One thing I've brought up many times though is the fact that none of the scripts were ever that good. None of the scripts let Wolverine let loose in his traditional Wolverine-like manor, as intense as he is in the comics. Even with the perfect actor physically, we would still have problems with how Wolverine was portrayed in the movies because the scripts reign the character in.
Sure. But would you be happy if they'd cast a short actor for Thor and Superman? Wolverine's height as always bothered me a little in the Movie, but you can't always find an actor that's exactly like the comic character. I have to accept that. And aside from the height, I thought he was a good Wolverine. In the first two Movies anyway. X3 and Origins? Man, was he lame.
I have acted in films before and I know it's pretty much impossible to deliver a bad line.
Erm, eye colour is not as big a deal as the body frame of someone.
I am not sure of their exact height, but they are within the 5"5 - 5"8 height range
Dougray Scott
Gary Sinise
Michael Keaton
Kiefer Sutherland (just thinking about it, that would definitely be my pick)
Gary Oldman (amazing in ANYTHING)
All of those would have been better choices.
This particular forum is regards to a sequel to Wolverine, a movie where this character will be the main focus of the movie.
Erm, eye colour is not as big a deal as the body frame of someone.
I have acted in films before and I know it's pretty much impossible to deliver a bad line.
Why would Gary, a man that can do ANYTHING, not have been right for this part?
All those actors have put in amazing, CLASSIC performances, all before X1. Something that Hugh hasn't done.
In the HP books, Harry's eyes were important. They were just like his mother's eyes and they were constantly mentioned. They were changed in the movies and no one kicked up a fuss, Why should Wolverine being taller than he is in the comics be any different?
Seeing as Wolverine's height is so important to you, can you give us a list of 5 good actors, who are 5 foot 3, and you think would have made a good Wolverine in 2000.
I think the reason it's different from the eyes, is that it's much more noticeable.
Are you saying the X1 script was CRAP? It wasn't great, but was it CRAP?
I have acted in films before and I know it's pretty much impossible to deliver a bad line.
Case in point. I'm a tough character like Wolverine and it says in the script that I have to say:
"I do like hit people around like little fairiies because I watch Teletubbies all day. Do you love those cute teletubbies?"
That's pretty much impossible to turn into anything decent. No matter how good an actor is.
BUT, Hugh was not given any of those lines. Fine, he was not cut loose enough...but there was enough there for his character to stand out. It's all about how you deliver the lines.
Another perfect case in point and you'll enjoy this one. Keaton.
Keaton had SCRAPS in Batman. He had maybe about seven or eight lines in the entire movie. But to this day, people still argue that he IS Batman, despite Bale being given MORE lines and having MORE to his character.
Keaton made EVERY line count and made the character memorable.
It comes down to the quality of character. And you know what? With a bit of makeup here and there....Keaton would have made a much better Wolverine. AND HE'S THE RIGHT HEIGHT!!
But yeah, don't just blame it all on the writers and director. Yes, they are PARTLY to blame but Hugh was not given impossible lines to try and create a unique character out of.
Fair enough.
I do not believe that they CAN fix the character of Wolverine, without a reboot. In fact, I'm almost completely of the belief that the entire x-men franchise was tainted by the films.
Another sequel to Wolverine is just further cementing that.
I believe that Wolverine should never have been shoved into the limelight. I believe his popularity comes from his being the anti hero to the heroes who are in the spotlight. He is a great side character, a great antithesis. And I believe that turning him into the hero, and playing with his popularity as the gritty one, so that all the other X-Men just became side characters, and in the end pointless, was a huge irreversible mistake.
So how do you fix that?
Well i'd start by not making a sequel at all.
Then i'd wait a good few years, before rebooting the franchise and handling Wolverine with the understanding that should have been there in the first place.
Hugh's stardom is related to the fact that he was written as the most interesting character in the films with more focus on him. It's a problem that numerous people have already commented on
Hugh's stardom is related to the fact that he was written as the most interesting character in the films with more focus on him. It's a problem that numerous people have already commented on
It's funny....when they were preparing to make the first XMEN movie...they looked around and saw A XMEN book....and a half dozen Wolverine books...so they think, "wow, these kids really like this Wolverine guy...lets make him important in the movie....becauase the fans are gaga for him".....
yep...it's all Bryan's fault.
The point being to me...Why are people spending so much time complaining about Singer making Wolverine more important that the other XMen when they need to go back and start complaining to MARVEL for doing it first...oh wait, I know, it's more trendy to complain about Singer now.....
I agree with that. I don't blame Singer for having Wolverine be a center character. He's been huge for a while now, long before Singer. The problem I had was that Wolverine was toned down a bit. And I wasn't incredibly disappointed or anything. X1 and X2 were pretty solid. I just would have liked to see a slightly more edgier Wolverine. And I'm not talking hard R movie here. We can make a good pg-13 Wolverine movie. We just need some good writers.