Why the hate for Wolverine?

[danoyse]

Not entirely correct. The cast was called back for each movie to refilm scenes or make changes as Jackson saw fit. If he wanted to change the outcome of certain scenes or change the scenes or give chars different or more exposure, he could have. If he wanted to bring more attention to Legolas or Aragorn or make Gimlee toss the ring, he could have. But he didn't.

But he did change a great many things from the books--much to the chagrin of the fans. Don't think for a second that all of those fans welcomed them with open arms.

I saw Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Christopher Lee, and Howard Shore at an appearance at Barnes & Noble in NY just after "Fellowship" opened. It was a Q&A with the fans...one of whom had already seen FOTR more than 30 times in the theater.

He prefaced info about the upcoming "Two Towers" to everyone with "I'm warning you now..." during which he detailed major changes being made in the next two movies, that the Scouring of the Shire being taken out, that the women characters were getting bigger roles, that Shelob was being moved to "Return of the King." About why characters were being taken out, changed, given a bigger or lesser focus.

And that was before he decided to cut Christopher Lee out of the theatrical release of ROTK.

He even dispelled the internet rumors that they didn't get along with the "Star Wars" crew, who was filming in Australia at the time--said how ILM showed them the special effects software they were using, and how they helped scout locations in New Zealand for the SW crew. They visited each other's sets, and were quite friendly with each other.

He wasn't asking the fans if they were OK with these changes...he basically said he was making them. That was it. He sounded very much like he'd read plenty of grief over the internet from the things he had done.

POTC is not an established franchise with as well known of a story base os LOTR, Star Wars, Spiderman, Batman, or X-Men. It does not have either the history or fanbase that these other franchises have.

But it became one as soon as they started talking sequel. Both Keira and Orlando wouldn't come back unless they had expanded roles, and Disney paid through the roof to get them back and keep them happy.

Orlando teenybopper success is more credited to Pirates than it is to LOTR.

Not entirely correct. Lucas did not write all three movies intending for them to be a trilogy. In fact, he didn't expect to make more than one film when he filmed ANH. when making sequels he could have completely changed the focus of the film or the roles of the characters and made Han the big hero who slays Vader and the Emperor, but kept the balance he originally established. The characters, their roles, and their place in the storyline all stayed consistent.

He'd written a lot more than 3 movies when the first was released. If you read the novelization to ANH, which was published in 1976, you can see the outline of what ultimately became Phantom Menace in the prologue.

Lucas was never going to change what he intended for this story--Luke was his favorite character when he wrote it. It was always a story about a man who turned bad who was redeemed by his children.

The big difference with Star Wars is that Lucas owned it from the beginning. He gave up his director's fee in order to have creative control instead. The studio couldn't tell him what character to make the focus instead because they had no rights over the story.

After the wild success of Empire Strikes back, Lucas could have realized that Han Solo was the most popular and loved character and potential cash cow and could have rewritten ROTJ to be all about him (of course the title would then be different). He could have had Luke die in the battle with Jabba the Hutt while Rescuing Han, who would then fight a duel with Vader, pitting the Falcon against his tie-fighter, blast him out of the sky (he was justified after the way Vader tormented him in the previous film) and then blast Palpatine's tower and been the big hero, but that didn't happen. Han overshadowed Luke, Han had "it" while Luke did not, yet Luke's role wasn't compromised.

Again, not really. Lucas owned the rights so he could tell it his way. And his way was Luke at the front of the story. If Fox owned it, they could make those calls...but it was never in the hands of Fox.

Harrison Ford wanted Han Solo to die in Return of the Jedi--Lucas wouldn't let him have that.

Harrison Ford was already a bigger actor than Mark Hamil and during the course of making Star Wars' original trilogy already had other big roles which propelled him forward, including Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Harrison Ford was working as a carpenter in Francis Ford Coppola's office when they were having story meetings for Star Wars. He didn't really reach star status until after Raiders.

In fact, he wasn't signed for Empire...and he did give a little grief about coming back. When his next film, "The Frisco Kid" flopped at the box office, he came back to Star Wars.

 

[Loganbabe]

when making sequels he could have completely changed the focus of the film or the roles of the characters and made Han the big hero who slays Vader and the Emperor, but kept the balance he originally established. The characters, their roles, and their place in the storyline all stayed consistent.

He would never do it. He wouldn´t kill Luke and set Han to be the big hero, never. Even if Ford turned out to be much more popular and famous than Mark, the saga was about the Jedi, so it would be the ultimate stupidity to kill Luke so that Han could shine. Luke´s story needed a closure, much more than Han´s story.
And I´m saying this from the pov of a fangirl who was totally in love with Han Solo. He was the best, Harrison was gorgeous, but Luke was the hero. I never had doubts about it.
Actually, Harrison Ford almost begged to George Lucas to kill Han Solo. He wanted to move on, he thought his part was over, and in a way I agree with him. Solo did nothing of importance in Jedi, he was rescued, kissed the girl and that was it. Boring. Now everyone, (including myself and all Han Solo´s fans, I suppose) were all waiting to see the big showdown between Luke and Vader. Your suggestion that Lucas would do something different because suddenly Ford was a big shot is totally out of context.

Han overshadowed Luke, Han had "it" while Luke did not, yet Luke's role wasn't compromised.

How are you comparing this to the X-Men movies? Wolverine´s story was the story people followed since he first appeared in X1, he was supposed to be the "hero" of the saga just like Luke was in Star Wars. Wolverine, not Scott, Ororo or even Jean. Now, you refuse to blame your beloved Bryan Singer for it, but just take a look at the documentary in X-Men 1.5 to see what Singer had to say about Wolverine and how he thought his story was crucial to the movie.
The only difference from Star Wars was that the actor who played the main character Luke was totally overshadowed by a certain Harrison Ford/Solo, (who was never the character which story we should follow), but in X-Men not only the unknow Hugh played Wolverine, he also became very famous and recognized as a great actor inside the industry, unlike Mark Hamill. But Lucas kept Mark/Luke as the main focus of the story, opposed to the much more recognized Ford/Han, exactly the same thing Ratner did with Wolverine. Why? Because that´s how the stories were planned and told - Luke and Wolverine as the main characters.

 

[danoyse]

That was I was trying to tell to danoyse, that the Wolverine character boosted Hugh's career. But he doesn't want to believe it.

Hulkster, danoyse is a she.

And I do believe you that Wolverine made Hugh a star. In fact, I can go one further: before X1, he wasn't able to repeat his stage role in "Oklahoma" when it transferred from London to NY, because the American actors union wouldn't let the London cast reprise their roles on Broadway.

After X1...the actor's union had no problem with him appearing on Broadway.

Now, before you start screaming "Van Helsing" again...let me clarify:

I'm a big fan of Hugh...but he's one of about a half-dozen actors whose performances I enjoy more than most. He's not even the first X-Man I've seen on stage (that would be Alan Cumming).

The discussion was about having *it*, and our (the Wolverine fans) argued that we believed Hugh had that *it* factor far more than James Marsden did in X1, which is why the studio wanted to expand on his character more than Cyclops in the sequels.

People argued back that he hadn't done much else besides Wolverine--which is true, his post X-Men movies haven't been anything to write home about--but for me, having seen his stage performance, added that the *it* factor carried over to that even more than it did with X-Men, which is evidenced even more with the much better movie roles he's getting now.

That's all it is...it's not a raving, rabid, Hugh is great in everything rant. It's just an observation.

 

[The Batman]

Get what? I haven't been able to read all the posts, so you're going to have to bring me up to speed. What's your point?

that as long you have the mentality thast "Wolverine is the most popular so he must have the focus", you will not understand why Xfans, fans who have, i dunno, actually read the comics and dont wait for hugh jackman to have "it" to become fans, are so pissed about him.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

I've never liked Wolverine. Tis why I, personally, believe he should be off to the side just a bit more... Preference, really.

 

[Hulkster]

Hulkster, danoyse is a she.

And I do believe you that Wolverine made Hugh a star. In fact, I can go one further: before X1, he wasn't able to repeat his stage role in "Oklahoma" when it transferred from London to NY, because the American actors union wouldn't let the London cast reprise their roles on Broadway.

After X1...the actor's union had no problem with him appearing on Broadway.

Now, before you start screaming "Van Helsing" again...let me clarify:

I'm a big fan of Hugh...but he's one of about a half-dozen actors whose performances I enjoy more than most. He's not even the first X-Man I've seen on stage (that would be Alan Cumming).

The discussion was about having *it*, and our (the Wolverine fans) argued that we believed Hugh had that *it* factor far more than James Marsden did in X1, which is why the studio wanted to expand on his character more than Cyclops in the sequels.

People argued back that he hadn't done much else besides Wolverine--which is true, his post X-Men movies haven't been anything to write home about--but for me, having seen his stage performance, added that the *it* factor carried over to that even more than it did with X-Men, which is evidenced even more with the much better movie roles he's getting now.

That's all it is...it's not a raving, rabid, Hugh is great in everything rant. It's just an observation.

Ok then, I agree in most of you said. But I disagree about Hugh Jackman having the "it" factor. I've been reading X-related comics since I was a kid that's why I know that Hugh Jackman is not the reason the character Wolverine is so popular.

 

[danoyse]

Frankly, I think he'd be much happier on stage. He was doing quite well on stage, and he has returned to the stage this summer, when he could be off making more movies. He took a year off to do Broadway instead of making movies. So....yeah. It was fortunate, but he wasn't exactly hurting either.

It's funny...it was such a big career risk, leaving movies for a year like that to do a Broadway musical. The pay sucks, it's 8 shows a week, it's the NY theater crowd (if you think comics fanboys are harsh, try hanging out on the Broadway message boards for awhile ), and let's face it...he was playing Peter Allen.

But I think it was probably the smartest thing he could do--look at all the people who came to see it, and the movie roles he's getting now. That never happened with X-Men.

And theater is such a totally different animal than the movies. I saw "Rent" with the original cast, I saw "The Producers" when it was still in previews, and their movie versions just paled in comparison. Whenever I see a Broadway actor in a movie/tv role, I love it because I've seen their stage stuff, which is always so much better.

The last time I saw "The Boy From Oz", Elvis Costello was in the audience. In a totally unscripted moment, Hugh (in character) got him to come up on stage and play "Pump It Up" with the band.

It was, in my 20+ years of theatergoing, without a doubt, the most insane thing I've ever seen happen on a Bway stage. The audience was on their feet, the people on stage were going nuts...and Hugh had this look on his face like all of his birthdays had happened at the same time and was dancing around so crazy that later that night I swore I would still be laughing about it when X3 was finally made...and it did cross my mind the first time I saw the movie.

And that, is live theater for you. You just can't copy it in a movie.

 

[danoyse]

Ok then, I agree in most of you said. But I disagree about Hugh Jackman having the "it" factor. I've been reading X-related comics since I was a kid that's why I know that Hugh Jackman is not the reason the character Wolverine is so popular.

And that's your opinion, which you're more entitled to.

 

[Hulkster]

I know that Hugh Jackman is popular, but what I'm saying about Wolverine is fact it's not only my opinion. Marvel always put Wolverine in all comic titles and even in their games, that's why Wolverine is very well known.

 

[ntcrawler]

And that, is live theater for you. You just can't copy it in a movie.

I too am involved in theatre. Not only do I watch it but I take part in stage productions as well, performing on stage as well as writing scripts and story/skit ideas.

 

[ntcrawler]

And that's your opinion, which you're more entitled to.

What are you talking about? Wolverine was already popular much longer before Hugh Jackman ever knew what "X-men" are. He's been in publication since 1975. The character didn't need Jackman to boost his popularity

 

[danoyse]

I know that Hugh Jackman is popular, but what I'm saying about Wolverine is fact it's not only my opinion. Marvel always put Wolverine in all comic titles and even in their games, that's why Wolverine is very well known.

Everyone's got a different opinion, which is cool. Hell, I was barely familiar with X-Men when I saw the first movie, but even I knew who Wolverine was.

But Hugh definitely generated his own little fanbase with that role--most of my friends (and not all of them female) hate comic book movies, but they loved X-Men because they had a total crush on Hugh.

 

[danoyse]

What are you talking about? Wolverine was already popular much longer before Hugh Jackman ever knew what "X-men" are. He's been in publication since 1975. The character didn't need Jackman to boost his popularity

But a good performance (any good performance) would make that character even more popular. Judging from the general reviews of the film...it certainly didn't hurt Wolverine's popularity from getting even bigger.

 

[Hulkster]

Everyone's got a different opinion, which is cool. Hell, I was barely familiar with X-Men when I saw the first movie, but even I knew who Wolverine was.

But Hugh definitely generated his own little fanbase with that role--most of my friends (and not all of them female) hate comic book movies, but they loved X-Men because they had a total crush on Hugh.

Yes most girls in my class also had a crush on Hugh, and yes Hugh's fanbase made the Wolvie fanbase much bigger, but the only thing I don't like on what they did with the movies, is they put too much attention to Wolverine leaving the others to the background. They should have given the others some good treatment not killing them.

 

[danoyse]

Yes most girls in my class also had a crush on Hugh, and yes Hugh's fanbase base made the Wolvie fan base much bigger, but the only thing I don't like on what they did with the movies, is they put too much attention to Wolverine leaving the others to the background. They should have given the others some good treatment not killing them .

That's fair. I would have liked to them to flesh out all of the characters in X3 more. It was too short.

 

[danoyse]

I too am involved in theatre. Not only do I watch it but I take part in stage productions as well, performing on stage as well as writing scripts and story/skit ideas.

Very cool.

 

[Hulkster]

Nice talking with you guys, I'll log out for now.

 

[gambitfire]

i wouldnt , it shoud have been his movie not wolvies , but again it is a what if cyke had died and wolvie saved jean movie to me



and she was seeing other people i know one of them had asked her to marry him *shrug* ...this is in response to your question on page 16

Convenient response......sorry but i don't know you and or if not your telling the truth

Um....it's fictional characters we are talking about here folks. FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!!!!! Wolverine can't have some sick demented plan to "screw over Cyclops" and take over his life...because they are both fictional characters!!!!



It's getting a bit scary reading some of these posts now. I can't help but get the impression that some are blurring the line between real life and fantasy.



The character of Cyclops got a raw deal, that none of us can deny. But some of the so called reasons behind it that I have been reading here are....I mean really...Wow.

Yea i get that thanks



Not all fans where going to be happy about this. Placing blame on a fictional character is obviously not the best bet, i for one still blame FOX but none the less if they want too hate the character let them. Frankly he was being overused anyways.



And could you please stop speaking down to us like we are a bunch of Psychotic children. I think it's clear we are all different ppl and will handle things in our own way. Sometimes not the best but I really have yet too see Ntcrawler pass the red line.

 

[gambitfire]

i need to see that cause i dont recall him ever saying anything like that, he isnt the selfish sort by any account i have heard

I don't think he's selfish but he came off as rather clueless once.

He said that a Wolverine spin-off was needed because we really don't know Wolverine and who he is.......


2 things wrong with that, 1st one obvious but second-

NO he's actually right we don't Because there are too many sides too a character like Wolverine. 5th dimensional ppl.....5th dimensional

 

[gambitfire]

It makes business sense to use something that works.

And thank you for getting what I was trying to say. Instead of attacking me for being an apologist, or a fanboy, or what have you. That gets old, but it's funny as hell.

Something that was bound and more importantly MADE to work from the beginning.

 

[gambitfire]

Everyone's got a different opinion, which is cool. Hell, I was barely familiar with X-Men when I saw the first movie, but even I knew who Wolverine was.

But Hugh definitely generated his own little fanbase with that role--most of my friends (and not all of them female) hate comic book movies, but they loved X-Men because they had a total crush on Hugh.

Well atleast you admit that

 

[danoyse]

Well atleast you admit that

I have been since the beginning.

 

[gambitfire]

But it became one as soon as they started talking sequel. Both Keira and Orlando wouldn't come back unless they had expanded roles, and Disney paid through the roof to get them back and keep them happy.

Orlando teenybopper success is more credited to Pirates than it is to LOTR.

Eh, I honestly Believe Orlando craze died long ago. Thanks to Troy and a wuss dispaly of Paris .

Seriously i think the appeal in those movies is without a doubt Depp. If anything he's the one with the teeny boppers. He even has male fans that think he's too cool

Johnny Filled the seats for POTC 2 not Orlando. IMO.

 

[gambitfire]

I have been since the beginning.

No you havn't, not in this thread anyways. I remember you bringing that up much later

 

[The Batman]

And could you please stop speaking down to us like we are a bunch of Psychotic children. I think it's clear we are all different ppl and will handle things in our own way. Sometimes not the best but I really have yet too see Ntcrawler pass the red line.

Jan has a tendency of doing that...and then she acts offended when she gets a negative reaction