The Wolverine how to fix wolverines character

[sabetoonth]

gotta step up your game C heh

 

[C. Lee]

gotta step up your game C heh

But she's so darn cute in her Batman suit playing with Cinderella and Batman action figures....

 

[danoyse]

Looks like I need to type faster and stop playing princesses and Batman with my daughter between my posts...danoyse keeps saying stuff before me.

It sounds better coming from two of us, it's all good.

Besides, Cinderella and Batman sounds way more fun than this.

 

[UnionJack]

I think the height thing is taken abit too far, by now I am used to a tall movie Wolverine and a start comic look.

The thing that bugs me most is how watered down he has become, he has no rage at all, the video game of Origins was SOOOO much better than the film, tho cut scenes showed what we really should have got, but Fox are greedy and want to make a ton of money from children.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EocXtLAAAc[/YT]

The general audience don't know that in the comics for the past 35years Wolverine has a Rambo style body count, they see a hairy guy with claws, all be it blunt one's now.

We will never get a hard 13pg/R-rated Wolverine film as it won't make as much money for Fox no matter how many comic fans go see it. The flash back to Weapon X is the closest we got to his Origin.

Even if the "next" Wolverine is shorter he won't be the savage wild man that we know and love he will be the same soft uncle who looks after all the wittle kiddies.
It's a sad conclusion but probably a real one!


For the next film to rate higher for me I'd like to see:
- Some blood, we got it in the flash back why not now?!
- A change of clothing I'm tired of the jeans/wife beater look now its awful, give him some soft of suit, his X-Force suit is badass
- Better CGI practical can't always be used but at least spent more then £5 on it and don't rush it!
- Don't fill it with needless characters/actors like Will.am.i he was fudging appalling and wasted screen time and money!
- GIVE US SOME REAL RAGE!

 

[UnionJack]

I love The Fountain...I'm actually hoping he does this one....although he probably won't.

The Fountain is one of my Top5 of all time, totally overlooked but for me its perfect.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Well as many people have commented, Wolverine is popular BECAUSE he is not the MAIN guy. That's the point they missed. We love him because he ain't the leader and he is an outsider and not your regular hero where the spotlight is on him. In the films, they were consciously trying so hard to make him the cool character and everyone service him. I mean, Cyclops and Storm were just pupperts in those films.

Yes, blame Singer and his writers. He's the damn director.

I think the idea that Singer is blameless for our faults with the films is insane. Of course he's too blame. It's his creative vision, his handling of the superhero franchise. And when I compare it to Superman Returns, i am totally sure I simply do not like the way he handles Superheroes.

I don't think there was anything wrong with making Wolverine the center of attention in the movies, at least in X1.

I mean, storywise, it made sense in X1 to make Wolverine and Rogue the "outsiders" and introduce us to Xavier, his school, and the X-men through Wolverine's and Rogue's eyes.

The problem, though, is that as the series progressed, it became too much "all about Wolverine" and it seemed all the other characters played second fiddle to Wolverine, especially Cyclops.

Now, naturally, when you are dealing with a team with many members, not all characters are going to get equal attention.

But, I think it would have been better if the other characters had receive more attention, detail, and screen time as the series progressed.

Absolutely agreed. It wasn't quite as irksome in the first film, because their limelight had a point... it was a way of introducing us to the X-men without starting it at the beginning.

It just should have evolved from there and never did.

 

[The Executioner]

Have Wolverine go abe **** all the time like John Rambo in the Rambo mvies but more violent.

 

[x-fan]

I note everyone wants Logan to be violent, the thing is Logan doesn't wish to be violent, he just gets that way when pushed and the more he is pushed the more violent he gets, but really he just wants to be left alone.

 

[C. Lee]

I note everyone wants Logan to be violent, the thing is Logan doesn't wish to be violent, he just gets that way when pushed and the more he is pushed the more violent he gets, but really he just wants to be left alone.

You didn't know that if they show him as a sociopathic amoral killer who slaughters hundreds by cutting them into tiny little shreds with buckets of blood flowing....it will make him truer to his comic roots?....or not.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I agree with x-fan. Logan is a much more complex character than that. Of course we all want to see Logan in a rage and killing, but there has to be reasoning behind that. The violence too I think. I don't think you should just splatter blood everywhere for the sake of it. It can become overbearing and be too much. Yes, even by Wolverine's standards. I think if you over do it, it becomes senseless and even tasteless. Violence isn't really tasteful, but I'm talking about the execution of the violence. It shouldn't be guts and blood flying around in every frame. It should be exact. Or it becomes stale.

 

[x-fan]

I'd like a sceen where Logan is fighting, using his martial arts skills( he is a master i=of 14 styles) then as the fight goes badly then he gets mad, then madder then goes berserk and totally rips everything apart.

 

[GuestStar2004]

mr hugh jackman is starting to look like an older wolverine now, that aint good for the pr-xmen 1 status

 

[truth]

Was watching X1 last night as it was on TV. Ha, have not seen it in such a long time.

One scene stood out for me. When Wolverine grabs Cyclops in Xavier's office. You know Cyclops looked like the smaller, weedier chump while Wolverine towered over him and looked like the bigger bully. As someone mentioned which would have worked, Hugh should have been Cyclops. But then Cyclop's character was like watching paint dry. WHO ARE THESE DAMN WRITERS?!!!!

Please, Wolverine's character DOES need fixing...BOTH the actor and the writing. And no, this is not an opinion...IT IS FACT. Opinions get us nowhere and is pointless. Let's get down to the truth and make the product right.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Was watching X1 last night as it was on TV. Ha, have not seen it in such a long time.

One scene stood out for me. When Wolverine grabs Cyclops in Xavier's office. You know Cyclops looked like the smaller, weedier chump while Wolverine towered over him and looked like the bigger bully. As someone mentioned which would have worked, Hugh should have been Cyclops. But then Cyclop's character was like watching paint dry. WHO ARE THESE DAMN WRITERS?!!!!

Please, Wolverine's character DOES need fixing...BOTH the actor and the writing. And no, this is not an opinion...IT IS FACT. Opinions get us nowhere and is pointless. Let's get down to the truth and make the product right.

Someone wasn't very good with definitions in school were they?

 

[sabetoonth]

BURN!

 

[hopefuldreamer]

This is actually really simple.

Cyclops is the leader of the X-men and Storm is second-in-command. In ANY of the films, did it ever feel like Cyclops or Storm could lead ANYTHING? No. That's where the script and director messed up.

Totally agreed. Probably sums up my problem with the whole franchise. It's not that I hated what Hugh did with Wolverine, it's ^this... and Rogue of course...

Well, it depends on what you mean by "Main guy." No, Wolverine has never been the leader type, but he has, for a long time in the comics, been one of the most prominent characters, and often times has more solo books about him out then actual X-men titles. So the Wolverine-centric traits of the X-men is indeed something that started in the comics (I know, because people have been complaining about it for a while, yet people still seem to buy his books).

Which is why no one would have minded an X-men movie franchise with a Wolverine spin off. Would make perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense, is making an X-men movies franchise in which Wolverine is the main character, the most important of the X-men, the one that everyone is interested in, the strongest, the bravest, the main love story is his and Jeans... I mean by the end of X3 he was practically the leader of the X-men, once they'd gotten cyclops out of the way.

I really have a problem with people saying Hugh Jackman IS Wolverine.

All we've had his him, so there is nothing else to compare him to.

We can now say that Keaton IS Batman or Reeve IS Superman because other actors have come and have not surpassed them in those roles.

I agree. I think there could be plenty of people who could play a great Wolverine. Hugh plays a good one, but he's not the be all and end all.

See...that's the thing about opinions....you feel no one has surpassed Keaton, others don't feel the same way.

I think he was just saying 'we' as in the royal 'we' as in people in general. People can say that Keaton is Batman or Reeve is Superman comapared to all the other people who have tried. You can't do that with Wolverine.

One scene stood out for me. When Wolverine grabs Cyclops in Xavier's office. You know Cyclops looked like the smaller, weedier chump while Wolverine towered over him and looked like the bigger bully.

It's stuff like that that makes me angry.

I don't wanna be one of these fans that gets angry because writers and directors don't stick absolutely to the material.

I don't mind changes to storylines, changes to backstories, changes to timelines.

But I do mind changes to characterisation. Certain relationships being changed. Certain parts of appearance.

I can't help it.

So when I look at Cyclops, and I look at Rogue, and I don't at all see the characters I know and have grown up with in either of them, it makes me angry.

And then when I see Wolverine, centre of attention, with Cyclops love interest and with Rogue looking up at him puppy eyed, and practically having his own importance shoved down his throat by everyone, it makes me even madder.

It's wrong, stupid, unneccesary, arrogant and disrespectful.

The only thing that can fix it is a time machine.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Totally agreed. Probably sums up my problem with the whole franchise. It's not that I hated what Hugh did with Wolverine, it's ^this... and Rogue of course...



Which is why no one would have minded an X-men movie franchise with a Wolverine spin off. Would make perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense, is making an X-men movies franchise in which Wolverine is the main character, the most important of the X-men, the one that everyone is interested in, the strongest, the bravest, the main love story is his and Jeans... I mean by the end of X3 he was practically the leader of the X-men, once they'd gotten cyclops out of the way.



I agree. I think there could be plenty of people who could play a great Wolverine. Hugh plays a good one, but he's not the be all and end all.

See, I have no problem with that. What annoys me is that Truth is parading around saying that Hugh played a horrible Wolverine, and also mixing up the definition between opinion on fact.

I like Hugh, but I think we could get a better Wolverine performance as well. I think Hugh himself could give a better one with a better script. And I think in the future, someone could come along and very easily out perform Hugh.

I don't think Hugh has done a horrible job with the character. I think he's done pretty well with what he's had. And the main problems you're listing all have to do with writing. It wasn't as bad in the first two X-men movies, but X3 was just bad, with Wolverine taking over the leader role. But again, that is to an extent an extension of the comics. Wolverine did lead the X-men for a while in the comics. I personally hate that, but it's not just the movies that have been doing this to Wolverine. The comics have been doing it too. It's unfortunate, because that happens when writers don't understand that Wolverine works best in the anti-hero, outsider role within the group. Not the leader.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

See, I have no problem with that. What annoys me is that Truth is parading around saying that Hugh played a horrible Wolverine, and also mixing up the definition between opinion on fact.

I like Hugh, but I think we could get a better Wolverine performance as well. I think Hugh himself could give a better one with a better script. And I think in the future, someone could come along and very easily out perform Hugh.

I don't think Hugh has done a horrible job with the character. I think he's done pretty well with what he's had. And the main problems you're listing all have to do with writing. It wasn't as bad in the first two X-men movies, but X3 was just bad, with Wolverine taking over the leader role. But again, that is to an extent an extension of the comics. Wolverine did lead the X-men for a while in the comics. I personally hate that, but it's not just the movies that have been doing this to Wolverine. The comics have been doing it too. It's unfortunate, because that happens when writers don't understand that Wolverine works best in the anti-hero, outsider role within the group. Not the leader.

ITA

You know what the weird thing is?

When I first saw the X-Men and X2, I enjoyed them. I mean I didn't like cyclops or rogue particularly, but i was capable of enjoying the movies for what they were.

I think it's probably because they were pretty much the first to come along in my generation, and the spawn the rise of the Superhero, so I wasn't overly critical.

But when you look back on them now, after seeing what so many other directors have managed to achieve with other Superheroes, especially Nolan, you start to get a bit more critical.

I start to go 'well actually, they were good action movies, but they were terrible and unfaithful adaptations of the comics characters.'

I definitely do think Hugh could have been loads better with a better script. I mean I think he's great at being Wolverine in action, but I always thought the acting in scenes between him and Jean was awful... they just had no chemistry... but then none of the cast had any chemistry...

I challenge anyone to find me a single reason why someone's who's favourite X-men character is Cyclops (the leader of the X-men, Xavier's first student, the guy with the strong morals and good judgement that you know you can trust to do the right thing) might enjoy any of the films.

And if you can't then stop trying to defend them as good comic book adaptions.

 

[Infinity9999x]

ITA

You know what the weird thing is?

When I first saw the X-Men and X2, I enjoyed them. I mean I didn't like cyclops or rogue particularly, but i was capable of enjoying the movies for what they were.

I think it's probably because they were pretty much the first to come along in my generation, and the spawn the rise of the Superhero, so I wasn't overly critical.

But when you look back on them now, after seeing what so many other directors have managed to achieve with other Superheroes, especially Nolan, you start to get a bit more critical.

I start to go 'well actually, they were good action movies, but they were terrible and unfaithful adaptations of the comics characters.'

I definitely do think Hugh could have been loads better with a better script. I mean I think he's great at being Wolverine in action, but I always thought the acting in scenes between him and Jean was awful... they just had no chemistry... but then none of the cast had any chemistry...

I challenge anyone to find me a single reason why someone's who's favourite X-men character is Cyclops might enjoy any of the films.

And if you can't then stop trying to defend them as good comic book adaptions.

Oh, I agree with that. I still enjoy the first two movies, because when I watch a movie I try to evaluate it solely on its basis as a movie. For example, I realize Spider-man 2 is a very, very good movie. As an adaptation of one of my favorite characters, I find it very lacking.

My favorite character was always Wolverine, so as a kid, I had no problem with the first two movies. Sure, they changed a lot, but since I never thought I would see superhero adaptations of my favorite characters, I was geeked that I was just getting these movies.

I thought the writing was okay, but at times it just fell flat. The "love triangle" between Jean, Scott, and Logan always fell flat to me, mostly because Cyclops was written as such a boring character. If they had written Cyclops more likable, (and Marsden can play likable) then it would have been more dynamic. We needed someone who was used to writing ensembles.

 

[truth]

See, I have no problem with that. What annoys me is that Truth is parading around saying that Hugh played a horrible Wolverine, and also mixing up the definition between opinion on fact.

I like Hugh, but I think we could get a better Wolverine performance as well. I think Hugh himself could give a better one with a better script. And I think in the future, someone could come along and very easily out perform Hugh.

I don't think Hugh has done a horrible job with the character. I think he's done pretty well with what he's had. And the main problems you're listing all have to do with writing. It wasn't as bad in the first two X-men movies, but X3 was just bad, with Wolverine taking over the leader role. But again, that is to an extent an extension of the comics. Wolverine did lead the X-men for a while in the comics. I personally hate that, but it's not just the movies that have been doing this to Wolverine. The comics have been doing it too. It's unfortunate, because that happens when writers don't understand that Wolverine works best in the anti-hero, outsider role within the group. Not the leader.

THIS MAN! When did I say Hugh Jackman played a CRAP or HORRIBLE Wolverine? I said he was not cast well. I think I mentioned before that he out-acted Bale in Prestige. The man is a very good actor. It's just that he was in the wrong role.

Please, can you stop blaming the script? Please? This was not a case of him not being unleashed and more dynamic, there was ENOUGH in there for Jackman to really make it a memorable character. He just looked too damn nice. Too friendly. You never felt uneasy around him, never threatened. Again, cast Jackman as Cyclops (making his character more interesting) and then cast Kiefer Sutherland as Wolverine and THERE is where you will get a much better dynamic.

Yes, the script was not great and it was average, but Jackman did not evoke a strong enough aura to make you BELIEVE he was the character in the comics and cartoons that we have seen

 

[truth]

As the guy said a few posts back....TIME MACHINE to fix all this.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Oh, I agree with that. I still enjoy the first two movies, because when I watch a movie I try to evaluate it solely on its basis as a movie. For example, I realize Spider-man 2 is a very, very good movie. As an adaptation of one of my favorite characters, I find it very lacking.

My favorite character was always Wolverine, so as a kid, I had no problem with the first two movies. Sure, they changed a lot, but since I never thought I would see superhero adaptations of my favorite characters, I was geeked that I was just getting these movies.

I thought the writing was okay, but at times it just fell flat. The "love triangle" between Jean, Scott, and Logan always fell flat to me, mostly because Cyclops was written as such a boring character. If they had written Cyclops more likable, (and Marsden can play likable) then it would have been more dynamic. We needed someone who was used to writing ensembles.

God I hate that love triangle. So much I don't think I can ever put it into words. I was just re watching X-men the other day, and I identified the exact point where the movie begins to suck. When Wolverine first wakes up in the institute, and Jean gently moves her hand down his arm to his hand... that slight sexual innuendo is enough to ruin the rest of the movie for me... because it's obvious that this is their intention... to play on the sexual attraction of these two characters. And to make this work, they have to make Cyclops not very likeable, or you would end up thinking Jean is a *****.

Without that love triangle, the movies may not have sucked quite so much.

THIS MAN! When did I say Hugh Jackman played a CRAP or HORRIBLE Wolverine? I said he was not cast well. I think I mentioned before that he out-acted Bale in Prestige. The man is a very good actor. It's just that he was in the wrong role.

Please, can you stop blaming the script? Please? This was not a case of him not being unleashed and more dynamic, there was ENOUGH in there for Jackman to really make it a memorable character. He just looked too damn nice. Too friendly. You never felt uneasy around him, never threatened. Again, cast Jackman as Cyclops (making his character more interesting) and then cast Kiefer Sutherland as Wolverine and THERE is where you will get a much better dynamic.

Yes, the script was not great and it was average, but Jackman did not evoke a strong enough aura to make you BELIEVE he was the character in the comics and cartoons that we have seen

I totally disagree.

It's the storyline that made it impossible to see Jackman as anything but nice. He's playing a nice guy. He's been written as the grizzly bear with a heart of gold.

Again all this is emphasised by his and Jean's 'love'.

 

[x-fan]

God I hate that love triangle. So much I don't think I can ever put it into words. I was just re watching X-men the other day, and I identified the exact point where the movie begins to suck. When Wolverine first wakes up in the institute, and Jean gently moves her hand down his arm to his hand... that slight sexual innuendo is enough to ruin the rest of the movie for me... because it's obvious that this is their intention... to play on the sexual attraction of these two characters. And to make this work, they have to make Cyclops not very likeable, or you would end up thinking Jean is a *****.

Without that love triangle, the movies may not have sucked quite so much.





I totally disagree.

It's the storyline that made it impossible to see Jackman as anything but nice. He's playing a nice guy. He's been written as the grizzly bear with a heart of gold.

Again all this is emphasised by his and Jean's 'love'.

Lets call it script and Director then, If the script ha been better, less people would have been upset by it. Singer could have pulled better performances from some of the actors, but didn't. I have already said this was part of the problem, but casting closer to source material is a must as well, do these three things and much less issues with the new movie when it comes. Oh and forget that first three movies and origins happened clean slate in my mind problem solved

 

[Infinity9999x]

THIS MAN! When did I say Hugh Jackman played a CRAP or HORRIBLE Wolverine? I said he was not cast well. I think I mentioned before that he out-acted Bale in Prestige. The man is a very good actor. It's just that he was in the wrong role.

Please, can you stop blaming the script? Please? This was not a case of him not being unleashed and more dynamic, there was ENOUGH in there for Jackman to really make it a memorable character. He just looked too damn nice. Too friendly. You never felt uneasy around him, never threatened. Again, cast Jackman as Cyclops (making his character more interesting) and then cast Kiefer Sutherland as Wolverine and THERE is where you will get a much better dynamic.

Yes, the script was not great and it was average, but Jackman did not evoke a strong enough aura to make you BELIEVE he was the character in the comics and cartoons that we have seen

My mistake, you never said Jackman sucked, however, your opinion that he didn't make the character memorable is just that, an opinion. I thought he did a fine job.

And no, I will not stop blaming the script, because, contrary to what you may think, I do NOT think the script had the qualities to make Wolverine the truly dynamic character I enjoy in the comics. Even in X1 he was toned down.

But again, this is all opinion. I understand that you disagree, and I have no problem with that, because I realize that my opinion is not fact.

 

[truth]

Okay people, it's time for an example.

Michael Keaton.

I've said it before on this thread but I shall explain it further.

What exactly was Keaton given? He hardly had anything! In that first movie, he had about six to eight lines. BUT, despite what Bale has done, people STILL go back to Keaton and say he is Batman. You see, Keaton was able to take what little he had on the script and give a memorable performance that still have people on the street referring him to Batman.

Jackman was given a lot more than Keaton and I saw X1. He was not written as a cuddly teddy bear. It was clear he was an outsider who was different from the others. I am telling you, put Kiefer Sutherland in that same role with those same lines and you will be amazed by the difference. It's the delivery of the line combined with how you look. I don't know what other way to say it or put it. I was staring at a damn Weapon X comic at Forbidden Planet a few days ago and the guy I am seeing there is not the guy up on the screen. The guy in the comic LOOKS, the key word, LOOKS interesting.
Am I getting warmer now?