• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

The Official Danny Huston/Stryker Discussion Thread

Come on...

After the movie got delayed so many times I kind of quit following it until the trailer came out and I got back on these boards.

Like that avatar of Alan Moore by the way. Great biography that just came out from George Khoury (newer edition).
 
I haven't heard of him being back. Is the same actor in the Wolverine movie? I've looked all over and haven't seen much mention of him. Any info. would be great. Thanks.

Brian Cox is not playing him,its the main Vampire dude from 30 days of night.
Danny Huston.
 
Of course.

The guy they replaced him with isn't exactly young though.
I liked that CGI effect they used on Xavior and Ian McKellan in X3. They could've done the same.

Something tells me this was money related but I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking you guys.
 
He is younger than Brian Cox and I think thats all they care about. Full continuity is not Fox's thing.

Hes a good actor.
 
There must have been some reason though for why Fox decided to go with him over Cox though...

I've googled and can't find any reports on this.
 
I heard Cox wanted to come back and do the X-3 special effects thing. I forget where, maybe it was IMDB.

I don't know why they didn't take him. I kinda like the new Stryker though.
 
You know, now that you mention that, I kind of remember that too.

Nothing against the new Stryker (I'll have to see how he compares) but it does strike me as odd that nobody (I'm assuming alot of you have been following the movie pretty closely) really picked up on the reason "why" they decided to replace Brian Cox...

Sort of like the whole replacing Tyler Mane thing (although with that I'm assuming they just wanted a better actor as opposed to a collosal villain that doesn't say much).

It's kind of a mystery...
 
They most likely replaced Brian Cox becuase they didn't want to pay an arm and a leg for a digital face lift when they could be spending money on more important things.
 
People are more accepting of having another actor playing the role of the younger version of another character so I don't think it's money related or politicking. You almost expect the creative team to NOT ask the previous actor to come back to fill the role of the younger version.
 
Of course.

The guy they replaced him with isn't exactly young though.
I liked that CGI effect they used on Xavior and Ian McKellan in X3. They could've done the same.

Something tells me this was money related but I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking you guys.


for that scene it worked, for a whole movie not so much. The movie takes place over 20 years before X2,and Danny Huston actually(In my opinion at least) looks like he could be a younger version of Stryker
 
for that scene it worked, for a whole movie not so much. The movie takes place over 20 years before X2,and Danny Huston actually(In my opinion at least) looks like he could be a younger version of Stryker

Hey, he may be a great actor but I don't know how you can say that he looks like a younger version of Brian Cox...
 
It looks like it's feasible that he's a young Styker, even if he's not the spitting image of a young Brian Cox. Its not as bad as Sabretooth for example.
 
It's not as noticeable as "Sabretooth" mainly cause he's an old guy and not a flashy supervillain that fights.

I'm guessing alot of people won't probably pick up that this is the same character that appeared in X2. Just another older scientist type that serves his role in progressing the plot forward.
 
They most likely replaced Brian Cox becuase they didn't want to pay an arm and a leg for a digital face lift when they could be spending money on more important things.

Exactly.

The process used for XM:United was reportedly a time consuming and painstaking process for the fx guys, and that was just for 1 scene.

The length of time (and therefore cost) that several scenes involving Styker would have needed is'nt financially viable when you've got so many other visual elements in the movie that require fx.
 
Yeah I agree that Fox's budget was too small to do the de-aging thing on Cox... they got too cheap and just signed a younger actor. I like Huston... but Cox said he was willing to do it if he was asked. Fox just didn't want to fund that technology throughtout the film.
 
I didn't know how expensive that would be. You guys are probably wight though.

Howver, they could've almost used the same actor and expected audiences not to bring up the age thing if they can use a totally new actor (who doesn't look the same) and expect noone tp bring up the looks thing. But whatever, this scenario just desribed does make sense.
 
heres my beef in wolverines flash backs stryker has a goatee and glasses this dude has none of that the weapon x facility looks to differnt and i know its 15 years earlier but come on they didnt redesign the whole place wolverines claws are still all over in x2 then you got his Dog Chain which is different no continuity at all
 
C'mon, having concerns about goatee's and dogtag continuity is just so trivial.

In the grand scheme of things, it isnt gonna matter one bit.
 
i hope they keep that line i heard from the early script review. wolverine is in the tank and a colonel guy says something like "now with all this metal your weapon wont walk past a single metal detector unnoticed." then stryker replies, "with this metal bonded to his skeleton, he'll walk wherever he wants to walk."

it reminds me of the infamous "i go where i wanna go" line from TAS, which was also another fox produced xmen work.
 
lol. I remember that. I can't remember the episode, though.

"I goooo where I wanna gooo" :p

-TNC
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,557
Messages
21,989,627
Members
45,783
Latest member
mariagrace999
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"