The Official "Wolverine at Comic-Con" Thread

[Theweepeople]

WOW.

"Wolverine got the most screentime because it cost less."


To read that is shocking.

What's so shocking about this? Brian Singer admitted in an interview eight years ago the reason certain popular characters like Collosus, Juggernaut, and nightcrawler weren't in X-Men 1 because it was to expensive to do the effects. The one scene of Collosus in X2 cost somewhere in the range of 5 to 10million dollars. I'm sure the nightcrawler sequence cost a fortune considering none of the action sequences after that one compared.

I have no problem admitting that part of the reason Wolverine got the most screentime is his popularity but, him being one of the easiest mutants to financially adapt had a lot to do with it.

I HAD to respond to it because its so nonsensical I just couldnt turn away.

Would you mind providing evidence that my statement was nonsensical because I just provided evidence to the contrary?

What's even more shocking is to hear people continue to believe Singer's films were flawed and the theory that "They could have worked without Wolverine and above all without Jackman."

Since when were Singer's movies not flawed? These movies are called X-Men films and the storylines focused on one X-Man character while others get little to no development. Also, how do you know these movies wouldn't have worked without Wolverine and Jackman? I heard the same BS about a moderately popular comic book character called Iron Man and a so-called burned out actor named Robert Downey Jr. Isn't it funny how a less popular comic book character(Iron Man) could completely own the more iconic and so-called flawless Singer X-Men films at the box office.t:


These silly assertions that only one actor or actress is capable of playing a certain comic book character is trivial. Heath Ledger's performance as the joker is an example. Heath was never considered to be an A-list hollywood actor in terms of popularity or salary. When he got the role as Joker I don't remember anyone in these forums getting excited over the announcement. Right now it's impossible to determine whether someone else could play the role better because none of us were there for the audition. Of course someone could theoretically argue that Heath didn't handle playing the part well because it contributed to his death.

his is why Hollywood execs can't listen to the fans.

I totally agree because we all know how well this idea has worked out for Fox. Thank God some hollywood execs don't listen to the advice of fans of your type.

 

[SNIKT1950]

Health Ledger's performance as the joker is an example. Health was never considered to be an A-list hollywood actor in terms of popularity or salary. When he got the role as Joker I don't remember anyone in these forums getting excited over the announcement. Right now it's impossible to determine whether someone else could play the role better because none of us were there for the audition. Of course someone could theoretically argue that Heath didn't handle playing the part well because it contributed to his death.

I totally agree because we all know how well this idea has worked out for Fox. Thank God some hollywood execs don't listen to the advice of fans of your type.

You need to stop and read what you write.

Heath Ledger wasn't "A" list???

So I guess his ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATION for Best Actor in 2005 didn't mean anything.

Fox has done wrong with the franchise???

How is $1 Billion+ wrong???

They made a RIDICULOUSLY HUGE profit out of their creative decisions with the X-MEN franchise.

FOX isn't listening "to fans of my type", they're making movies "my type" enjoys and "my type" seems to be equivalent to $1 Billion+.

 

[Snikt]

You need to stop and read what you write.

Heath Ledger wasn't "A" list???

So I guess his ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATION for Best Actor in 2005 didn't mean anything.

Fox has done wrong with the franchise???

How is $1 Billion+ wrong???

They made a RIDICULOUSLY HUGE profit out of their creative decisions with the X-MEN franchise.

FOX isn't listening "to fans of my type", they're making movies "my type" enjoys and "my type" seems to be equivalent to $1 Billion+.

BRAVOt:!

 

[BMM]

You need to stop and read what you write.

Heath Ledger wasn't "A" list???

So I guess his ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATION for Best Actor in 2005 didn't mean anything.

The A-list consists of familiar and bankable actors. He was undoubtedly talented but he wasn't a bankable brand name actor. His name did not carry a movie in the same way the Brad Pitt's and the Will Smith's of the world do. Marion Cotillard won an Academy Award, but she is hardly considered an A-list, bankable actress. Ledger certainly would be now, but he was considered a risky choice by a lot of people even after Brokeback Mountain.

How is $1 Billion+ wrong???

Quantity doesn't equal quality.

FOX isn't listening "to fans of my type", they're making movies "my type" enjoys and "my type" seems to be equivalent to $1 Billion+.

That doesn't mean they're listening to you.

 

[Theweepeople]

You need to stop and read what you write.

Heath Ledger wasn't "A" list???

You need to think before you speak.

So I guess his ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATION for Best Actor in 2005 didn't mean anything.

What the hell? So winning an academy award automatically makes you an A-list actor. If what you said was true than actors Sylverster Stallone, Kevin Kostner, and actress Hale Berry would be considered A-list actors as a result of all of them winning academy awards. None of these people are A-list actors. A-list actors don't star in one good movie every 5 to 10 years(in Stallone's case 20 years) while most of their other films suck ass. Furthermore, Halle Berry had arguably the worst academy award winning performace I've ever seen in a film. What noteworthy performance has Halle Berry had since 2001? Vin Diesel and Ben Affleck have both been in plenty of hit movies during their careers. I guess all they need are academy awards to become A-list actors.

Fox has done wrong with the franchise???

How is $1 Billion+ wrong???

Well, for one thing Fox has barely tapped into the potential of this franchise. We are talking about one of the most popular comic book series that got it's ass kicked in the boxoffice by one moderately popular comic book(Iron Man).

They made a RIDICULOUSLY HUGE profit out of their creative decisions with the X-MEN franchise.

Fox could have made a ridiculously larger profit if they properly budgeted these films and didn't rush the production schedules.

FOX isn't listening "to fans of my type", they're making movies "my type" enjoys and "my type" seems to be equivalent to $1 Billion+.

That's nice and all of their sci-fi/comic book movies are still underperforming.

 

[Theweepeople]

The A-list consists of familiar and bankable actors. He was undoubtedly talented but he wasn't a bankable brand name actor. His name did not carry a movie in the same way the Brad Pitt's and the Will Smith's of the world do. Marion Cotillard won an Academy Award, but she is hardly considered an A-list, bankable actress. Ledger certainly would be now, but he was considered a risky choice by a lot of people even after Brokeback Mountain.

Exactly. If Heath was an A-list actor after Brokeback Mountain he would have been one of the most sought after actors in hollywood but, of course he wasn't. The same could be said of Halle Berry. Monster's Ball wasn't much of a hit financially and is there a single film that made good money because of her performance? The Last Boyscout(tiny role), The Flinestones(tiny role), Executive Decision(average performance), X1(average performace), X2(slightly above average perfromace), and X3(Worst acting of the series).

 

[SNIKT1950]

Regardless of his Academy Award nomination, Heath Ledger wasn't an A-list actor. He was undoubtedly talented but he wasn't a bankable brand name actor. His name did not carry a movie in the same way the Brad Pitt's and the Will Smith's of the world do.

How's that for familiar and bankable?

 

[danoyse]

Most of those movies (The Order, The Four Feathers) were outright flops.

Heath was not an A-list actor. Like BMM said, these are people who see movies just for it's star. The best example of that today would be Will Smith, before that I would say Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts. Heath had not gotten to that level, even with the nomination for Brokeback Mountain.

TDK would have probably made him an A-list actor, but sadly we won't get to see that.

 

[BMM]

How's that for familiar and bankable?

Some of those movies earned less than $12 million dollars in their entire theatrical runs and were critical flops. Ledger wasn't a brand name in the way other A-list stars are. He wasn't looking to be a franchise unto himself, and I don't think he wanted to be that way, hence his choice in roles.

 

[Theweepeople]

How's that for familiar and bankable?

Nice try. I checked the budgets and domestic grosses of all of these films on boxofficemojo.com. Brokeback mountain was the only commercial success. All of the other films either flopped or struggled to make back their budget.

 

[SNIKT1950]

Well, for one thing Fox has barely tapped into the potential of this franchise. We are talking about one of the most popular comic book series that got it's ass kicked in the boxoffice by one moderately popular comic book(Iron Man).

That's nice and all of their sci-fi/comic book movies are still underperforming.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKIN ABOUT???

IRON MAN came out in 2008.

HOW can you compare it to X-MEN (2000)???

Or X2 (2003)?

Or X3 (2006)?

Your argument makes NO SENSE much like most of the stuff you're bringin up here.

If X1 had been released the same Summer as IRON MAN, then maybe you could make that comparison.

*Heath Ledger is a name Hollywood has been paying attention to for a long time. If that's not "A" list then who cares.

 

[Theweepeople]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKIN ABOUT???

IRON MAN came out in 2008.

Your point being?

HOW can you compare it to X-MEN (2000)???

Or X2 (2003)?

Or X3 (2006)?.

I'm comparing the total domestic and worldwide gross of Iron Man to each individual X-Men film and based on these numbers Iron Man dominates the X-Men franchise. There's no denying this. I'm confident Iron Man would have done well if it was released around the same dates the X-Men films were released.

Your argument makes NO SENSE much like most of the stuff you're bringin up here.)

You've done such an amazing job at shooting down my arguments by saying the same stupid crap over and over again. I'm giving you the freedom to give a detailed analysis of my quotes.

*If X1 had been released the same Summer as IRON MAN, then maybe you could make that comparison.

How does that have anything to do with my argument? Transformers came out in 2007. It had plenty of competition(Die Hard 4 and Harry Potter) and it had no problem making over 300million domestically. Pirates of the Carribean 2 came out the summer of 2006 and it had no problem breaking 400million. Spider-Man 1(2002) and Spider-Man2(2004) both had no problem making well over 300million domestically. Pirates of the Carribean had competition(LXG and Terminator 3), came out the same summer as X2(2003) and it made over 300million.


I have no idea what point you were trying to make. Were you trying to suggest that if Iron Man came out during an earlier time period(2000-2002) it wouldn't have made as much because comic book films weren't as popular? Spider-man 1's boxoffice gross completely destroys this theory. The X-Men movies were never huge hits during the time periods they were released and they certaintly wouldn't be hits now considering how much greater the competition is. None of the previous films came close to being the biggest box office hit of the summer. There's no denying this.

In the summer of 2000 there were 3 movies that outgrossed X-Men. The Perfect Storm, Gladiator, and Mission Impossible 2.

In the summer of 2003 there were 2 movies that outgrossed X-Men 2 by a landslide. The Matrix Reloaded and Pirates of the Carribean.

In the summer of 2006 there was 1 movie that outgrossed X-Men 3 by a landslide. Pirates of the Carribean 2.

If these X-Men films were as good as you've been saying then at least one film should have gotten close to being the number one blockbuster film of the summer. None of the movies came close to accomplishing this. X-Men 3 had a fantastic release date and it's second weekend gross got beat out by a mediocre comedy called The Breakup.

*Heath Ledger is a name Hollywood has been paying attention to for a long time. If that's not "A" list then who cares.

We are all still waiting for you to provide a single shred of evidence that this is true. You're argument has been refuted by multiple people. You have no frame of reference now but, feel free to continue if it gives you some sense of bliss.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

What does Heath ledger have to do with Wolverine?

 

[SNIKT1950]

Theweepeople, How old are you?

I feel like I'm talkin to my 14 year old nephew when responding to your posts.

You have no respect for Heath Ledger, you think its rational to compare X1 (the first comic book blockbuster since Burton's Batman in '89) to IRON MAN and you talk about $400 Million+ box office grosses as "mundane" achievements for a film.

*Before you respond with more absurd conclusions that according to you state "FOX has COMPLETELY failed with the X-Men franchise and oughtta burn and destroy all evidence of those films being made including DVDs and film reels" think about this:

WHO CARES?

Because I don't.

Thank you,

-Jim

 

[X-Maniac]

I think Wolverine got the most screen time in the X-Men series due to budget restrictions. Singer's budget for X1(75mil) and X2(110mil) were barerly sufficient enough for him to make decent X-Men films. With the exception of Professor Xavier Wolverine is the easiest character to show visually in an action sequence. It's a lot harder to do the special effects of a character that fires laser beams from his eyes, one that flies and shoots lightening bolts, one that turns into metal, one that fires ice, and one that teleports.

I can't agree with this. Wolverine was set up as the central character from day one; Jackman was groomed as the Clint Eastwood/Bruce Willis of the franchise. And after he performed so well in the first movie, his character's dominance was assured. All three X-movies revolved around Wolverine. The studio wanted it that way, and so did Singer because, as an adopted child, he related to Wolverine's mysterious past. I've noticed that audience members and reviewers who don't know the source material often have no problem with Wolverine's dominance; it's the fans who object. At one point, Wolverine featured in 11 separate Marvel comicbooks a month, so he has become somewhat overexposed. Even the animated series puts him in the forefront.

 

[Theweepeople]

Theweepeople, How old are you?

I feel like I'm talkin to my 14 year old nephew when responding to your posts.

Well, I'm over 30 and I will ask you the same question even though it's completely irrelevant since many people don't mature with age and I doubt your an exception to this. Carp Man(over 50) is the perfect example of what I'm talking about and he was permanently banned. So what is your age?

you have no respect for Heath Ledger,

That's a mature and inteligent thing to say even though you can't find a quote where I said this. How does analyzing the boxoffice failures of some of Heath's past films translate into me not having respect for him? I actually liked Heath Ledger after seeing him in The Dark Knight. Do you have ADD or are you dyslexic because there are always gaping holes in the logic you use when debating?

you think its rational to compare X1 (the first comic book blockbuster since Burton's Batman in '89) to IRON MAN and you talk about $400 Million+ box office grosses as "mundane" achievements for a film.

Actually, X1 wasn't the first blockbuster comic book film since Burton's Batman in 89. Burton's Batman Returns1992, Joe Schumacher's Batman Forever1995, Stephen Norrington's Blade1998, Alex Proya's The Crow1994, Barry Sonnenfeld's Men in Black 1997, and Chuck Russel's The Mask 1994 were all comic book hits that came after Batman 89 genius. What's really remarkable is inspite of X-Men 2000 having a financial inflation advantage over these earlier comic book films some still outgrossed X-Men domestically(Men in black(250mil), Batman Forever(184mil), and Batman Returns(162mil)).

Also, you completely ignored my comparison of Spider-man 1 which came out in between the release dates of X1 and X2. That movie owned both X-Men films at the box office domestically and internationally. If Fox had used the same formula(Proper budget, running time, and production schedule) Columbia/Sony used to make Spider-man 1 then X1 and X2 would have been more successful.

Since it's obvious you're incapable of understanding what I just said I will explain it to you in simple terms. The above paragraph does not suggest that Fox's worldwide boxoffice gross for the X-Men franchise isn't a good achievement. It does suggest that Fox could have achieved much more if they realized how much potential this franchise always had.



I'm still not sure why you have an issue with me comparing Iron Man to the X-Men franchise. I agree that comparing it to the original X-Men film may not be the best comparison but, Iron Man's complete domination of each individual X-Men film is still valid especially since these summers are becoming more and more crowded with films of blockbuster potential. In today's movie market there is a much greater potential for big budget movies to fail financially if the projections of the first weekend gross are off.


What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that X-Men 2000 could have been a much bigger hit if it had gotten the proper respect it deserved by Fox. If a virtually unknown comic book like Men in Black could make 250million domestically in the 90s a better known comic book called X-Men could had made close to 300million in 2000.

*Before you respond with more absurd conclusions that according to you state "FOX has COMPLETELY failed with the X-Men franchise and oughtta burn and destroy all evidence of those films being made including DVDs and film reels" think about this:

Once again I will ask you to show me the quote where I said "Fox has completely failed with the X-Men franchise" and you will ignore my question because you know the quotes don't exist.

WHO CARES?



Because I don't.

Translation: I can't continue debating because I have no more rebuttals so I must convince theweepeople that I never cared about these debates in the first place even though I responded to every one of his posts.

 

[SNIKT1950]

I can't agree with this. Wolverine was set up as the central character from day one; Jackman was groomed as the Clint Eastwood/Bruce Willis of the franchise. And after he performed so well in the first movie, his character's dominance was assured. All three X-movies revolved around Wolverine. The studio wanted it that way, and so did Singer because, as an adopted child, he related to Wolverine's mysterious past. I've noticed that audience members and reviewers who don't know the source material often have no problem with Wolverine's dominance; it's the fans who object. At one point, Wolverine featured in 11 separate Marvel comicbooks a month, so he has become somewhat overexposed. Even the animated series puts him in the forefront.

Awesome post.

I am not only a Clint Eastwood fan, but I also own about 300 issues of Wolverine starting with the miniseries.

I think Singer is a genius for going in that direction with the character and casting Jackman (an Eastwood clone) to play him.

FOX is smart to have gone with the leading man aspects of Jackman's Wolverine in favor of any other X-Man.

 

[Theweepeople]

I can't agree with this. Wolverine was set up as the central character from day one; Jackman was groomed as the Clint Eastwood/Bruce Willis of the franchise. And after he performed so well in the first movie, his character's dominance was assured. All three X-movies revolved around Wolverine. The studio wanted it that way, and so did Singer because, as an adopted child, he related to Wolverine's mysterious past. I've noticed that audience members and reviewers who don't know the source material often have no problem with Wolverine's dominance; it's the fans who object. At one point, Wolverine featured in 11 separate Marvel comicbooks a month, so he has become somewhat overexposed. Even the animated series puts him in the forefront.

Well, I thought I made it clear in another post that this wasn't the only reason I believe Wolverine got the most screen time. His popularity had something to do with it however, I still believe budget restrictions played a huge role. I totally agree with your comment about Wolverine being set up as the central character from day one because the writers, director, and the producers knew he would be have the easiest action scenes to choreograph. Being the only X-Men mutant lacking the power to manipulate kinetic, telekinetic, telepathic, and potential energy really helped the character's screen time.

You make some good arguments and you could be right but, I respectully disagree. Hopefully, we can find some common ground unlike other posters in these forums.

 

[SNIKT1950]

This is what I'm talkin about...

GENIUS move by FOX and Bryan Singer.

*Kudos to Brett Ratner for getting that shot of Jackman in X3.

 

[X-Maniac]

Awesome post.

I am not only a Clint Eastwood fan, but I also own about 300 issues of Wolverine starting with the miniseries.

I think Singer is a genius for going in that direction with the character and casting Jackman (an Eastwood clone) to play him.

FOX is smart to have gone with the leading man aspects of Jackman's Wolverine in favor of any other X-Man.

That might well be the case but I do feel the focus on Wolverine was sometimes at the expense of other characters. Cyclops being the obvious example.

I do also think the X-movies could have been far better than they were. They never achieved their full potential. Each X-film had deficiencies, something that can't be said of properly achieved trilogies like LoTR and Pirates.

 

[Theweepeople]

That might well be the case but I do feel the focus on Wolverine was sometimes at the expense of other characters. Cyclops being the obvious example.

I do also think the X-movies could have been far better than they were. They never achieved their full potential. Each X-film had deficiencies, something that can't be said of properly achieved trilogies like LoTR and Pirates.

That's the simple concept I was trying to explain to one poster in this thread. Maybe your understanding of it will help him get it but, probably not. Some people are just irrationally stubborn to the core. The debacle of the "Heath Ledger being an A-list actor" theory because of his perfomance in Brokeback Mountain and a few films which bombed financially is evidence that some people will never admit they are wrong inspite of the facts.

 

[the a1ant]

That might well be the case but I do feel the focus on Wolverine was sometimes at the expense of other characters. Cyclops being the obvious example.

I do also think the X-movies could have been far better than they were. They never achieved their full potential. Each X-film had deficiencies, something that can't be said of properly achieved trilogies like LoTR and Pirates.

This is my general view of the X-Men franchise. It was good trilogy, but the films had way, way, way more potential.

 

[SNIKT1950]

That's the simple concept I was trying to explain to one poster in this thread. Maybe your understanding of it will help him get it but, probably not. Some people are just irrationally stubborn to the core. The debacle of the "Heath Ledger being an A-list actor" theory because of his perfomance in Brokeback Mountain and a few films which bombed financially is evidence that some people will never admit they are wrong inspite of the facts.

I'm honestly having a tough time believing you're over 30.

 

[Theweepeople]

I'm honestly having a tough time believing you're over 30.

That's cool. You still haven't told me what your age is and quite frankly it's irrelevant. Your simplistic debating skills tell me you have the maturity of a teenager. Like I said before age and maturity don't always correlate. I'm sure your friends and family members let you know about this often.