! The kid's been stabbed! C'MON!', just one dimensional tough guy rubbish?
That is not how it is played in the books at all, hell, the scene at the end of X3 with him in anguish over having to kill Jean is an exact rip of the issue when he has to kill his lover Mariko who has been poisoned and will suffer agonising pain if he does not kill her. Same reaction, tears, pain, anguish.

Dude, you will never be satisfied with a perfect Wolverine adaptation on film, why? because raw emotion is not so easy to blip over on film, like you must do in the books to get to the cool action parts where he talks tough to the bullies, that is what your understanding of the character suggests to me anyway.
C'mon man, you are an x-fan right? You have to accept these type of emotions without embaressment, real men like Logan have that sensitive side, and it comes out in the high stakes life or death situations, it is nothing to be ashamed of whatsoever.

and as for Christain Kane, I have not seen that show, but i am very familiar with his work, as i said he was great over on 'Angel' as a bad guy, there was even an ep where he turned to good, so i have seen the nuts and bolts of what he is capable of and what he could bring to the character. And i still think Jackman would be better, ck would be good, but jackman was great, and part of the reason was because he could go from soft to adamantium hard, and you believed it all the way, it did not feel like an act.

and as for charging away from his teamates rashly, dude, it is the first thing he does when they enter the statue of liberty, you might say he had good reason, but he still put the team at risk by charging away, it meant Mystique got the drop on the x-men and almost stabbed one of them, disguised as logan, as logan was not around. he only just manages to pull her away from cyclops and co.

 

[Infinity9999x]

ok, we are talking about actors here,and to a certain extent portrayal of character, let's stick to that, not about him getting knocked out easier than in the books.

if you have a problem with him getting emotional about stabbing rogue or that he thought she was dead at the end of the film....you do not understand the character of wolverine. It sounds like you are only interested in a cool cipher, that is, a walking tough guy cartoon, without the emotional resonance that makes the character special.
When Claremont suggested to Frank Miller about collaborating on a Wolverine solo series, Miller said he was not interested in doing a one dimensional psycho killer character, and claremont said that was fine because he was not interested in writing about them either. And I am not interested in reading about that kind of boring character either.

This. The Claremont/Miller mini is my favorite interpretation of Wolverine. That's also why I liked Origins, (the mini series, not the ongoing) because that was based off the entire premise that, deep down, Wolverine is a good man, he's just had so much crap happen to him that he has a lot of issues.

Jackman has been fine so far in the movies. The biggest problem with the character is how he's been written. They needed to write Wolverine as more dynamic, show him struggling with that animalistic side the way Claremont did in the Claremont/Miller series. Show us more rage like the mansion fight in X2.

The only thing I disagree with you David is the height issue. I mean, he's called Wolverine for a reason. Looking at Jackman in W, I wouldn't nickname him Wolverine, I'd probably call him Bear, because he's huge. His small stature is a part of the character. It's part of what makes him who he is.

The thing is, they could have easily made Jackman look shorter, they were just apparently too lazy.

But that's not Jackman's fault.

 

[david icke]

The only thing I disagree with you David is the height issue. I mean, he's called Wolverine for a reason. Looking at Jackman in W, I wouldn't nickname him Wolverine, I'd probably call him Bear, because he's huge. His small stature is a part of the character. It's part of what makes him who he is.

The thing is, they could have easily made Jackman look shorter, they were just apparently too lazy.

But that's not Jackman's fault.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I understand why they made him short, and what that entails. Like i said, i love the spech at the end of 'Black Shadow/White Shadow', and the part about being a runt, about your size not mattering, that it's the size of the fight you have inside that counts.
There is also a bit in that story where a guy underestimates him, presumably because he is smaller than him, and is roundly shown the error of his ways when wolverine sqeezes hard on the fist he just threw at him.
But...i feel it is the one issue about the character's make up that an adaption can survive.
Guys of average height can be underestimated too in the same circumstances, everyone comes up against something bigger than them at some point in their lives, and have to rely on the size of the fight inside to overcome.
Being oppressed because of your short stature, well, he has been oppressed far more for being a mutant i imagine, so that takes care of that issue too.
So, in essence, it is not something I miss much when watching the movies, and that i mainly because I can easily go through a long Wolverine story and not have to give thought to his height at all, I can forget because it usually has no bearing on the tale.
And when it *is* invoked for a reason, there can be other reasons used that invoke the same type of message and feeling, as I said above.

edit: Actually , in that first scene with the claws, i thought they did place him in a way to make him look shorter, so he was below the head line of the guys he was poiting them at.
But, i don't think they can do anything about that really all the time without it being a ridiculous illusion transparent to the audience. Like when they tried to hide Keaton's short stature in BR, by having himm walk by on a walkway bridge past Gordon.

Yeah, it would be cool to see a small guy come charging out of the kitchen for the mansion fight, but i still get that 'against the odds' buzz anyway from the fact he is one man against many.
Ok, in an ideal world Jackman would be shorter, but it really didn't make a difference to me, for the reasons stated above, the story aspects generated by the small stature can, and are, replaced by other other factors of predudice, oppresion and finding the strength inside yourself.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I understand why they made him short, and what that entails. Like i said, i love the spech at the end of 'Black Shadow/White Shadow', and the part about being a runt, about your size not mattering, that it's the size of the fight you have inside that counts.
There is also a bit in that story where a guy underestimates him, presumably because he is smaller than him, and is roundly shown the error of his ways when wolverine sqeezes hard on the fist he just threw at him.
But...i feel it is the one issue about the character's make up that an adaption can survive.
Guys of average height can be underestimated too in the same circumstances, everyone comes up against something bigger than them at some point in their lives, and have to rely on the size of the fight inside to overcome.
Being oppressed because of your short stature, well, he has been oppressed far more for being a mutant i imagine, so that takes care of that issue too.
So, in essence, it is not something I miss much when watching the movies, and that i mainly because I can easily go through a long Wolverine story and not have to give thought to his height at all, I can forget because it usually has no bearing on the tale.
And when it *is* invoked for a reason, there can be other reasons used that invoke the same type of message and feeling, as I said above.

edit: Actually , in that first scene with the claws, i thought they did place him in a way to make him look shorter, so he was below the head line of the guys he was poiting them at.
But, i don't think they can do anything about that really all the time without it being a ridiculous illusion transparent to the audience. Like when they tried to hide Keaton's short stature in BR, by having himm walk by on a walkway bridge past Gordon.

Yeah, it would be cool to see a small guy come charging out of the kitchen for the mansion fight, but i still get that 'against the odds' buzz anyway from the fact he is one man against many.
Ok, in an ideal world Jackman would be shorter, but it really didn't make a difference to me, for the reasons stated above, the story aspects generated by the small stature can, and are, replaced by other other factors of predudice, oppresion and finding the strength inside yourself.

It didn't bother me a lot, but it was annoying because we know they could have made Jackman look shorter. LOTR has shown us this. It would have taken some creative camera work, but it was by no means un-doable.

But again, this is a complaint I have against Singer, not Jackman. Jackman had no control over that.

 

[sabetoonth]

referring to what David said
its not the size of the dog in the fight its the size of the fight in the dog

 

[X Knight]

referring to what David said
its not the size of the dog in the fight its the size of the fight in the dog

this saying fits Wolverine.

But, it is also a saying that's commonly associated with a smaller dog taking on a larger dog. Or a smaller person taking on a larger opponent.

While technically it could be applied to any size ( short or tall, small or big ), it's less meaningful or effective if it's used to describe a tall/big person taking on another tall/big person.