Wolverine Origins (Spoilers/Discussion)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I love Hugh Jackman as Wolverine but X3 really soured me on The X-Men. I don't think this film will do much to get me back into the franchise.

I was in the same boat as you....

X3 was just ok for me (barely).....some fun parts....Wolverine's fight in the jungle comes to mind....but still knowhere as good as X2 and even X1.

This one took the X3 bad taste out of my mouth...

Again, is it what it could've, should've been....NO..but it at least follows a decent enough story structure vs X3's.

I don't know, I enjoyed it BUT I can see how some could not based on their expectations of a "darker" Wolverine movie similar to TDK.
 
Last edited:
That's cause it wasn't. It certainly was no IM or DK(was never intended to be) but it was enjoyable.

That's just it.....

there are some real gems out there which truly deserve the term "Bad Movie", a ton of movies no doubt, you know....like Cat Woman! I just don't feel this is one of them.

And we still didn't see the finished product and for me it does make a difference what additional elements will be added vs the bootleg, I don't feel that the movie requires an entire fresh start for it to be entertaining.

Is it my favorite Marvel movie? Hell No!

Was it enjoyable? Hell Yeah!
 
Hell no. Nothing was at stake. I didnt even understand the point of the movie.

And it even messes with the continuty for X-2.

'Member when Stryker says how Wolvie was such an animal when they met? Thats funny cuz Wolvie was the only one who didn't do jack ^^^^ on that team, and the only one that threw a hissy fit and left because they were going to kill some people.

The action was cool....but really, action is useless if you dont care for the characters. Which I didnt. Not one.
 
Hell no. Nothing was at stake. I didnt even understand the point of the movie.

And it even messes with the continuty for X-2.

'Member when Stryker says how Wolvie was such an animal when they met? Thats funny cuz Wolvie was the only one who didn't do jack ^^^^ on that team, and the only one that threw a hissy fit and left because they were going to kill some people.

The action was cool....but really, action is useless if you dont care for the characters. Which I didnt. Not one.

You bring up some valid points.

Wolverine is a dark loner and they could've portrayed that better but he is still a good guy, just a dark loner kind of good guy so I totally comprehend why he walked away from killing all those innocent people, where as Sabretooth is a bad guy in the Marvel universe hence him not caring about killing innocent people.

You did comprehend that those were innocents that he walked away from in what you're calling a hissy fit.

If you were looking for Wolverine to kill innocent people, well then those are your desires and I respect that but I don't think Marvel would've allowed that to happen for one second. Again, he is a good guy in the Marvel universe, is he not?

Unless i'm not understanding your gripe.

This leads to the whole story arc. What is it that seperates him from his brother Sabretooth and other bad people like Stryker.

Wolverine can be just as viscious as his brother and Stryker but only when pushed and pushed and pushed until he has no choice but to kick ass but kick bad people ass and for me, once he got his Ada claws, kick villian ass he did!

He killed agent zero without throwing a hissy and was about to do the same to Sabre until he was violently interrupted by Gambit.

Regarding continuity, your only example was the "animal" that Stryker said that he was and I already addressed that and I do think Wolverine was an "Animal" when pushed BUT against the bad guys. He is afterall a good hero in the Marvel universe.

Regarding the action w/o characterization.

I felt there was enough there for me to care although there can always be more and more and more in any movie made and this is why I have to wait to see the final finished product to see if there are some improvements that I'm hoping to see.

Regarding nothing being at stake, I also wished for more but his love and honor were indeed at stake.

Thanks for having a discussion with me over this, it's what makes us fans and i'm happy to be one alongside everyone in this great Forum.

:joy
 
Oh and i'm not saying you're wrong btw...I just feel like arguing.

And when Stryker said he was an animal, I figure he was a crazy SOB, killing everyone left and right.

I just didnt like all these people popping up with no set up, or backstory. Like his GF. She just shows up...we dont even get a name right away. We dont get to know her. I didnt get a sense for their love. When she "died" I couldn't care less.

I never got a good sense of Victor/Logan, because within 20 minutes of the movie, they hated each other. Meh.....
 
Oh and i'm not saying you're wrong btw...I just feel like arguing.

And when Stryker said he was an animal, I figure he was a crazy SOB, killing everyone left and right.

I just didnt like all these people popping up with no set up, or backstory. Like his GF. She just shows up...we dont even get a name right away. We dont get to know her. I didnt get a sense for their love. When she "died" I couldn't care less.

I never got a good sense of Victor/Logan, because within 20 minutes of the movie, they hated each other. Meh.....

Hmmm...

even better valid points and other than me not expecting him to kill everyone (meaning innocents), I'm not even going to try and argue with you on your other points....you got me on those.......LOL!!!!!!!
 
I dunno. The movie needed another 40 minutes to work with....but Fox loves the short under 2 hour running time....:rolleyes:
 
i think they were trying to establish the victor and logan backstory with the "brothers in arms" intro to the movie. victor seemed to envy logan for his abilities so much that he tried to out-do him with everything, logan hated his brother's feral instincts so much that he just wanted to be "normal" and constantly had to keep victor in check.
~~also, i really hated some of the other guys in their unit. i liked the token black dude with the cowboy hat, but the others were just douches. like, what's agent zero's significance?? he seemed to be the main guy under stryker, but went out like a chump when he killed the old folks and going after logan in the choppa. i was expecting him to be one of the first of the experiments that stryker was working on.
 
i think they were trying to establish the victor and logan backstory with the "brothers in arms" intro to the movie. victor seemed to envy logan for his abilities so much that he tried to out-do him with everything, logan hated his brother's feral instincts so much that he just wanted to be "normal" and constantly had to keep victor in check.
~~also, i really hated some of the other guys in their unit. i liked the token black dude with the cowboy hat, but the others were just douches. like, what's agent zero's significance?? he seemed to be the main guy under stryker, but went out like a chump when he killed the old folks and going after logan in the choppa. i was expecting him to be one of the first of the experiments that stryker was working on.

Yeah, some of the extra characters had lame story arcs and I also agree with the previous statement that the movie needed to be longer but damn if that motorcycle chase wasn't awesome leading up to Zero's death.

But I agree with your statement about Zero's character.
 
Watched it last night, and I thought it was good. I thought it was going to be the worst movie ever made the way people on here were going, but I enjoyed. I'll still see it again when it's released in cinemas.
 
i guess....what did he have, 5 lines??? so lame....we need a real Deadpool now. it was funny when he was trying to egg on victor and hitting on stryker in the elevator.


at least you guys got to watch the movie, did deadpool at least kick some ass or what
 
Back
Top