First off i want to say that X-Men Origins: Wolverine, wasnt as bad as alot of people are saying it is. And i say this from looking at both how the industry would look at it, and as a fan...
Cast your mind back to X-Men The Movie, i remember those days, them days on the forums... Sooo many fans were peed off with the movie because it wasnt a hundred percent retelling of the comic book.
So why do we love that movie today, yet back in the day we slated it...
Well the story is pretty simple, fans hate origin stories, There is alot of ground to cover in one singular movie and you cant make it scene by scene perfect. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, has simply gone through the same process. But it confirms 2 things, 1. because of the money generated so far, a sequel wil be made, 2. That sequel will have a bigger budget.
X-Men 1, was considered a success... the reason it was is because Bryan Singer proved he could translate x-men to the big screen. So when it came to x2, the studio gave him more creative control over the movie.
What we had was a masterpiece. although the studio did intervine Bryan had more flexability than before. And had Bryan Singer made X-men 3 he would of had the same level of freedom to make it.
But because Bryan couldnt make it, X3 went to Brett Ratner... which becomes a Risk... not because of what kind of a director Brett was, but because they couldnt predict the outcome, some X-Men 3 was heavily watched.
We movie on,
X-Men Origins: Wolverine - new director same problem... the problem is not the director but the RISK that is involved, which means Fox intervienes to protect its franchise...
Fact: in box office wise, even after the leak workprint. X-Men Origins: Wolverine was consisder a success...
So now we are back to Wolverine 2, which fox will give more creative freedom to Gavin Hood... meaning we are going to have the same level of detail, character and story in the sequel as we did in x2...
So the only thing i will say is be PRO-WOLVERINE 2 because that movie is going to amazing...!
Wow, this is a really good post.
I do agree,
Wolverine isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. I've watched it twice in theaters, and once on the workprint, and really, the stuff that people are complaining about, I just don't see.
There IS character development, for the ones that need it. We've seen Wolverine for 3 films already, we know about his personality, and his traits, we don't need to go into detail over that again. We know that he can be an animal, we saw him living a life as a cage fighter in
X-Men, savagely killing invading soldiers in
X-Men 2, and brutalizing opposing mutants at Magneto's camp in
X-Men 3. In
Wolverine, we see young James impale his biological father, and then we see he and Creed take part in 4 of the largest wars in the world's history. You've got to have some kind of brutal nature to volunteer to fight in 4 different wars like that. And whether we saw him draw blood with Team X or not, he was still an accomplice to some rather bad things. We see Logan as the animal, and we see Stryker trying to manipulate Logan to become the animal.
Creed is well developed. The relationship between Logan and Kayla is well developed. Stryker is well developed. Wraith is developed enough for his role. Same with Gambit.
The plot holes that I see people complaining about simply - don't exist. The inconsistencies with the other films simply - don't exist. The only inconsistency is Stryker talking about "15 years" in
X-Men 2, and it's clearly been longer than 15 years between
Wolverine and
X-Men 2. But chalk that up to Singer for not realizing that 15 years in the past from "The not so distant future" of 2003 would be late 80's / early 90's, WELL past the time of the wars and such that Logan fought in.
I think most of the complaints of inconsistencies come from the same source as the complaints for
X-Men 3 - people had it in their minds that they wanted things to happen a certain way, and when it didn't, they found it inconsistent because it didn't add up to the timeline they made in their own heads.
Wolverine is not perfect by any means. It's not a masterpiece of a film, and I wouldn't even say it's in the top half of
X-Men films (I'd consider it the worst, but I don't think that
ANY of the
X-Men movies are in the least bit -bad-).
But I think you bring up an interesting point as to why the movie
ISN'T as great as perhaps we had all hoped (same with
X-Men 3, which is probably my favorite, but should have been a lot better). We all know that
X-Men was rushed by Fox - pushed up what 6 months? It was a success, so Fox gave Singer a lot more creative control, and it shows.
X2 was so much better than
X-Men.
I think that is a very interesting and valid point about Ratner - it's not so much that he wasn't capable (I think he did a pretty good job, honestly - my problems were with the script), but that you're right, Ratner wasn't proven with the franchise like Singer was, so they didn't want to take chances. Same with Hood. They don't want to take chances, so they play it conservative.
I'm not completely stoked with
Wolverine 2, JUST because I don't want them to oversaturate the franchise with too many movies. I also don't see
Wolverine 2 adding anything to the overall
X-Men movie-verse outside of the character (at least this movie showed us Wolverine's backstory, which filled in the gaps of
X-Men and
X2, as well as showing us other characters from the universe with Stryker, showing part of how some of the vital characters came together, and expanding with some long awaited favorites, perhaps giving them a set up for the future). BUT, you bring up a very interesting point, and if Gavin sticks around, and improves
Wolverine 2 over
X-Men Origins the way Singer improved
X2 over
X-Men, then this sequel will be pretty amazing.
I'm also rather stoked for
Deadpool. He was one of my favorite characters in the entire film, behind only Gambit, and I'd love to see more of him.
![[A]](https://superherohype-data.community.forum/avatars/s/70/70800.jpg?1270390582){kind=avatar}
