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

[sabetoonth]

unless the other person has some upperhand, like their faster, stronger, more relentless, or brutal

 

[david icke]

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.

I think you are being a little unfair on Singer and perhaps underestimating the lengths lotr went to to achieve the effects they did in this regard.
It was an absolute priority for that movie/s, the whole thing revolved around little people, they actually built a lot of sets *twice*, one for the biggies, one for the shorties. When you watch Gandalf in Bilbo's home, his shots are of him in an entirely different set than Bilbo, the exact same house just built at a bigger scale.
no way they could justify or do all that work for logan. it goes beyond camera angles, if all they used were camera angles then you would inevitably get shots where they did not work as well as others, and those shots would take you out of the movie.

edit: far better to have him appear as natural as possible in this case, that in fact was one of the strengths of singer's movie, there were no moments that took me out of that film, it all felt like a perfectly natural extension of the real world. i think he made the right call in not trying to pull that off.

 

[Hmarrs]

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.

While I can go either way in this discussion.As I do see points on both sides.One thing I can say is that one of the things that made Wolverine stand out when he was created was that he was the unconventional hero.While all other hero's were tall and proper and perfect.He was a short stocky killer.He was the rebel the exception to the rule.He was really as I recall the first short hero.At least the first adult that wasn't a child side kick(Robin or Bucky).So at the time it was impresive.Now at the time when I first I saw Jackman remember wishing he was shorter but I understand Holloywood and I also understand he had to be within Hight so's not to look ridiculous opposite Famke Jennsen.At that point all I cared about was his portrayal.

You have to pick your battles.

 

[x-fan]

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.

I wouldn't have put this in the movie, just so I could show he was emotional, Rogue should have been a bad guy and saved wolvie at the end. most of thiese issues were writing, but again I have said many times, Hugh did fine, he just shouldn't have been cast too tall casting should have been 5',10 and under.
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.

I agree that he should have emotions, but he shouldn't show them so easily, sort of like Fonzie in happy days good guy no open displays and if he did it was rare and shocking. maybe have Wolvie try to apologize but not be able to word it and the other just forgive him to save him face.

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.

Again most of what we are talking about is writing some of the situations were not needed. I'm short on time, more could be said, but i have too work

 

[Nivek]

I think it's funny that Hugh's on-screen signature pose is holding his dead woman in his arms screaming "Nooooo....!!!!".

Honestly, I don't see Wolverine doing it that much.

 

[david icke]

I think it's funny that Hugh's on-screen signature pose is holding his dead woman in his arms screaming "Nooooo....!!!!".

Honestly, I don't see Wolverine doing it that much.

How is it his 'signature pose?' and anyway, of course you don't see that scene much, that is a big moment in his life, it's an adaptation of the issue when he kills Mariko basically.
and if he were to accidently stab a young girl would he have no emotional reaction, given his penchant for being a father figure to Kitty, Jubilee etc? Or if he thought they were dying in his arms?
All those moments are completely in tune with the character.

 

[Spider - Man]

If you look at the earliest incarnations of Wolvie, hes was a first class a-hole. No one wanted to be his friend, even be around him...and he deliberately made people feel this way. There was a guy (too old now) who woulda been PERFECT for the part. His name is Nick Chinlund.

He played Toomes in The Chronicles of Riddick. He had the perfect voice, accent and smarmy attitude to do Wolvie justice. The ONLY problem he woulda had is he is like 6'2" but other than that...

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think you are being a little unfair on Singer and perhaps underestimating the lengths lotr went to to achieve the effects they did in this regard.
It was an absolute priority for that movie/s, the whole thing revolved around little people, they actually built a lot of sets *twice*, one for the biggies, one for the shorties. When you watch Gandalf in Bilbo's home, his shots are of him in an entirely different set than Bilbo, the exact same house just built at a bigger scale.
no way they could justify or do all that work for logan. it goes beyond camera angles, if all they used were camera angles then you would inevitably get shots where they did not work as well as others, and those shots would take you out of the movie.

edit: far better to have him appear as natural as possible in this case, that in fact was one of the strengths of singer's movie, there were no moments that took me out of that film, it all felt like a perfectly natural extension of the real world. i think he made the right call in not trying to pull that off.

I think it could have been justified, consideirng Wolverine was obviously the main character of that movie. And you don't necessarily have to do completely different sets. People play with height all the time. RDJ in IM when he's by Gwen Paltrow. He wears lifts, or sometimes, when you only see them from the waist up or similar, someone is standing on an elevated surface.

They could have done that with Jackman. It certainly wasn't beyond their ability to do. And it's like I said, the guy is called Wolverine for a reason.

And I'm not saying make him 5'3 like in the comics (which I think is a little ridiculous to begin with) He's drawn more around the 5'8 side, and that's doable. It's something I really would have liked to see, and it's annoying because we know they could have done it.

 

[david icke]

If you look at the earliest incarnations of Wolvie, hes was a first class a-hole. No one wanted to be his friend, even be around him...and he deliberately made people feel this way. There was a guy (too old now) who woulda been PERFECT for the part. His name is Nick Chinlund.

I've seen him in a few things(he played a right creepy serisl killer on the X-files), and I do like him, but this is going back to what I said to another poster, about type cast bad guys taking the role....when it came to the more tender, emotional scenes, like on the train with Rogue, I don't think the bad guy types would be as convincing there. And Logan does have that side. Jackman proved he can do that unlikeable $$$hole side as well as any type cast bad guy actor, look at the scene where he grabs Cyclops for 'standing in his way'.

 

[GL1]

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.

Showing emotions of shock and grief when you stab someone or when a loved one dies is not special, neither has it ever been the highlight of the Wolverine character. Being a trained amnesiatic killer who is very good at being the tough guy means that he takes his emotions out in different ways other than crying and cuddling. That's what makes him awesome in the comics, and what makes the emotional resonance special - that wolverine CAN'T always give the greatest speech, he's just the best at what he does (make things dead) and he communicates that way. When Jean's dead, he does sit by her grave reflecting, he hops up on Cyclops window sill and calls him out for moving on. When the Hellfire club takes down his buddies, he doesn't fret or cry or show his sensitive side, he channels all his anger at the enemy. That's how Wolvie shows love and devotion.

It's not about not having emotions, its about showing them in a way consistent with a animalistic trained killer. The X-Men movies did not do that, because of the writing.

And Jackman, to whatever degree of influence he had, followed suit. When he delivered the animalistic lines, they simply were not believable, I did not believe that he was getting back to form, or that things about the caged beast or she might not come back were natural for this man. They all seemed forced... on the other hand, when he was leading the X-men, telling them to hold the line, I could feel it a lot better, when he was in the cabin with Silver Fox, when he was restraining himself like someone without berserker rages with Stryker, he was much more palpable and believable. He would have made a much better Cyclops, imho.

 

[david icke]

Showing emotions of shock and grief when you stab someone or when a loved one dies is not special, neither has it ever been the highlight of the Wolverine character. Being a trained amnesiatic killer who is very good at being the tough guy means that he takes his emotions out in different ways other than crying and cuddling. That's what makes him awesome in the comics, and what makes the emotional resonance special - that wolverine CAN'T always give the greatest speech, he's just the best at what he does (make things dead) and he communicates that way. When Jean's dead, he does sit by her grave reflecting, he hops up on Cyclops window sill and calls him out for moving on. When the Hellfire club takes down his buddies, he doesn't fret or cry or show his sensitive side, he channels all his anger at the enemy. That's how Wolvie shows love and devotion.

It's not about not having emotions, its about showing them in a way consistent with a animalistic trained killer. The X-Men movies did not do that, because of the writing.

And for your consideration in regards to the Hellfire club scenario....the attack on the mansion in X2.
edit: that aspect of the character is represented in the series, and is one of my all time fav action sequences because of it. but, as for your overall point , you haven't understood what i was talking about earlier in regards to 'emotional resonance'.

Who said that those emotional moments made the character special *on their own*? I said that the character would be less special without them, as they show he has many more facets than just the animalistic, loose cannon, 'best he is', side. It would be easy for a guy like that to be completely cold when it came to emotional reactions, due to all the crap he has been through.
edit: and in fact, that is how he is trying to be in the first movie, until, despite himself, he starts to warm up to Rogue just before they are attacked. Then, we get him back to being rough and cold, until the stabbing scene , where we see that this side of him does exist, it's just that he keeps it way under wraps. Being in the X-Men makes him more of a fully rounded person, and by extension, character. Otherwise he would just be like 'The Man with No Name', very cool for sure, but nothing more than a cipher. Or, he could be 'realistic', but more of predictable character, like a lot of hard asses in real life.

And Jackman, to whatever degree of influence he had, followed suit. When he delivered the animalistic lines, they simply were not believable, I did not believe that he was getting back to form, or that things about the caged beast or she might not come back were natural for this man. They all seemed forced... on the other hand, when he was leading the X-men, telling them to hold the line, I could feel it a lot better, when he was in the cabin with Silver Fox, when he was restraining himself like someone without berserker rages with Stryker, he was much more palpable and believable. He would have made a much better Cyclops, imho.

Yeah, it's funny how you are citing the two very flawed, average movies for these examples, and not the two great ones with the cage fight, 'Get out of my bar freak!', 'Cyclops right? Youwannagetouttamyway?', attack on the mansion...

 

[x-fan]

And for your consideration in regards to the Hellfire club scenario....the attack on the mansion in X2.
edit: that aspect of the character is represented in the series, and is one of my all time fav action sequences because of it. but, as for your overall point , you haven't understood what i was talking about earlier in regards to 'emotional resonance'.

Who said that those emotional moments made the character special *on their own*? I said that the character would be less special without them, as they show he has many more facets than just the animalistic, loose cannon, 'best he is', side. It would be easy for a guy like that to be completely cold when it came to emotional reactions, due to all the crap he has been through.
edit: and in fact, that is how he is trying to be in the first movie, until, despite himself, he starts to warm up to Rogue just before they are attacked. Then, we get him back to being rough and cold, until the stabbing scene , where we see that this side of him does exist, it's just that he keeps it way under wraps. Being in the X-Men makes him more of a fully rounded person, and by extension, character. Otherwise he would just be like 'The Man with No Name', very cool for sure, but nothing more than a cipher. Or, he could be 'realistic', but more of predictable character, like a lot of hard asses in real life.





Yeah, it's funny how you are citing the two very flawed, average movies for these examples, and not the two great ones with the cage fight, 'Get out of my bar freak!', 'Cyclops right? Youwannagetouttamyway?', attack on the mansion...

It seems we are having a bigger issue with the writing here. The thing is Hugh did fine in the role, BUT he shouldn't have been cast or in the running to be cast. The powers that be should of been casting 5'10 and shorter, looking for a quality shorter actor, you know a no name Like Hugh was, that could have done as good or better job in the role, but they went friggin tall on purpose casting 6 foot and taller, not giving the shorter actor the opportunity to get the role. That is what the OP was saying and I am saying. the writing was a whole different issue and deserves it's on topic.

 

[GL1]

And for your consideration in regards to the Hellfire club scenario....the attack on the mansion in X2.
edit: that aspect of the character is represented in the series, and is one of my all time fav action sequences because of it. but, as for your overall point , you haven't understood what i was talking about earlier in regards to 'emotional resonance'.

I really don't. What is emotional resonance to you? All I'm talking about is emotion that resonates with (that is echoes) real life experiences.

Who said that those emotional moments made the character special *on their own*? I said that the character would be less special without them, as they show he has many more facets than just the animalistic, loose cannon, 'best he is', side. It would be easy for a guy like that to be completely cold when it came to emotional reactions, due to all the crap he has been through.

I on the other hand feel that the character is less special *with* them. A character who is all-faceted is actually pretty cliche. It's a limited character that actually has to battle with himself in order to become well rounded that is rare. A character who is multifaceted, who "has a viscous temper, but also a really soft side with their friends" is pretty much a Mary Sue, and is not only easy and lazy to write, but not special or unique at all.

edit: and in fact, that is how he is trying to be in the first movie, until, despite himself, he starts to warm up to Rogue just before they are attacked. Then, we get him back to being rough and cold, until the stabbing scene , where we see that this side of him does exist, it's just that he keeps it way under wraps. Being in the X-Men makes him more of a fully rounded person, and by extension, character. Otherwise he would just be like 'The Man with No Name', very cool for sure, but nothing more than a cipher. Or, he could be 'realistic', but more of predictable character, like a lot of hard asses in real life.

The point of this "cipher" that you're speaking about, and taking that archetype and making them special and alive is that it's NOT easy for a guy like that to be completely cold. Holding in all that stuff wreaks havoc on your psyche. It's also not easy to let that out, and even when you do, it's not in the socially normal ways someone whose been raised in suburbia would do so. The comics capture that, Jackman, even when prompted, did not.

When it's done right, Wolverine giving you a smirk can make your heart melt, because you know how hard it is for him, and how rare it is to see. When it's done in the Mary Sue style, where a very small set of interactions can completely change someone's personality, it's not only predictable, but just less entertaining all around.

Yeah, it's funny how you are citing the two very flawed, average movies for these examples, and not the two great ones with the cage fight, 'Get out of my bar freak!', 'Cyclops right? Youwannagetouttamyway?', attack on the mansion...

Well, that's when my point is most pronounced. I could turn around and say it's funny that you site two great movies for your examples. The cage fight and the attack on the mansion are the closest Jackman gets to being someone who seems innately dangerous. When he's at the mansion, he comes off a lot like someone with an attitude. A biker. A spec ops guy. Someone who is the way he is by choice.

I guess my main point with Wolverine is that it never seems difficult for him to become the well rounded person that the movies set him up to be. He shows resistant, just like any loner, but it's only a matter of attitude for him. He's not scared of the change. He's not unfamiliar with these types of social bonds. It's all taken to very naturally. Like he's someone who is simply socially guarded rather than an animal.

Also, the 'well rounded' aspect of the character that you're so happy that they've put there, that you feel makes them special, is simply not present in the comics.

 

[david icke]

I really don't. What is emotional resonance to you? All I'm talking about is emotion that resonates with (that is echoes) real life experiences.



I on the other hand feel that the character is less special *with* them. A character who is all-faceted is actually pretty cliche. It's a limited character that actually has to battle with himself in order to become well rounded that is rare. A character who is multifaceted, who "has a viscous temper, but also a really soft side with their friends" is pretty much a Mary Sue, and is not only easy and lazy to write, but not special or unique at all.



The point of this "cipher" that you're speaking about, and taking that archetype and making them special and alive is that it's NOT easy for a guy like that to be completely cold. Holding in all that stuff wreaks havoc on your psyche. It's also not easy to let that out, and even when you do, it's not in the socially normal ways someone whose been raised in suburbia would do so. The comics capture that, Jackman, even when prompted, did not.

When it's done right, Wolverine giving you a smirk can make your heart melt, because you know how hard it is for him, and how rare it is to see. When it's done in the Mary Sue style, where a very small set of interactions can completely change someone's personality, it's not only predictable, but just less entertaining all around.

I think you are asking too much, it is there , that battle, but if they did it the way you wanted in those movies, with the amount of time given, he would come across as no better than a tough guy cipher.

edit: But, y'know what, they could have made him less 'human' in the solo movie, we should have got a rougher version there, there was more time for the character to be explored there.
and it would have fit with Stryker's 'the kind of man you used to be' in x2.

Well, that's when my point is most pronounced. I could turn around and say it's funny that you site two great movies for your examples. The cage fight and the attack on the mansion are the closest Jackman gets to being someone who seems innately dangerous. When he's at the mansion, he comes off a lot like someone with an attitude. A biker. A spec ops guy. Someone who is the way he is by choice.

I guess my main point with Wolverine is that it never seems difficult for him to become the well rounded person that the movies set him up to be. He shows resistant, just like any loner, but it's only a matter of attitude for him. He's not scared of the change. He's not unfamiliar with these types of social bonds. It's all taken to very naturally. Like he's someone who is simply socially guarded rather than an animal.

Also, the 'well rounded' aspect of the character that you're so happy that they've put there, that you feel makes them special, is simply not present in the comics.

Of course it is. I mean, what were you bemoaning in the first place? 'Crying and cuddling' right?
These are the scenes you took exception to.
Now, these are exceptional scenes when he does this, when he thinks this kid he has bonded with and promised to protect has died, and when he kills a woman he loves in a mercy killing.

and as for this emotional side not being there so much...read the little boxes, read his thoughts, how many times have you read the phrase 'li'l darlin' when he's panicing or concerned over someone.
He had these special father daughter relationships with Jubilee and Kitty in the books. He'd freak in exactly the same way if something happened to them, and talk to them the same way he did to Rogue on the train.

These movies are compressed versions of the character's story.
If they had him acting animalistic all the time, and as shut off as you would like him to be, the character's full scope would not transmit and you would be left with a cartoon character.
edit: thing is, he always ends up softening up a bit and becoming more of a part of the family, despite himself. It happened with the X-Men, and it happened when he went off on his solo jaunt to Madripoor.
This is what was compressed into the Singer movies, and the 3rd one.

edit: and we don't have the little thought boxes in the movies, they actually have to have him interacting with people in a way that conveys that full character. You can't explore him in a 2hr ensemble superero movie the way you are talking about. He would come across as a boring seen it before gruff guy, you have to have those emotions there in the interactions.
Now, you say they are not there in the books, I disagree, so we might have to part ways on this one as a matter of opinion and interpretation.

I mean from what I gather, you wanted more of a struggle within the character, and to have him *so* damaged that all you end up getting from him is a single smile, which is all the more precious.
I get what you are saying, but that simply wouldn't work in the X-Men movies, there simply isn't enough time to do such an artful, adult study like that justice , other aspects of the character would be lost to the audience, like his surrogate father/daughter relationships and the like.

edit: The way you'd want it, to do that justice without him coming across as a cipher , youd need a 'Jacob's Ladder' for that. But, just because they didn't do it that way, doesn't mean the kind of adaptation they did do, that compressed and showed many aspects of the character that has been revealed over the years, was wrong.

 

[TNC9852002]

I don't think Hugh Jackman was a horrible Wolverine in any way. Aside from his height, I suppose the only problems I've had with him is that he just looks too handsome. When I think of Wolverine, I think of a good-looking guy, but has the look of a guy with a bad attitude. The Wolverine from the movies however, he just looks like a nice guy and is missing that rage-filled face and eyes of a man who's been through hell and back. It makes it hard for me to connect with him in some way because of that--he looks too much like a nice guy trying to be tough.

 

[MilkmanDan]

Who said that those emotional moments made the character special *on their own*? I said that the character would be less special without them, as they show he has many more facets than just the animalistic, loose cannon, 'best he is', side. It would be easy for a guy like that to be completely cold when it came to emotional reactions, due to all the crap he has been through.
edit: and in fact, that is how he is trying to be in the first movie, until, despite himself, he starts to warm up to Rogue just before they are attacked. Then, we get him back to being rough and cold, until the stabbing scene , where we see that this side of him does exist, it's just that he keeps it way under wraps.

I agree that the emotional, caring side of Logan is important. My problem was that with Jackman's Wolverine, I see the likable hero first, a cocky smartass with a bit of a temper second and a big, strong guy who can take care of himself third. IMO, Logan's caring side should feel special, largely because you don't expect it from a rather scary, rough looking guy. And to me, Jackman's Wolverine, while an awesome action hero in it's own right, just wasn't that character.

Yeah, it's funny how you are citing the two very flawed, average movies for these examples, and not the two great ones with the cage fight, 'Get out of my bar freak!', 'Cyclops right? Youwannagetouttamyway?', attack on the mansion...

Jackman was great during the action scenes, but I think any athletic actor is cabable of being badass when he's shown beating up or stabbing people.

 

[david icke]

I agree that the emotional, caring side of Logan is important. My problem was that with Jackman's Wolverine, I see the likable natural born movie star first, a cocky smartass with a bit of a temper second and a big, strong guy who can take care of himself third. IMO, Logan's caring side should feel special, largely because you don't expect it from a rather scary, rough looking guy. And to me, Jackman's Wolverine, while an awesome action hero in it's own right, just wasn't that character.

Jackman was great during the action scenes, but I think any athletic actor is cabable of being badass when he's shown beating up or stabbing people.

Well, that's the thing, I didn't know who Jackman was, when he walked onto the screen and started acting that way I saw Wolverine. I didn't get any 'likeable movie star' vibe, they succeeded in spinning the illusion for me.
and it's not just the 'action' that succeeded in conveying the character, scenes in the van with Rogue, and in Xavier's office, showed him to be that type, and I dare say it was no more or less than you got in a typical X-Men or Wolverine comic before he would show signs of 'likeability', a little emotion or begrudging sociability.
edit: albiet, this was a compressed take as it's a movie, so you get that, and then you have to kind of move onto other character traits.

 

[GL1]

I think you are asking too much, it is there , that battle, but if they did it the way you wanted in those movies, with the amount of time given, he would come across as no better than a tough guy cipher.

edit: But, y'know what, they could have made him less 'human' in the solo movie, we should have got a rougher version there, there was more time for the character to be explored there.
and it would have fit with Stryker's 'the kind of man you used to be' in x2.

Of course it is. I mean, what were you bemoaning in the first place? 'Crying and cuddling' right?
These are the scenes you took exception to.
Now, these are exceptional scenes when he does this, when he thinks this kid he has bonded with and promised to protect has died, and when he kills a woman he loves in a mercy killing.

and as for this emotional side not being there so much...read the little boxes, read his thoughts, how many times have you read the phrase 'li'l darlin' when he's panicing or concerned over someone.
He had these special father daughter relationships with Jubilee and Kitty in the books. He'd freak in exactly the same way if something happened to them, and talk to them the same way he did to Rogue on the train.

These movies are compressed versions of the character's story.
If they had him acting animalistic all the time, and as shut off as you would like him to be, the character's full scope would not transmit and you would be left with a cartoon character.
edit: thing is, he always ends up softening up a bit and becoming more of a part of the family, despite himself. It happened with the X-Men, and it happened when he went off on his solo jaunt to Madripoor.
This is what was compressed into the Singer movies, and the 3rd one.

edit: and we don't have the little thought boxes in the movies, they actually have to have him interacting with people in a way that conveys that full character. You can't explore him in a 2hr ensemble superero movie the way you are talking about. He would come across as a boring seen it before gruff guy, you have to have those emotions there in the interactions.
Now, you say they are not there in the books, I disagree, so we might have to part ways on this one as a matter of opinion and interpretation.

I mean from what I gather, you wanted more of a struggle within the character, and to have him *so* damaged that all you end up getting from him is a single smile, which is all the more precious.
I get what you are saying, but that simply wouldn't work in the X-Men movies, there simply isn't enough time to do such an artful, adult study like that justice , other aspects of the character would be lost to the audience, like his surrogate father/daughter relationships and the like.

edit: The way you'd want it, to do that justice without him coming across as a cipher , youd need a 'Jacob's Ladder' for that. But, just because they didn't do it that way, doesn't mean the kind of adaptation they did do, that compressed and showed many aspects of the character that has been revealed over the years, was wrong.

Well, it is when you have the aspects of the characater out of balance, it becomes a different character. You can compress his journey, but if he's already cuddly, already overcome his social hurdle in the first half of the first movie, then it's really not a compression issue, is it? Movie Wolverine was 'well rounded' from the start, he just needed the opportunity to show it.

You also seem to misunderstand my position. Wolverine having emotions and that being communicated and resonating in film can be done without distorting the character as was done in the films. A well acted Wolverine would express that same range of emotions, overtly, viscerally, verbally, but NOT in the ways that we are taught to in typical western society, because he doesn't have that. That's what you see in the books, it is not "well rounded" by any standard that I know of, and it is not what you see in the films. 616 Wolverine actually expresses things more intensely (and violently) than Jackman's character. That is, by and large a writing issue, I understand. I also understand that Jackman was cast because they were not trying to capture a Wolverine like the comics, but one that comes across as a typical bad boy with a heart of gold that just needs the right woman to make him a moral champion. I get that.

But for his part, Jackman could have communicated the tortured and conflicted aspect of this mindf'd animal integrating into social norms in his facial expressions, tone of voice and body language, and he didn't do any of that.

tl;dr:
Show me Wolverine crying in the comics. Socially acceptable expressions of emotion are simply not the best way to communicate Wolverine's thought bubbles.

 

[david icke]

Well, it is when you have the aspects of the characater out of balance, it becomes a different character. You can compress his journey, but if he's already cuddly, already overcome his social hurdle in the first half of the first movie, then it's really not a compression issue, is it? Movie Wolverine was 'well rounded' from the start, he just needed the opportunity to show it.

You also seem to misunderstand my position. Wolverine having emotions and that being communicated and resonating in film can be done without distorting the character as was done in the films. A well acted Wolverine would express that same range of emotions, overtly, viscerally, verbally, but NOT in the ways that we are taught to in typical western society, because he doesn't have that. That's what you see in the books, it is not "well rounded" by any standard that I know of, and it is not what you see in the films. 616 Wolverine actually expresses things more intensely (and violently) than Jackman's character. That is, by and large a writing issue, I understand. I also understand that Jackman was cast because they were not trying to capture a Wolverine like the comics, but one that comes across as a typical bad boy with a heart of gold that just needs the right woman to make him a moral champion. I get that.

But for his part, Jackman could have communicated the tortured and conflicted aspect of this mindf'd animal integrating into social norms in his facial expressions, tone of voice and body language, and he didn't do any of that.

On the last part, yeah, he did, if you want to just put that down to him 'acting like a biker' , as you said earlier, that's fine, that's your opinion.
I'd say there would be a point where this 'animalistic' portrayal you are looking for would be overdone, and could look very stupid. Maybe something like Nicholson in 'Wolf'.
edit: and for all you know, if you were to unknowingly encounter the real Wolverine, transported over from TMU, you very well may just dismiss him as a 'biker', from the way he acted. the idea you have in your head may work, or it may be unworkable in practice , and come across as silly onscreen.

and as for the way he interacts with other people...I don't know what books you have been reading, they must have been different ones from me.*

Have you read the one where the X-Men land in Japan, when he first meets Mariko? Let's talk about that, because it seems quite pertinant as you have been talking about his relations with women.
Mariko encounters Logan having a quiet moment in a garden, his physical apperance (in costume ) startles her. What does he do? Acts like any gentleman would, calms her down, reassures her, offers to vacate the garden so she can have it to herself. So, she says 'no', apologises, and they chat for a bit.
Later on, when she is leaving in a limosine, she hears a knock on the window. Who is it? Logan, with a flower he has picked from the garden for her, he gives her the flower, and tells her his real name.

When do we next see them together? He goes to her embassy in the US, takes her out on a date, the perfect gentleman.

*this* is not interaction in the way of 'western' relations, as you put it?

It seems like you have taken what parts you liked from the books for this argument against the movie adaption, and ignored any you don't.

tl;dr:
Show me Wolverine crying in the comics. Socially acceptable expressions of emotion are simply not the best way to communicate Wolverine's thought bubbles.

I can't be arsed going up to look through my books right now, but it was pretty much the same way it was done with Jean Grey when Mariko died.
It's not like they showed him crying all the frickin' time, one time in an extreme moment. Thank god he never gave her a flower beforehand eh? God forbid.

*edit: Thing is, this is not like 'Lord of the Rings', something with a set text by one writer, where you can point and say 'that is it', it's a cb character that has seen many writers, and maybe they conflict sometimes.
So, what I am doing , and my understanding of the character in the main comes from, is taking things from the work of Chris Claremont. he may not have created Logan for his Hulk debut, but he essentially created and established the character for wveryone else to follow. He did his 1st appearances in the X-Men for umpteen years, his first solo mini-series, his solo stories in MCP , which lead onto the arcs in his 1st ongoing solo series, which he also initially wrote...so if there is anyone's work you can take as bible for the character, I would say it was him.

 

[x-fan]

The problem I am having with this thread is, we are discussing how Wolverine was written as opposed to the miscasting that was Hugh Jackman. The OP said that Hugh was Miscast, I agree. If we want to discuss whether nor not he was written properly then start a new thread. Either Hugh was cast well or he wasn't and I say wasn't because he was too tall in the first place, no matter how well he did in the part he was still miscast. Any un known actor that was short and a good actor could of given us as good or better a wolverine IF given the chance. Example Michael Keaton has been said to have been the BEST Batman, but he too was miscast, did fine in the part, but he would have made a better Wolverine. I could Site how bad the non Keaton movies were, but that was writing and directing, not the actors playing Batman both actors that followed Keaton were fine actors but were horrible Batman why, script. same For Hugh he was good as Wolverine in the first two movies but not so much in the last two, why script. Lets drop the script issues and go bact to the original idea that Wolverine was miscast and discuss that.

 

[david icke]

The problem I am having with this thread is, we are discussing how Wolverine was written as opposed to the miscasting that was Hugh Jackman. The OP said that Hugh was Miscast, I agree. If we want to discuss whether nor not he was written properly then start a new thread. Either Hugh was cast well or he wasn't and I say wasn't because he was too tall in the first place, no matter how well he did in the part he was still miscast. Any un known actor that was short and a good actor could of given us as good or better a wolverine IF given the chance. Example Michael Keaton has been said to have been the BEST Batman, but he too was miscast, did fine in the part, but he would have made a better Wolverine. I could Site how bad the non Keaton movies were, but that was writing and directing, not the actors playing Batman both actors that followed Keaton were fine actors but were horrible Batman why, script. same For Hugh he was good as Wolverine in the first two movies but not so much in the last two, why script. Lets drop the script issues and go bact to the original idea that Wolverine was miscast and discuss that.

I don't know, I think there is a mix of discussion here about adaptation and portrayal, but you're right, in the main it's become about character portrayal in the last couple of posts.

as for the casting in regards to what you are saying....I think I have already said what I thought about all that, delved into the Keaton height issue as well as Jackman's, so I don't think I have anyting new to contribute to that area.

 

[x-fan]

your point was they could have shot him looking shorter, my point is they shouldn't of had too, he should of been shorter to begin with. I keep saying he did fine in the part, but I will say again, he should not have been in the running in the first place. If there is ever a reboot, I hope they consider all aspect of the characters and find actors that are closer to the characters they play, and if it isn't possible,then and only after all efforts are made then they can settle.

 

[Project862006]

only problem i had with his wolverine is he was not brutal enough but i still like him

 

[david icke]

your point was they could have shot him looking shorter, my point is they shouldn't of had too, he should of been shorter to begin with. I keep saying he did fine in the part, but I will say again, he should not have been in the running in the first place. If there is ever a reboot, I hope they consider all aspect of the characters and find actors that are closer to the characters they play, and if it isn't possible,then and only after all efforts are made then they can settle.

No, that point was Infinity's. I disagreed, and thought that was an unfeasable idea for this film, and that I'd prefer the actor just looking naturally the way they are.
My point was that his short stature is not nearly as important as other characteristics of his, and that the adaptation survived that particular change, as the issues it brings up are covered by other ones that Logan deals with. I did say it would have been nice, but not essential imo. I went into this in detail, so I'm not going to go over all that again on the same thread.

 

[kedrell]

To me, Jackman only ever did a passable job as Wolverine at best. He simply didn't embody the character the way that Reeves did as Superman and RDJ does as Iron Man, Norton does as Banner/Hulk and Bale does as Batman(this last one is the most debatable, I'll admit).

Jackman's in the same line as MacGuire as Spidey, Keaton as Batman, etc. None of them embody the character, but it's not like they completely ****ed it up either(hello Nic Cage as Ghostrider). But actor's simply do not reach that level where I can stop seeing them playing the role and just see the character.