Logan Logan spoiler thread discussion

based on what is said or shown in film it appears varations of things from both X-Men and the wolverine happen in this timeline as well as varation from origins of wolverine being shot with adamanturm bullets.

we really don't know who is dead or not in 2029 except those we see dying in Logan.
 
Did anyone love how the intro credits said "introducing Dafne Keen"?
 
I might have missed it, but I dont remember hearing anything that said X24 was inferior to original Logans healing ability.

You might be right though... Meaning X24 wasnt quite up to Logans regenerative abilities so he needed the occasional booster.

Will have to pay closer attention next viewing.

Yeah, Rice even refers to X-24 as practically a new born.
 
Saw Logan premiere night. I was overwhelmed. Teary a bit. Honestly though I didn't know what to say. Well, yes. But I felt so conflicted.

I was of course sad to see that this would be Wolverine's send-off. Still, it made me upset that they had to end the X-Men franchise for the sake of Wolverine's story. Didn't seem fair.

I liked DOFP, it fixed so much of what was wrong with The Last Stand, but it still focused on the past more than it did on the present. Because they killed so many characters off in Brett Ratner's movie, I wanted to see one final X-Men movie with the original cast all together and fighting an evil.

You had this great final battle in X-Men: The Last Stand which unfortunately didn't have Scott, Rogue, Charles or any other characters in the fight because of Brett Ratner.

So it was rated R, for me it wasn't just rated R...it was taking rated R to the next level. MPAA should have created a new rating in their system. I thought I wouldn't have much of a problem with this film being ultra-violent, but wow, this was even more violent than Deadpool...but my question is was it really necessary to go the violent?

I was okay with the entire extended R-rated cut of "The Wolverine", but this one...jesus. One or two head-cuttings I think is enough but they certainly crossed the line with this film's violence.

Furthermore, must it be so ultra-violent? It gets to the point where I question this movie's seriousness. Story versus action-porn. I wonder whether the people making this movie were seriously just engaging in violence for the sake of violence or trying to tell a good story.

Regardless of all the violence in this movie, there was really only one major problem I had with it. This movie still could have been rated R, I just wish they didn't actually have to show us X-24 killing the family including the children (one kid I remember, I don't remember if there were more)...that was really graphic and disturbing. It's not an image you like to see of a child murdered. I would have cut that out.

Even in some R-rated movies, they cut some scenes away, they let you know by giving you some scenario establishing that someone was killed or it was something brutal. (Batman v Superman for example...Batman hitting the guy in the balls)

So moving aside from the violence, did Professor Xavier think that Logan killed him. It was confusing and I couldn't tell, and I didn't hear Charles' last words. What were they? If Charles really did think Logan killed him, then that would be really upsetting and depressing.

Was Logan actually waiting for Charles to die? If there is any logic, it would only make sense somewhat if Logan had been mad at Charles because he accidentally killed all the X-Men and more mutants. I would understand that. I liked that Logan was taking care of him and treating him like family, and sort of like his dad.

That comes to my next problem with the movie though...Logan was a total dick. Too much of a dick. He wouldn't come to his senses one bit. Did he have to act like a total dick and not give a s**t the whole time? It was pretty miserable.

Before these events, I imagine Logan never would have wanted to have a child or be responsible for supporting them, unless he really liked her possibly...but this time...I guess it was only because he was afraid of people dying next to him after all he had been through.

He was going to leave Laura away and let her get shot at.

So was the chemical bottle that Logan drank meant to kill his healing power or just give him temporary indestructible power before wearing off? Or did that kill him in the end? How did he die?

If he had been removed from the tree branch he got stuck through his back and through his chest, would he have survived and healed? Or is it because his heart wouldn't have had time to heal itself?
 
No shame in admitting I shed a few tears. What a fantastic film.



On a side note, how do we think the Apocalypse Post Credits scene fits in here? In that, we see Essex Corps taking Weapon X blood sample. Fair enough, setting up clones and Mr Sinister no?

But this film is years later, no mention of Essex Corps or Mr Sinister and yet Rice has created the clones of Wolverine?
 
On a side note, how do we think the Apocalypse Post Credits scene fits in here? In that, we see Essex Corps taking Weapon X blood sample. Fair enough, setting up clones and Mr Sinister no?

But this film is years later, no mention of Essex Corps or Mr Sinister and yet Rice has created the clones of Wolverine?
Kingberg has said that the scene is related to how X-23 was created and that Sinister will appear in future movies. It should be fairly easy to retroactively mention that Transigen was funded by Essex Corp.
 
No, in the comics Zander Rice's father was one of the scientists who worked on the Weapon X project that Logan murdered in his feral state upon escaping. The film kept that element intact, without the need to elaborate on it.
 
What if "Logan" is set in the Original Timeline, Timeline One (1 out of 3):​

1983: X-Men Origins
2004: X-Men 1
2004: X2
2005: The Last Stand
2029: Logan​


This would also explain why the mysterious mutant went back in the past (1903 or so) and thus created the second timeline/First Class Soft-Reboot...​

1962: First Class
Origins + Trilogy revised/altered
2011: The Wolverine
2023: DOFP Bleak Future​


And then, Wolvie time travels as well...

1962: First Class
1973: DOFP
1983: Apocalypse
2016: Deadpool
2023: DOFP Happy Future



I think this theory works beautifully!!!!!!​
 
Well, "overhyped" would be right word to describe it.

It's a good movie, no doubts here, but not really better than most of X-movies. I think that I may prefer "The Wolverine". First half was perfect (maybe some cursing by Xavier felt forced a bit, and action scenes cut too fast), but then two things happened:


X-24 - the couldn't have worse idea for a villain. I just hate this, not only in this movie but in every movie that use the idea of hero's copy/clone

Children mutants - I've lost interest here. Mad Max 3 all over again.



Besides - the Holbrook character turned out to be quite useless.
and I dont think that ending was emotional enough.

7/10
 
What if "Logan" is set in the Original Timeline, Timeline One (1 out of 3):​

1983: X-Men Origins
2004: X-Men 1
2004: X2
2005: The Last Stand
2029: Logan

I thought about this as I was watching the movie. It feels like the conclusion to the original trilogy/timeline.

I'd throw The Wolverine in there too, though... minus the post credits scene.
 
I've never really liked the idea of this being an alternate timeline, seeing as how they mentioned the Statue of Liberty evenst from X1, etc....but....this maye be, unless i missed something along the lines:

In XOW, X1 and X2, etc Wolverine's dog tags said 'WOLVERINE' on them, along with the number'. However in Logan, his dog tags said 'Logan' on them. I wonder if this was a subtle way of telling the audience it is indeed a different timeline from the original movies..?
 
I've never really liked the idea of this being an alternate timeline, seeing as how they mentioned the Statue of Liberty evenst from X1, etc....but....this maye be, unless in missed something along the lines:

In XOW, X1 and X2, etc Wolverine's dog tags said 'Wolverine' on them, along with the number'. However in Logan, his dog tags said 'Logan' on them. I wonder if this was a subtle way of telling the audience it is a different timeline from the original movies..?

his dogtags are different in new timeline created in DOFP than they were in original.
 
his dogtags are different in new timeline created in DOFP than they were in original.

Ditto. Thanks to Jean in Apocalypse giving him his name and memories back. Which does put it in the new timeline.


I don't see how Jean Grey giving him back his memories would change the dog tag label he had while under the control of the Weapon X program....but okay..i guess.
 
Last edited:
his dogtags are different in new timeline created in DOFP than they were in original.

In 1983 (Apocalypse), when he escaped as Weapon X... he had no dog tags.

I say:

"Logan" is an alternate universe.
 
It's the same universe. Just imagine you was Logan, travelled back in time in order to end up in an even worse future while being the only one carrying the memories of both timelines.

No wonder he wants to kill himself.
 
I don't see how Jean Grey giving him back his memories would change the dog tag label he had while under the control of the Weapon X program....but okay..i guess.
I think it's more a nod that he knows more about his indentity now. Trying to connect the scene from Apocalypse to Logan a bit more. Similar to what they did with Zander Rice.
In 1983 (Apocalypse), when he escaped as Weapon X... he had no dog tags.
Well he did only get the Wolverine ones because of Kayla's story (and "death"). Before that he just had random army tags. With those events being changed he probably wouldn't get new dogtags during the Weapon X procedure at all. Rather he probably just got them later to remind himself of his past or something. :woot:
 
No, in the comics Zander Rice's father was one of the scientists who worked on the Weapon X project that Logan murdered in his feral state upon escaping. The film kept that element intact, without the need to elaborate on it.
The should have just made Strykers sone since 1. the name is more known and consisitent as Wolverines tormentor through out all of the X-men Movie Series.
Also its along the same line of work Controlling Mutants.
 
The should have just made Strykers sone since 1. the name is more known and consisitent as Wolverines tormentor through out all of the X-men Movie Series.
Also its along the same line of work Controlling Mutants.
Why would Jason try to wipe out Mutants though? He is one of them himself. :)
 
Could have done away with the farm family sub-plot. It just made the film longer than it should.

Also, I don't see why the organization felt it was necessary to create a full on clone of Wolverine... it seemed that everyone in that world knew how dangerous Logan can be.

Out of the many choices of superheroes available why do a superhero known to be untameable.

Why not clone one of the more meta powered mutants--that is less volatile and less harder to control than a beserker.

It reminds me of what Dr. Malcolm in Jurassic Park said during the lunch scene.

It also looked like they had a bunch of dna from former mutants. A Storm clone or Magneto would make that organization nearly unstoppable.
 
Also, the clone wolverine vs. Logan felt like we were retreading the same ground that previous films made. A villian who can heal and have adamantium skeleton that can go toe-to-toe with our hero... I'm looking at you Lady Deathstrike!
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"