Logan (New Wolverine movie March 3rd 2017)

[YoNoSe]

You can make up BS reasons why any movie's consequences don't count. If you get paralyzed but can still go to work it doesn't mean your life's the same.

 

[pturtle]

Obviously it doesn't, I'm talking about to us, the viewers. Him having robotic legs won't change a thing for us. He'll still go to work, he can still be Warmachine and he can still be Tony's best friend. There's nothing else to that character, we won't see it have a real effect on his personal life. Rhodey has been in like 5 movies now? Has he even looked at a woman? Being paralyzed from the waist down won't make me think it's going to ruin his sex life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[karamazov80]

I hope they maintain the idea that Rhodey really has a life changing paralysis, and isn't just fixed by Stark technology. Because A) it would show that there were actual ramifications to Civil War and in these movies; and B) it would be more interesting, and would make him a more interesting character. But given the genius that Stark is in the movies, and where we are in the real world with technology for people with disabilities, it would make all the sense in the world to say that Stark could figure out a way to allow him full mobility.

No. "First Class" was risky, and makin' the actual sequels to FC could be risky. DoFP was very safe and then they went full retard with Crapocalypse.

While I don't agree with your comment about Apocalypse, I do agree with your other assessments there. First Class was pretty risky, coming after X3 (which was a box office success, if nothing else) with a total reboot, that was a period piece, employing a bunch of b-list characters that were mostly unknown to audiences or created for the film. DOFP gives us some of the more harrowing scenes in any superhero movie--on the order of the original comic or the Aliens/Wildcats crossover. But of course, it's all versions of a future that never really comes to past. And we do see time travel, which is unusual in comic movies, but nothing so risky about that in itself. It's based on a well used trope in movies, and of course, was closely based on the existing comic. And in the end the good guys win, the bad guy loses, Mystique is redeemed, the President lives, and we see a version of the future where everything is smiles and rainbows. So, really about as safe as it gets in that regard.

 

[pturtle]

I could see Tom Hardy as Wolverine, but I doubt he'd want to play a role made famous by another contemporary actor.

Hardy is my number one choice, I don't think they will retire the character. Even Jackman said he knows they're looking for other actors to replace him already, and I think they should.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

After getting caught up with this thread, the only thing I take away from it is that there's a lot of angry nerds in here.

​

 

[EVILFACE]

Mel Gibson could've been a hell of an old Wolverine. Speaking of Tom Hardy.

Mel is a fantastic choice. He can act, is grizzled looking, is jacked and is in real life fauking crazy.

 

[Victοr]

After getting caught up with this thread, the only thing I take away from it is that there's a lot of angry nerds in here.

​

Mel is a fantastic choice. He can act, is grizzled looking, is jacked and is in real life fauking crazy.

He won't touch Wolverine with a ten-foot pole. Nick Fury MAX on the other hand...

Fun Fact: Clooney was interested in playing Nick, until he saw that "guts" scene from MAX.

Spoiler

 

[YoNoSe]

After getting caught up with this thread, the only thing I take away from it is that there's a lot of angry nerds in here.

​

 

[SNIKT1950]

I could see Tom Hardy as Wolverine, but I doubt he'd want to play a role made famous by another contemporary actor.

Hardy would be a solid Wolvie, specially since he's so short. But yeah, I don't see him doing it.

I honestly don't think we'll see Wolverine for some time specially since FOX is about to introduce Cable (which will lead to X-Force). Cable can take up Wolverine's mantle as the badass mofo of the series, hopefully played by this guy.

 

[Jason Marko]

Hardy would be a solid Wolvie, specially since he's so short. But yeah, I don't see him doing it.

I honestly don't think we'll see Wolverine for some time specially since FOX is about to introduce Cable (which will lead to X-Force). Cable can take up Wolverine's mantle as the badass mofo of the series, hopefully played by this guy.

While watching Avatar I kept thinking.. "This guy is Cable!"

Wont happen though.

 

[SNIKT1950]

While watching Avatar I kept thinking.. "This guy is Cable!"

Wont happen though.

Never say never. Specially after the massive success of Don't Breathe.

 

[YoNoSe]

They'll have a new actor in the role as soon as humanly possible. The casting rumors will generate more interest than a sequel to Crapocalips.

 

[Khev]

SNIKT1950 and pturtle your "indictments" against Civil War for alleged "lack of consequences" can all be said about Raiders of the Lost Ark and Die Hard, films almost universally agreed to be two of the greatest action films in the history of cinema. Heroes do not need to be killed, watch a loved one die, or be permanently maimed in order for their respective films to be expertly filmed and profoundly entertaining. Sometimes it's more than enough to simply have likable heroes face bad guys and prevail in entertaining fashion as they get beat up along the way.

By your "consequences" criteria Civil War is superior to Raiders and Die Hard, because both Indy and McClane ended their movies with more than what they started with while Cap lost his freedom, Peggy, hope of hanging with his pal Bucky for the forseeable future, etc. It's even up in the air as to whether he'll even have the opportunity to develop things further with Sharon given the circumstances.

All you've really got is "Civil War wasn't for me, I need heroes of good to inexplicably murder each other whenever they disagree because that's how I'm wired." And leave it at that. Giving the film this arbitrary criteria that doesn't apply to the greatest action films ever made is just silly.

 

[jye4ever]

I'm onboard with the praise that pturtle and Snik give to X2/FC/DOFP, they're certainly good movies.

But to just dismiss the MCU movies as meaningless drivel is not recognizing the impressive reality that millions of fans around the world are now deeply engaged to the journey these characters started on 8 years ago.

So much so that even the weaker movies have meaning.

If IW has a successful landing no other film series will have accomplished what the MCU did in cinematic long form story telling, certainly not even the XM franchise.

 

[YoNoSe]

It's not silly. If you repeat it enough times it becomes The Truth.

 

[rushmore223]

Most of the Marvel movies are very well made, solidly entertaining films. It seems like many of those who complain about them have a chip on their shoulder over the films success versus the lack of success of their prefferred comic universe.

Don't understand how Marvel's success has anything at all to do with DC's success. Why do some of you act like you have a Horse in the race and some make believe characters success intrudes upon some other make believe characters success?

It reminds me of the juvenile war between those who hate one gaming console over another. Personally, I own em all and enjoy thm all. I feel the same way bout the Super hero movies.

 

[Khev]

Most of the Marvel movies are very well made, solidly entertaining films. It seems like many of those who complain about them have a chip on their shoulder over the films success versus the lack of success of their prefferred comic universe.

Yes and what makes it even sillier for the X-Men fans with a chip on their shoulder is that they've *got* good movies they can enjoy. Civil War didn't float your boat? Okay, so go watch First Class, DOFP, or X2 or whatever. I fail to see a problem here.

But no, the MCU apparently has "too much" success, and that doesn't sit well with some. The only comic fans who have a Constitutional right to be upset are Fantastic Four fans. Three movies and nothing but ****.

 

[karamazov80]

I don't have enough faith in the public to consider a movie's financial success as an indication of much of anything, except of course, the preference of a public that by and large I don't have much faith in to have particularly good taste or judgment. If my interests align with that of the mass public in terms of a movie or music, it's usually just by chance.

 

[pturtle]

SNIKT1950 and pturtle your "indictments" against Civil War for alleged "lack of consequences" can all be said about Raiders of the Lost Ark and Die Hard, films almost universally agreed to be two of the greatest action films in the history of cinema. Heroes do not need to be killed, watch a loved one die, or be permanently maimed in order for their respective films to be expertly filmed and profoundly entertaining. Sometimes it's more than enough to simply have likable heroes face bad guys and prevail in entertaining fashion as they get beat up along the way.

By your "consequences" criteria Civil War is superior to Raiders and Die Hard, because both Indy and McClane ended their movies with more than what they started with while Cap lost his freedom, Peggy, hope of hanging with his pal Bucky for the forseeable future, etc. It's even up in the air as to whether he'll even have the opportunity to develop things further with Sharon given the circumstances.

All you've really got is "Civil War wasn't for me, I need heroes of good to inexplicably murder each other whenever they disagree because that's how I'm wired." And leave it at that. Giving the film this arbitrary criteria that doesn't apply to the greatest action films ever made is just silly.

That's not even my main problem with Civil War, it's just overall a very mediocre movie in my opinion, but I agreed with Snikt that these MCU tend to play it safe all the time. I did say that prefer Cap going rogue with the Avengers instead of the weird fake death he had in the comic though.

Also, Diehard was the first movie in a franchise, same for Raiders, the same rules don't apply when compared to the like 10th movie in a franchise and 3rd movie of a trilogy based on a comic that had a relatively unhappy ending. A good movie is a good movie though, and I just don't think Civil War was that good, hell, the FoX-Men franchise hurt their movies by killing off too many characters, so that's not really how I gauge a good movie from a bad one, but the MCU is really starting to feel formulaic and tiresome. Obviously I'm in the minority though since these movies are killing it at the box office.

I'm onboard with the praise that pturtle and Snik give to X2/FC/DOFP, they're certainly good movies.

But to just dismiss the MCU movies as meaningless drivel is not recognizing the impressive reality that millions of fans around the world are now deeply engaged to the journey these characters started on 8 years ago.

So much so that even the weaker movies have meaning.

But we also live in a world where mindless entertainment is thriving, look at movies like the recent Fast and the furious films or Jurassic World, to me a majority, if not all of the MCU movies are cut from the same cloth. They're pretty and have some decent action, they're made to have to be a good time at the movies and nothing more in my opinion, but all of these movies don't try and be great, they just try to be crowdpleasers, they're packed with fan service and they're just good enough or bad enough to not be considered terrible movies.

I know I sound like a broken record, but Iron Man, and Guardians are the only movies from the MCU that I believe are really solid movies. The Winter Soldier is up there for me as well but the rest of the movies in the MCU are just spectacles that are quickly forgotten.

 

[Khev]

the MCU is really starting to feel formulaic and tiresome. Obviously I'm in the minority though since these movies are killing it at the box office.

You might be in the minority but I do think that Infinity War needs to end the cycle of "a year of solo movies, then a year where they join forces!" Let the characters breathe in their respective solo universes for a good long time after that. Though if I had my druthers I still say that Marvel should have a good 5+ year break with NO superhero movies just so that we can get excited about seeing everyone on the big screen again. Remember when Batman went away for 8 years? (No not in TDKR but in real life.) It was so awesome seeing him back in Batman Begins after being gone the better part of a decade. Marvel should do that with their heavy hitters too IMO.

But obviously with the likes of "The Jungle Book 2" on the way and umpteen Star Wars spin-offs Disney clearly has no concept of letting good things lie.