Logan (New Wolverine movie March 3rd 2017)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

Sounds very exciti.....zzzz..Zzzzz

:lol

I heard that after Wolverine "dies" in the finale that the after credit scene will just be a close up of his closed eye accompanied by the sound of snoring. The snoring will die down and then "squeak squeak" the eye opens! :panic:
 
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

Hard for even me to get excited for this. They obviously hinted at this at the end of Apocalypse, but a character that wasn't involved in the comics that I cared about, and certainly wasn't someone really associated to Wolverine. From what little I read of the guy, he was more of a Cyclops villain. But he was involved in the lackluster Inferno storyline, and a lot of crappy comics in the '90s probably. One of the more terrible looking "major" villains the X-Men had, which is saying something.

Having said that, I really just want to see a well structured, well acted and directed movie that you walk away from feeling rewarded for having spent the time. Most comic movies don't do this very well for me nowadays. None of the DC ones do, Marvel Studios and Fox are hit and miss. Usually the most you can hope for is a good time that you forget about 5 minutes after you leave the theater. I know that's enough to bring in the dough, but it would be nice if we could get something more from Jackman's last hurrah. Leave on a high note, with the audience wanting more.
 
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

Having said that, I really just want to see a well structured, well acted and directed movie that you walk away from feeling rewarded for having spent the time.

Did you feel that you got that with "The Wolverine?" I imagine this new one will be of similar quality since they kept the same director.
 
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

Did you feel that you got that with "The Wolverine?" I imagine this new one will be of similar quality since they kept the same director.
No. It is more in line with the ones that you forget about 5 minutes after leaving the theater IMO. And you could well be right about that, though Mangold is capable of making a much better film than that one was.
 
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

Yes his filmography is surprisingly solid. But sometimes competent directors just don't fit with superhero material as we saw with 2003 Hulk, Green Lantern, and The Wolverine.
 
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

one of my favorite villains.
What could go wrong?

- EVER YTHI NG!

9cd1d469-93ac-4806-8d70-86610a707a46.gif
 
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

No. It is more in line with the ones that you forget about 5 minutes after leaving the theater IMO. And you could well be right about that, though Mangold is capable of making a much better film than that one was.

Mangold had to contend with the studio still trying to somewhat keep Wolverine within the superhero realm. The parts of the film that are great are the parts that removed him from that realm.

For this film, the 'R' rating will finally resolve what the first two films inevitably couldn't due to studio politics: Wolverine is not a conventional superhero but rather the epitome of the anti-hero. PG-13 just neuters a character like Wolverine. It'd be the same if they did it to Mad Max, The Punisher or Marv from Sin City. Heck, look what happened to John McClane in that crapola Len Wiseman directed.

I'm confident this will be the definitive Wolverine movie, although had Aronofsky been allowed to shoot his brutally violent script that would have been THE Wolvie movie and finally a runner-up to TDK.
 
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

I think Hugh has done a good job of what he had to work with, more so X1 (his best outing) but they stuff such nonsense and needless fan fiction bloat in these things.
 
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

Yeah, somehow I doubt we'll see a buff, vampire-looking 19th Century British Scientist who got mutated by Apocalypse. The best we can hope for is a look akin to Gillen's Uncanny run, but without the entertaining personality. Eh, who knows, they might mix the two and create something relatively good...
 
Re: WOLVERINE (March 3rd 2017)

Mangold had to contend with the studio still trying to somewhat keep Wolverine within the superhero realm. The parts of the film that are great are the parts that removed him from that realm.

For this film, the 'R' rating will finally resolve what the first two films inevitably couldn't due to studio politics: Wolverine is not a conventional superhero but rather the epitome of the anti-hero. PG-13 just neuters a character like Wolverine. It'd be the same if they did it to Mad Max, The Punisher or Marv from Sin City. Heck, look what happened to John McClane in that crapola Len Wiseman directed.

I'm confident this will be the definitive Wolverine movie, although had Aronofsky been allowed to shoot his brutally violent script that would have been THE Wolvie movie and finally a runner-up to TDK.
I hope you're right. Certainly, Suicide Squad was another example of how studio interference can lead to a mild/neutered version of what should have been pretty edgy and interesting (though in that case they definitely made the right move, because the kiddies flocked out to see it). But on the other hand, being violent and X-treme isn't enough in itself. You need a story that is well told, that has a good flow to it, and gives the characters opportunity to relate to the audience on an emotional level. That's what will set any movie apart. If you get Eli Roth to do a Wolverine movie, it will be gory, sure, but. . .

Die Hard is actually a good example. Renny Harlin is no '80s John McTiernan.

Yeah, Fox has ruined some of my favorite characters, Juggernaut, Colossus, Apoc, Silver Samurai, Bishop, and Ice Man. :gah:
I thought Bishop was a'aight. But then again, I don't care much about anything coming from the '90s, so I didn't have any strong expectations about the guy. Ice Man could have been handled better, since he was a core team member, and was essentially the post-Wolfman Wally West of the original team. I thought Juggy was fine, though he looked a bit silly. In the comics I read, he was never more than a superpowered thug, so I don't need him to have the personality or depth of Ra's al Ghul. But I suppose everyone that was in X3 got tainted by the experience.
 
Back
Top