Then you give him laser eyes, regeneration, katanas that shoot from his knuckles, and teleportation. Don't explain why or how.
Then don't bother with a plot.
Mission accomplished.
Bonus: If possible try to ignore every pre-existing feature of existing and well-liked characters.
(No, that wasn't sarcasm. More's the pity)
On the bright side, Will.I.Am was not bad at all. I pessimistically expected him to be terrible and was very pleasantly surprised...
First of all you take a fighter.
Then you give him laser eyes, regeneration, katanas that shoot from his knuckles, and teleportation. Don't explain why or how.
Then don't bother with a plot.
Mission accomplished.
Bonus: If possible try to ignore every pre-existing feature of existing and well-liked characters.
Was anyone honestly expecting better after the abortion that was X3?
Start off with a decent but unorthodoxed reworking of a perfectly acceptable story.
After level 14 switch out your DM with a half-insane pile of sentient, rotting garbage and let him finish out the campaign through epic.
I wasn't fully hating the movie until gambit lurched on screen with his telekenetic card tossing and slightly under-the-bottom southern accent (ie, not cajun), at that point it just went to crap.
First of all you take a fighter.
Then you give him laser eyes, regeneration, katanas that shoot from his knuckles, and teleportation. Don't explain why or how.
Then don't bother with a plot.
Mission accomplished.
Bonus: If possible try to ignore every pre-existing feature of existing and well-liked characters.
Show
They were capturing mutants to cull their DNA. They found a mutant whose's physiology could handle the spliced together DNA from multiple mutants. By combining the DNA from the captured mutants they were able to give him those multiple powers from Scott Summers (Cyclops), Sabertoothe, and Wraith.
And the plot was pretty much like any comic book origin story. And since this was a comic book origin movie, that fits.
I really don't know what you were expecting that has you so disappointed, but for what the movie was supposed to be I thought it was really entertaining. It didn't follow the comics, but then why should it? If I wanted the story from the comics I read the comics.
And the plot was pretty much like any comic book origin story. And since this was a comic book origin movie, that fits.
I really don't know what you were expecting that has you so disappointed, but for what the movie was supposed to be I thought it was really entertaining. It didn't follow the comics, but then why should it? If I wanted the story from the comics I read the comics.
Was anyone honestly expecting better after the abortion that was X3?
From Fox? Most definitely not. Those guys know exactly how to fudge up a movie in such a way as to make it unsavory to the non-fans, never mind the actual fans. I have higher hopes now that a majority of all the rights to these movies have been brought back in house to Marvel Entertainment.
First of all you take a fighter.
Then you give him laser eyes, regeneration, katanas that shoot from his knuckles, and teleportation. Don't explain why or how.
Then don't bother with a plot.
Mission accomplished.
Bonus: If possible try to ignore every pre-existing feature of existing and well-liked characters.
So this is the thread where we
a) Complain about the plot of a movie based on a comic strip,
b) Complain that they changed the made-up story of a fictional character,
c) and argue that shooting energy from your eyes is believable if you're born with it, but completely unbelievable if scientists are involved.
Sweet! :D
I can't wait for the nerd-hate for Star Trek. "They didn't use the decomposing corpse of James Doohan as Scotty? LAAAAAME!"
:P
I haven't kept up with the comics in like 10 years, I'm simply judging the series on its crappy scripts and subpar acting.
ShowThey were capturing mutants to cull their DNA. They found a mutant whose's physiology could handle the spliced together DNA from multiple mutants. By combining the DNA from the captured mutants they were able to give him those multiple powers from Scott Summers (Cyclops), Sabertoothe, and Wraith.
And the plot was pretty much like any comic book origin story. And since this was a comic book origin movie, that fits.
I really don't know what you were expecting that has you so disappointed, but for what the movie was supposed to be I thought it was really entertaining. It didn't follow the comics, but then why should it? If I wanted the story from the comics I read the comics.
First of all you take a fighter.
Then you give him laser eyes, regeneration, katanas that shoot from his knuckles, and teleportation. Don't explain why or how.
They did explain why... no they did not go into the biology or chemistry of how to make a mutant out of splicing mutant DNA together, but they told you what Striker was doing and how he was doing it... in fact they even throw in why. He was combining DNA into a single mutant that he would have complete control over. He was getting the DNA from the mutants Sabertooth was hunting. He is doing all of this because of a severe hatred of mutants, due to this mutant son killing his wife (more of this in X2).
A little suspension of disbelief is required, does Star Trek give us the instructions to make a fully functional replicator? No... it doesn't.
Then don't bother with a plot.
There was also plot, even if it wasn't very complicated.
Wolverine was not a good movie, but not for many of the reasons considered by many people (poor CGI, change of canon, blah blah blah...). If this stuff makes or breaks a movie for you then you don't like movies, you're just looking for the first thing to hate on.
The problem with the movie was the progression of scenes and the progression between scenes. In every scene there was just enough to the get point across and not enough to make it believable. Then they move on, so the audience gets disassociated from what is going on. You'd get the same involvement in the movie if you had read the events in point form on a page. The part at the farmhouse is very much this way, as Wolverine stays one night and we have this "oh he's just like our son" happy family vibe trying to happen.
I had the same feeling from Max Payne. Moving from scene to scene you were just fed fact after fact of the story with no time to get into what was going on. Wolverine wasn't as bad, but Max Payne was snowballing out of control.
That being said, there were some good scenes of all sorts. Even though most of the CGI sucked, the battle on the reactor arguably looked good. The scene where Silver Fox drops him off at the logging site was also really good for showing what kind of relationship they have.
All in all it was mediocre. Wait for DVD...
And yes.. I agree that X3 was an abortion of a film, especially with X2 as a predecessor. It was just a cameo for every mutant in the marvel universe, and does not compare.
BESIDES how they handled Deadpool (at the end) and the fast pacing (as described by AlmostMercury), what did people hate about the movie?
(Remember, this is an action movie about Wolverine.)
This is totally serious question:
BESIDES how they handled Deadpool (at the end) and the fast pacing (as described by AlmostMercury), what did people hate about the movie?
(Remember, this is an action movie about Wolverine.)
To answer your question, if more time was spent on fixing the pacing... I think it would have been a good movie, regardless of Deadpool and CG.
Also yes, I'm quite aware this topic was somewhat of a joke, not a intended answer. However either way, that's probably a decent way to make Wolverine in 4th edition.
Well I don't mind that movies don't follow the comics exactly. Just how movies work it sometimes. A character like the Juggernaut in the 3rd movie, only the fans really are going to care that Juggernaut wasn't a mutant. Getting into the whole jewel thing that made the juggernaut would've maybe been a backstory no one would care or something. That it would just be simpler to just call Juggernaut a mutant and be done with it in the movie.
Didn't think the X-men movies, nor the Wolverine movie was horrible. Don't really read the comics of X-men, but do know some things about them. Of course not really picky, don't expect movies to replicate comics. Although that would be somewhat nifty I'd imagine, the idea of bringing comic stories to like through cinema. Such as having World War Hulk as a movie, would be quite long, and awesome if done right.
I'd imagine that is why people dislike it so when a movie isn't like the comics. As it's felt the whole point of bringing is the idea of taking something from the comics, and bringing it to life. Movies don't care too much about minor details as comics do. Such as how Juggernaut wasn't a mutant, or how Wolverine was forced to have an Adamantinium Skeleton. Since movies are only going to last one to three hours at most, whereas comics will span several issues lasting months or even a couple of years perhaps.
I miss Dark Sun...
This is totally serious question:
BESIDES how they handled Deadpool (at the end) and the fast pacing (as described by AlmostMercury), what did people hate about the movie?
(Remember, this is an action movie about Wolverine.)
I hated the "twists", like wolverine's girlfriend and sabretooth's true intentions, and all that crap. I hated every character having acrobatic skill. I hated wolverine being able to blend a staircase into nothingness (he isn't superstrong or fast). I hated gambit in every possible way from his look, voice, and powers, including his spiderman with a pool-stick crap.
Also, I can handle retconning (quite a bit actually) but if you can't even stay true to your own internal story line (Xmen Wolverine "I woke up in a lab with no memory" vs Origin Wolverine "I woke up on a wrecked island with no memory") you're doing it wrong.
I honestly was excited when I heard Ryan Reynolds was playing Deadpool, and he did a freaking fantastic job.
And I said "Don't bother with a plot." Any string of random and nonsensical events can be called a plot if you contain it all with the same characters in a linear fashion.
@Vyvian: Don't ever make a movie based on something you don't know anything about.
If Superman were alergic to cheese and shooting acidic snot out of his nose was his only power, but they made a FANTASTIC movie with wonderful pacing, character development, and plot that was quite possibly the greatest cinematic achievement of the modern era it would still fail, because the title says "Superman" and its not actually about superman.
If you make a movie based on something, please make the movie based on THAT SOMETHING. I don't mind them changing things, especially if it improves the narrative. I can deal with them retconning the entire actual Origin story and running most of it during the opening credits (an entire graphic novel completely changed and then condensed to a 2 minute montage? Sure, why not?!) as long as the rest of the movie is at least sensible. It wasn't. Deadpool is the primary reason. If they had made it some other new made up character named Gibliguffer the Amalgam I would have been cool with it. You don't call goatboy "Superman" and you don't redesign Deadpool as "Gibliguffer".
EVEN if they gave him all those powers I could forgive it if he could still talk. Deadpool is a comic relief character who's powers are as follows: Wolverine's regeneration (gained in the Weapon X program as in the movie), extremely good katana skills, and his signature ability: absurdly silly banter. Thats it. If you want to give Superman the ability to turn invisible, great. If you want to make it so he can't fly, isn't invulnerable or strong, and likes to eat kryptonite, I'll have a problem with it.
How about this:
Start off with a decent but unorthodoxed reworking of a perfectly acceptable story.
After level 14 switch out your DM with a half-insane pile of sentient, rotting garbage and let him finish out the campaign through epic.
I wasn't fully hating the movie until gambit lurched on screen with his telekenetic card tossing and slightly under-the-bottom southern accent (ie, not cajun), at that point it just went to crap.
Dude, I know Japanese people that could pull a better southern accent.
I can't believe that they were allowed to even live after filming was concluded of this movie. (the cast, and directors and staff all should be shot)
Did you know the high point of the director's career (as in the most famous thing he ever did) was be Anubis on Stargate?
Overall, I'm confused by anyone who doesn't realize the movie was about letting women see Hugh Jackman naked. :P
You can also sign me up for the disappointed-by-Gambit bandwagon. I was more impressed by my friend's half-done Gambit costume. Need to ask if that's done yet so I can see her in it.
I didn't like the involvement of gambit, cyclops (doesn't that make him real old in the X-men movies since 3 mile island would put this in '79?) or emma frost in the movie but those are relatively minor complaints.
Mostly I thought it was pretty good. But then I was never much for nerd rage.
Not sure if Cyclops was in this particular scenario, but Wolverine was in fact asked by Charles Xavier to help free imprisoned School for the Gifted Students. Cyclops is also a founding member of the X-men, so is presence is just as reasonable as the other stuff.
Yea, that didn't bother me too much.
Like I said, switch out the DM mid session. It really felt like a different script after gambit showed up.
Second, I didn't think the movie was horrible. It wasn't great, but it was better than X3.
Now, to those who have a problem with the retconning that is the movie franchise, I have to ask 'What the F***?' The movies are their own continuity, separate from the comics, which have multiple 'universes' that stories take place in. For instance, there is the ultimate universe and the regular universe in Marvel. Do you people that hate the movie plot hate the ultimate universe as well? Even though it was written by better authors and as far as my friend who runs a comic store says, when first coming out, it sold a hell of a lot more than the regular titles.
Now, as to the CGI - this was the weak point in the movie, which is unfortunate. As to Wolverine dicing the fire escape, well, I didn't care for that either, but can you honestly say that wolverine has NEVER done anything like that in any comic? Because I bet he has at one point at least.
Now, as to the waking up in a lab, and waking up on island. That's right, take the word of a man with no memories as gospel. It's not like he lost his memory or had part of his brain blown out.
Now - the people complaining about the optic blast on Deadpool. Did you people pay attention in the movie? That was the last graft they gave Deadpool, and they said that they weren't sure if it would hold. Since Deadpool doesn't have optic blasts, it is logical to assume that said graft wasn't permanent. Perhaps all you complaining about this should pay attention a bit more, and get the facts straight before you complain. As to the other powers, regeneration, super agility with katanas, etc they are all present on him. Heck, teleportation is something Deadpool has, but I do believe it is a technological reason - he has a belt. So, Deadpool had his origin done, very quickly, in the wolverine movie. That's good, because now you can pretty much gloss over it if Ryan Renolds is lucky enough to get a feature movie of Deadpool. No need to do an origin there. Saves lots of time, and you can get right into the story/action.
A couple of things you have to remember about movies is that they have to cram a lot into, generally, a two hour movie. Comics are a format where the action is static, and word bubbles/narrative bubbles explain a lot of the plot. A movie doesn't have that luxury. Perhaps, a Deadpool movie might, but that would be an exception not the norm. Comics also have the advantage that you can read them at your leisure so they can take longer to explain the storyline. Once again, a luxury that movies don't have. Unless you want a 5 hour movie. Now, while the many a nerd wants such a wet-dream/magnum opus, it doesn't work for the mass market.
You also have to remember that the movie is not just for the hardcore comic fans, but also the mass market who may not know about the characters. Yes, there are people that don't know or didn't know about the x-men before the movie.
Finally, as above with the movie continuity and the reference to three mile island, didn't have a partial core melt down in 1979. Or maybe, Scott Summers was 14-16 in that high school class. If we assume that Three Mile Island DID happen in 1979 and Scott Summers was 16 that would make him 37 years old. Not that old really, considering he was leader of the team and also if we assume that the year that the original X-Men took place in was 2000. Famke Jansen, the actress who played Jean Grey was 35 in 2000, and if you ask me, she looked damn fine. She's 44 years old now, and STILL looks DAMN fine. Some people have good genes (no pun intended) and look younger than they are.
Now, as for Gambit. I never liked the character, so I don't care what they did with him. Honestly, he was fine in the movie, which from someone who didn't care for the character, is decent praise.
Now why am I defending the movie I thought was merely okay? Because so many people jump the gun and trash something without knowing all the details, or ignoring them because it suits there argument. I do my best not to do that, but have been guilty of it in the past - but I do try to avoid it, and hopefully some of my points will make you realize that you may not have all the facts, and yoru argument is invalid.
Now, to those who have a problem with the retconning that is the movie franchise, I have to ask 'What the F***?' The movies are their own continuity, separate from the comics, which have multiple 'universes' that stories take place in. For instance, there is the ultimate universe and the regular universe in Marvel. Do you people that hate the movie plot hate the ultimate universe as well? Even though it was written by better authors and as far as my friend who runs a comic store says, when first coming out, it sold a hell of a lot more than the regular titles.
Ultimate Spiderman didn't emo-out for several issues and kill off his best villain for no further valid reason than the fact that it was the end of a trilogy. Ultimate X-Men didn't summarize the Phoenix Saga in a way that completely missed the point. Ultimate Gambit wasn't given the power to make cards float and leap through the air on a pogo staff. If Ultimate Marvel would have been as retarded as movie Marvel is gradually becoming, it would probably be just as reviled. Luckily, they have done a great job at reimagining the Marvel Universe in a way that's true to the themes and concepts of the original.
If only we could say the same about the movies.
Spoilers.....
Below... spoilers...
Gambit: "Wolverine? I think Sabertooth's crew sent you to come find me. Thus, I cannot help you."
Later....
Wolverine and Sabertooth are fighting, and he can see this, but decides to mess both sides up instead of helping Wolverine.
Also....
Gambit: "Im not going with you to do this job."
Later...
Gambit: "HaHA! I saved your life because I decided to come with you to do this job."
The problem I had with this movie, was that they did so well with Deadpool and then turned around and decided to wreck all the good they did. Then they wouldn't actually give us any time to really connect with any of the characters other than Wolverine. Things just randomly happen for no real reason. It's like... the reason things happened, was because they could look cool and no other reason was necessary.
The problem I had with this movie, was that they did so well with Deadpool and then turned around and decided to wreck all the good they did. Then they wouldn't actually give us any time to really connect with any of the characters other than Wolverine. Things just randomly happen for no real reason. It's like... the reason things happened, was because they could look cool and no other reason was necessary.
And then they failed to look cool.
I can't wait for the nerd-hate for Star Trek. "They didn't use the decomposing corpse of James Doohan as Scotty? LAAAAAME!"
Dude, they've got Simon Pegg doing Scotty.
I'm excited.
Overpowered sword wielding (admantium claw wielding) hero that can't be challenged anymore without some ridiculous handwaving by the writer.
Drizzt and Wolverine need to die, die, die, die and never come back.
Btw, I enjoyed the Crystal Shard trilogy and the Dark Elf trilogy. After that the characters just became ridiculous.
I was a big Wolverine fan back in the 1980s. He has gotten ridiculous too.
The acting was poor. (Especially Gambit's) Really they could have picked almost anyone to do Gambit and they would have had a better Gambit (the guy from Lost comes to mind immediately.. at least he's capable of a real southern accent. )
The CGI was just so stupid. I really don't think Hollywood is quite grasping the idea of, CGI is supposed to be "believable" anymore. I think after Matrix they got their hard on going and they ain't gonna stop. (and really it wasn't cool when they did it in the Matrix either)
This movie is of Failure long before we get to the Comic Related Problems. Look, I'm all for new take on what came before. I'm not going to rage because of some minor detail here or there they change, or even major ones. However when, the only resemblance to the source material you have is people that happen to have the same names as their source material characters you aren't being respectful to the source. You are infact giving it the middle finger and doing a great disservice to the fans. (who are the chief audience that honestly is going to this movie... because no one likes X3 not even non comic people)
Here's a protip for Remaking a Franchise and putting your own spin on it. Make sure that you are infact giving a nod to the original. Not flipping it off, kicking it in the groin, shooting out a knee cap, tea bagging and then crapping in the original's face.
First off Wolverine is a stupid worthless character to start with. And he's already had 3 movies. So why does he need a 4th exactly?
"He's so edgy!"
Then there's...... what they did to Deadpool... which was make him into Turdpool.
Then there's Gambit's powers.
Guess what not cool. Wolverine is a total failure, both as a movie standing on it's own, and it's an utter miserable failure as a movie that is meant to exist to a pre existing universe. I don't read the X-men Comics. Hell I grew up on the X-men Cartoon and that was about it for me and X-men. Looking at it though like I look at the Resident Evil movies (where it is it's own universe that really... only has a passing resemblance to it's parent universe) this movie still sucks like a woman in a donkey show.
http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2009-04-17
:D
Infact everyone rewards them when they get it right.
(Watchmen was too niche. )
But what I don't understand is why people are focusing on Gambits card floating "powers" and Wolverine breaking down the fire escape so much.
Remember, this is an action movie based on superheroes, they're going to do things that defy the laws of reality even without powers. No one seems to be complaining that Agent Zero can pretend like he's from Equilibrium even though he has no such powers. I think those are really nitpicky complaints.
I find it odd that my problems with the movie are pretty different than what other people have commented on (except of course Deadpool which no one likes). I, personally, did not like how they related Dog to Sabretooth. I also don't know why they decided to give Silver Fox different powers and make Emma Frost her sister. That really seemed unnecessary. And of course the pacing was too fast.
I think the Sabretooth = Dog thing works for the movie, so I'm not going to kill it. I have no idea about Silver Fox's changes, but they really don't matter. And I can see why they had to have such a fast pace.
This movie is of Failure long before we get to the Comic Related Problems. Look, I'm all for new take on what came before. I'm not going to rage because of some minor detail here or there they change, or even major ones. However when, the only resemblance to the source material you have is people that happen to have the same names as their source material characters you aren't being respectful to the source. You are infact giving it the middle finger and doing a great disservice to the fans. (who are the chief audience that honestly is going to this movie... because no one likes X3 not even non comic people)
Honestly, besides Deadpool what made the Wolverine movie so different than Wolverine lore? I think it reasonably takes Wolverine's origin and conveys it into movie form. Most things seem okay; I thought it did a good job. (Lets not take about X3 since it was so horrible.)
nerd RAGE
Did the movie kill your puppy or something?
(notice I said nothing about Spiderman 2 or 3). When they get it right.
(Watchmen was to niche)
I thought Spiderman 2 was good, to the point of even being better than the first. Three, yuck. Watchmen felt like an accompaniment to the novel. If you hadn't read the novel, you shouldn't bother trying to critique the film, because it wasn't stand-alone, so I definitely agree with ya on that one. I really liked the latest Hulk, also, although it wasn't quite up to par with some of these other comic films.
spill.com said it best when they said (I paraphrase):
This movie [Wolverine] was better when it was called Universal Soldier.
Deadpool (at the begining of the film) was cool. I hope they do end up doing a film of him. He's one of the few comic characters that would really work as a film.
Gambit: "Im not going with you to do this job."
Later...
Gambit: "HaHA! I saved your life because I decided to come with you to do this job."
Poor phrasing, but perfectly within Gambit's Jerkass character.
I hope this webcomic makes everyone feel better.
http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2009-04-17
:D
It made me happy
Did the movie kill your puppy or something?
No, it just had quality control issues which make the likes of Mansquito seem as high quality as The Wrath Of Khan.
I couldn't care less about "staying true" to the original. However when it's no longer even the same concept it's a problem. Had that been my only real issues with this movie I could accept it. (Like I do the Resident Evil movies.. well 1&2 at least.. haven't seen the other one yet)
My issues with this movie come from the fact it plays itself out worse than a B movie.
Scypio: it's not the Wolverine continuity they ruin, it's pretty much everyone else. (such as Cyclops, Gambit, and Deadpool, just to cite three examples off the top of my head) The other problem of course is Wolverine had 3 movies to "explain" his story and he still failed to do so. Despite getting all that screen time already.
Scypio: it's not the Wolverine continuity they ruin, it's pretty much everyone else. (such as Cyclops, Gambit, and Deadpool, just to cite three examples off the top of my head) The other problem of course is Wolverine had 3 movies to "explain" his story and he still failed to do so. Despite getting all that screen time already.
Yeah, I agree that they did a horrible job with the third X-Men movie and Deadpool. But what did they do so wrong to Gambit? Was it bad acting? Honestly, I was never a huge Gambit fan, so I don't know where that hate comes from.
For the comment about 3 movies without explaining his backstory: That's how Wolverine is. The ONLY reason that Marvel gave any real details with his backstory was because they were afraid that if they didn't, the movies would. To the Marvel brass, part of what makes Wolverine is his uncertain past. That's just his character. (And its just Marvel's character to constantly focus on him.)
b) Complain that they changed the made-up story of a fictional character
I dunno, I'd have not liked it if they had given Aragorn a grenade launcher or Superman a penchant for robbing little old ladies.
Yeah, I agree that they did a horrible job with the third X-Men movie and Deadpool. But what did they do so wrong to Gambit? Was it bad acting? Honestly, I was never a huge Gambit fan, so I don't know where that hate comes from.
For the comment about 3 movies without explaining his backstory: That's how Wolverine is. The ONLY reason that Marvel gave any real details with his backstory was because they were afraid that if they didn't, the movies would. To the Marvel brass, part of what makes Wolverine is his uncertain past. That's just his character. (And its just Marvel's character to constantly focus on him.)
The horrible acting is a first death blow to Gambit, him having any tie with Wolverine before he joined the X-men is another, and then there's the total change of his powers.
The horrible acting is a first death blow to Gambit, him having any tie with Wolverine before he joined the X-men is another, and then there's the total change of his powers.
Didn't he throw charged cards?
I dunno, I'd have not liked it if they had given Aragorn a grenade launcher or Superman a penchant for robbing little old ladies.
Yeah, I didn't like Superman Returns, either. I liked 3&4 better than that one.
The horrible acting is a first death blow to Gambit, him having any tie with Wolverine before he joined the X-men is another, and then there's the total change of his powers.
1) can't speak about
2) doesn't change anything about the characters
3) telekinesis is a bad change. It generates a constructive use for his ability, instead of just "make stuff in my hands explode".
1) can't speak about
2) doesn't change anything about the characters
3) telekinesis is a bad change. It generates a constructive use for his ability, instead of just "make stuff in my hands explode".
Where/when does he have telekinesis?
Didn't he throw charged cards?
Nope. It was telekinesis. The cards didn't explode. They just knocked people around from Force.
They should have called it Wolverine's Bad Trip. Because frankly *shakes head*. So much Failure.
Nope. It was telekinesis. The cards didn't explode. They just knocked people around from Force.
So it was just because they didn't show explosions? Or were there any instances of telekinesis? (Don't say making cards float; that's just action movie style shots.)
then there's him pulling a Spiderman using his Telekinesis on his staff to climb a wall.
His power, was to charge things with his hands so that they explode. Explode. Pretty straightforward there, and the fact that they could not even get this right should tell you about how bad the rest of the movie is too.
No explosion. Yet people were sent flying from them not even hitting anyone directly (along with blowing through a wall IIRC)
then there's him pulling a Spiderman using his Telekinesis on his staff to climb a wall.
His power, was to charge things with his hands so that they explode. Explode. Pretty straightforward there, and the fact that they could not even get this right should tell you about how bad the rest of the movie is too.
How do you conclude its telekinesis?
Couldn't he just card objects with kinetic energy in which upon impact causes great force? (Which pretty much is his power.) If there was a pretty purple glow on the cards, it would've been more accurate to the comics, but knowing how poorly the CG was, I think no glow was better.
And using telekinesis to climb the wall even though he's using his staff to climb? Would Wolverine require telekinesis if he uses his claws to climb?
Out of curiousity, were you also really against Spider-man having organic web shooters instead of mechanical ones?
No I don't think you understand, he doesn't stab his staff into the wall. they just stick on the surface and he runs up a large wall. Straight up, not rebounding or anything. Straight up.
Organic Webshooters. Make far more sense than mechanical ones.
Organic Webshooters. Make far more sense than mechanical ones.
Mechanical Webshooters. Make far more sense than Organic ones, especially since spiders don't make webs from their feet. Mechanical webshooters also demonstrate how intelligent Peter Parker is. He was reduced from a smart geek in the comics to an average-guy who gets picked on 'cause he's hollywood small.
From a Material perspective he'd have problems making them.
Highschool kid, access to materials becomes called into question.
From a Material perspective he'd have problems making them.
Which of the materials used to make the webbing or webshooters do you doubt he could get?
Which of the materials used to make the webbing or webshooters do you doubt he could get?
For an unemployed teenager in highschool? Quite abit.
He's able to store them in his Clost/Dark-Room, so it's safe to say that the chemicals he started with weren't any more hazardous than "normal" photo-development chemicals. Various bromides, iodides, chlorides, and fluorides are all used in that. Therefore, it seems obvious that he got the basic chemicals for the web-shooters from the same place he got the photo development chemicals, and came up with the formula thorugh a mix of intelligence and "genetic" urges.
That Dark Room also serves as a source of income for him, after the money from the wrestling gig ran out (which happened before the web-shooting, except in the movies), even while he's in high school. Working at the Daily Bugle, he got the job initially because he was the first guy who had photos of Spider-man.
Amazing Fantasy #15, Pg 6, Panel 3:
And the wall climbing thing, telekinesis did not occur to me. As far as I'm concerned he just used two pieces of his staff to climb much the same way wolverine would use his claws. Being able to charge particular molecules should lend itself to this.
Cyclops is not a continuity problem (see my post above) and as far as Gambit meeting up with Wolverine pre X-Men, who cares? The first two movies were good even though Ice Man (a founding member) was just a kid.
No, it was -explosions- not telekinetic force. Firey explosions.
No I don't think you understand, he doesn't stab his staff into the wall. they just stick on the surface and he runs up a large wall. Straight up, not rebounding or anything. Straight up.
Organic Webshooters. Make far more sense than mechanical ones.
Technically Gambit's powers stem from charging objects with kinetic energy which in turn made the explosions. So the movie may have just made the objects possess the kinetic energy and did not put in the explosions which according to you, are critical to his character.
And didn't he use the two parts of his staff to get up the wall? If not, I still don't see how you assumed it was telekinesis.
The webshooters don't make a tons of sense either way. But you know what? Its a comic book so it doesn't have to make much sense. I just mentioned it because it seems like you were hung up on Gambit's power like people were hung up on Spidey's webshooters before the first Spider-man movie came out (and apparently still don't like).
Gambit's power I could have accepted the change providing that the rest of him hadn't been put into the toilet.. (especially the acting.... ugh)
people were hung up on Spidey's webshooters before the first Spider-man movie came out (and apparently still don't like).
Meh, I can not like it and still find Spider-man to be a great movie.
It's a pretty good chance I'll enjoy X-Men Origins, too.
Did the Juggernaut really have to say "I'm the Juggernaut, *****!!!" to make the movie good?
Yes. That was awesome. That is such a Juggernaut things to say.
As for the discussion (possibly) at hand, I wish I were a webcomic artist so I could do Marvel and it's surrogate penor (Wolverine).
Is it really so bad? most of the people I know said that it was decent. A bit over-hyped, but still good.
I just saw it. It was hilariously bad. I didn't go in expecting Shakespeare, but man I laughed so hard at the ridiculous dialogue.
And it wouldn't have been so bad if they had put more money/effort into the special effects. I went in to see an action movie with cool, well-done special effects, and it didn't deliver on that.
At least I didn't have the urge to walk out of the theatre like I did with Jason's last movie.
Is it really so bad? most of the people I know said that it was decent. A bit over-hyped, but still good.
I thought it was pretty good. It seems like most of the complains revolve around:
a) one plot item at the end involving Deadpool who's apparently everyone's favorite character
b) fast pacing so you get characters who only are around for a few minutes
c) scenes with poor special effects
d) nitpicks about changes
But for an action movie centered Wolverine, I think it was pretty good. I thought the openning credit scenes were well done and his relationship with Sabretooth/Dog was interesting enough. Lots of characters seem to only be shown to show them and what they did to Deadpool at the end was pretty bad.
I think a problem was that people wanted something like the Dark Knight but got a generic action movie starring Wolverine.
I think a problem was that people wanted something like the Dark Knight but got a generic action movie starring Wolverine.
Actually I was expecting a Generic Action Movie. But I was expecting it to actually be well executed. (I mean half the point of these movies is special effects and good mindless fun... and they ruined both aspects)
The thing is, the Hulk's film (both) was pretty good. It's not much more mindlessly brutal than when the Hulk is around.
I didn't come in expecting Dark Knight, or even Ironman or Spiderman. I came in expecting Hulk and was still disappointed greatly. What I got instead was Fantastic Four. (and yes both of them sucked)
Actually I was expecting a Generic Action Movie. But I was expecting it to actually be well executed. (I mean half the point of these movies is special effects and good mindless fun... and they ruined both aspects)
The thing is, the Hulk's film (both) was pretty good. It's not much more mindlessly brutal than when the Hulk is around.
I didn't come in expecting Dark Knight, or even Ironman or Spiderman. I came in expecting Hulk and was still disappointed greatly. What I got instead was Fantastic Four. (and yes both of them sucked)
For a generic action movie starring Wolverine, it seems like your complains are from expecting too much or nitpicks. Yes, I understand that Deadpool was horribly handled at the end of the film, but does it really matter if Gambit meets Wolverine before the X-men or if his cards don't glow? And if you don't expect generic action movie to defy the laws of physics (and often common sense), then I don't know what action movies you've been watching. Yes, good acting and dialogue add to a film, but are they really something you expect from an action movie?
And I liked the first Fantastic Four movie (not the second).
Compare Quantum of Solace to this movie they are about on equal terms.
Bad acting ruins any film regardless of genre.
Changing a character to not even be the same character anymore just letting the character having the same name? (Both Deadpool and Gambit altered that heavily by the time this movie is finished) Can you really even say it's the same character anymore? (Where's the accent, the powers etc? Why didn't they let his story actually stay what it was and have Wolverine meet him there? It's not like Wolverine's story is known all that well and his fans are just like "ZOMG WOLVERINE HE IZ TEH AWEZOMEZ!" they won't care about his plot not being followed 100 percent accurate... because Wolvie is a mindless character anyway unlike say Gambit)
I'd have been more fine with them turning Gambit into a woman and being Wolverine's temporary love interest than how they handled gambit. (providing the rest of Gambit's story had been accurate and providing his dialogue wasn't so terrible and delivered even worse)
Changing a character to not even be the same character anymore just letting the character having the same name? (Both Deadpool and Gambit altered that heavily by the time this movie is finished) Can you really even say it's the same character anymore? (Where's the accent, the powers etc? Why didn't they let his story actually stay what it was and have Wolverine meet him there? It's not like Wolverine's story is known all that well and his fans are just like "ZOMG WOLVERINE HE IZ TEH AWEZOMEZ!" they won't care about his plot not being followed 100 percent accurate... because Wolvie is a mindless character anyway unlike say Gambit)
How was Gambit's actual character/personality changed? He may have been acted out poorly, but he's relatively true to how he is. How did they change the "depth" of his character? Is glowing cards so vital to his powers/existance that the loss of those invalidate the movie?
I'm not even sold on the idea that they changed his powers to telekinesis like you claim to think. There's as much movie evidence that they kept his powers (charging up cards with kinetic energy) and just made his cards not explode.
Also is when he meets Wolverine important? Does Batman Begins do a horrible job because Bruce Wayne shouldn't meet Ra's Al Ghul when he does in the movie?
Seriously, if you ask for the first things that come to mind when someone thinks of Gambit, it'll probably be something like:
-mutant/X-Men member
-Cajun, kind of a lady's man/jerk
-charges and throws cards
-duster/trench coat
-staff
Now how is that TOTALLY different than the movie incarnation?
I'd have been more fine with them turning Gambit into a woman and being Wolverine's temporary love interest than how they handled gambit. (providing the rest of Gambit's story had been accurate and providing his dialogue wasn't so terrible and delivered even worse)
I agree with the love interest part, but there's no need to turn him into a woman.... :P
I agree with the love interest part, but there's no need to turn him into a woman.... :P
Depends on who's the actress...
I agree with the love interest part, but there's no need to turn him into a woman.... :P
The only man, man enough for Wolverine in Wolvie's eyes is Cyclops. We all know that. Hence why Gambit would have to be a woman.
The only man, man enough for Wolverine in Wolvie's eyes is Cyclops. We all know that. Hence why Gambit would have to be a woman.
I recall having suggested that as the plot for X-Man: The Last Stand, with
X3 was pretty bad. It's still by far worse than Wolverine Origin (Whatever. It's not an X-men movie). I've read better fanfictions than X3.
That I'm still upset about.
Professor Xaviar does exactly what he created his school to prevent "normals" from doing... WTF-bbq? That was three kinds of wrong.
That I'm still upset about.
What exactly are you talking about?
The only man, man enough for Wolverine in Wolvie's eyes is Cyclops. We all know that. Hence why Gambit would have to be a woman.
Well, that's why Gambit/Wolverine would just be a quick fling. A quick sexy fling, but just a fling. They'd just be using each other, really. And it would be hot.
Well, that's why Gambit/Wolverine would just be a quick fling. A quick sexy fling, but just a fling. They'd just be using each other, really. And it would be hot.
+1
But I didn't like the actor who played Gambit in the movie. His face was too broad and he didn't have enough of an accent. :P
TBH, I don't think there's been an X-Men comic that wouldn't be improved with more explicit homoeroticism. ;)
+1
But I didn't like the actor who played Gambit in the movie. His face was too broad and he didn't have enough of an accent. :P
Agreed on both counts. Speaking of Gambit:
Seriously, if you ask for the first things that come to mind when someone thinks of Gambit, it'll probably be something like:
-mutant/X-Men member
-Cajun, kind of a lady's man/jerk
-charges and throws cards
-duster/trench coat
-staff
Now how is that TOTALLY different than the movie incarnation?
There are several things wrong with the portrayal of Gambit:
1: Wrong accent. Gambit's 'Cajuness' is like Beast's intellect, it's a trademark of the character, and should only be removed for a very good reason (and don't try to tell me it's impossible to find a handsome actor capable of speaking with a Cajun accent).
2: Not enough sex-appeal. As you said, he's a ladies man. I realise they didn't have time to show him charm the pants of dozens of women, but they could at least try to sex up the character a bit. I'm all for limiting pointless sexualisation, but come on, it's Gambit!
3: Weird powers. The floating cards I can kind of accept (they're light and charged with kinetic energy, and usually didn't do anything a skilled magician couldn't do), and I can look past the cards not glowing and exploding quite 'right', since it's mostly just a visual effect. But making earthquakes and running up walls? I definitely prefer more clearly defined powers, to avoid making their use seem like an ass-pull, and while I have no problem with characters discovering new uses for old powers, I'd like to have it explained, which there isn't room for in the movie. As a result, I'm pretty sure I'd have no idea about what his mutant powers actually are if I hadn't known before.
4: Wrong look. I know not every movie character will look like you imagined them, it happened with LotR too, and I got used to it. But combined with the other changes, the character starts becoming unrecognisable. It would have helped a lot if he at least looked the part.
They seem to forget that you can never own a character, and that the writers change them all the time. Hell, I may not like that the writers turned Ultimate Colossus into a drug-addict or mainstream Cyclops into a bed-hopping man-GLEEMAX!, but taking personal offense at is... it's always seemed a bit odd.
(On Gambit's powers: I found the wall-climbing and ground-smashing to be acceptable. I know he makes kenetic energy, so it made sense. And the card effect was very cool! Though I was disappointed that his eyes only turned red when he was using his powers. It would have been easy to just get some contacts for the guy. :P)
Eh. People get attached to characters and start to think of them as 'their' characters. That's one of the reason there's always so much nerdrage whenever a comic book inspired movie comes out, because everyone is screaming about how 'their' characters are all horribly destroyed, and how they would never do that...
They seem to forget that you can never own a character, and that the writers change them all the time. Hell, I may not like that the writers turned Ultimate Colossus into a drug-addict or mainstream Cyclops into a bed-hopping man-GLEEMAX!, but taking personal offense at is... it's always seemed a bit odd.
Well, lets flip it around. You are right, but the other side of the story isn't that people are possessive and think of it as their character, but as someone they can experience vicarious conflict through and/or relate with.
When the viewer can no longer relate to a character they loved, they lose interest and obviously become upset.
Imagine (OK, not to create an ambiguous analogy) that one day your lover "flipped the script" and was an almost entirely different person.
The question becomes, can you accept the change? Can you roll with it? Or is it important that the person remains the one you originally fell in love with, and not forgive them?
Well, lets flip it around. You are right, but the other side of the story isn't that people are possessive and think of it as their character, but as someone they can experience vicarious conflict through and/or relate with.
See, looking at it like this leads to that 'one more day' fiasco with Spiderman, where one guy refused to accept the gradual changes to the character over the course of several decades, and happened to have the power to force a 'reset'. He felt he could no longer relate to the character, so he changed it back to what he felt it should be... and we all saw the result.
Imagine (OK, not to create an ambiguous analogy) that one day your lover "flipped the script" and was an almost entirely different person.
The question becomes, can you accept the change? Can you roll with it? Or is it important that the person remains the one you originally fell in love with, and not forgive them?
Going from talking about a fictional shared character that's gone from multiple writers and decades of character development (and derailment) to talking about a real person... not so sure if that's a good analogy. But hey, I'm game.
Fact is, that no matter how my lover could change, it's not in my power to control it. I may not like the man he becomes, I may not like the things he does. And then we split. Or I may find that his changes are for the better, and I'm more in love then ever before. In the end, it's not about me, it's about him. I just have to deal with the fallout, and stay true to myself in how I react.
And want to know something? That does happen. Bit extreme, but in decades past there have been plenty of LGBT folk that don't realize and accept their own feelings into well into their adult life, often after they have kids and families. And they have to make that exact same decision... stay true to themselves, or continue living a lie. And the people in their lives have to deal with the fallout. That's life. People make decisions, other people deal with it. Sometimes it gets ugly. Sometimes it doesn't. But you can't stop change, and you can't claim ownership of someone else's life.
Moving away from the analogy (and I really don't think it was a good one)... you have a choice. Let characters continue to develop and grow, accepting that they won't always be the same, or force them to stagnate. I find the insistence that a character can never change to be boring... changes are what lead to great characters like Nightwing and Oracle, stagnation is what leads to many people's disinterest in Superman. In the end, not everything works for everyone, but insisting that one way is the only way, and getting outraged when others disagree... well, that's a rather naive outlook.
I used it mostly to address a drastic change of someone close.
(I'll quote Escher with Caps, I'm lazy for da formatting!)
Moving away from the analogy (and I really don't think it was a good one)... you have a choice.
Possibly not the best. But love comes in many forms. I stopped loving Sylar (a bad guy, no less!) half way through Heroes Season 2. When people screw up and ruin a character, well, the jobs done.
Let characters continue to develop and grow, accepting that they won't always be the same, or force them to stagnate. I find the insistence that a character can never change to be boring... changes are what lead to great characters like Nightwing and Oracle, stagnation is what leads to many people's disinterest in Superman.
Abso-positiv-ly-rut'n right!!! I have no disagreements here. You hit the nail on the head. But sometimes changing a character does equal bull-hookey and ruin it. They don't grow, you have to spend worthless comic-arcs fixing the crap you should never have jumped into. It happens. And they definitely have been doing it a lot, most notably in cinema adaptations.
In the end, not everything works for everyone, but insisting that one way is the only way, and getting outraged when others disagree... well, that's a rather naive outlook.
I never said that, I simply said that it is understandable that when crowd X (who have been fans for 30 years) despise the change and advancement in character, it is often more influential (albeit, not always permanently) than the kiddies in theaters.
I PLEAD OF YOU to read an interview like this before replying (ok don't hate me for assuming (both of you and others) but this is for other readers): "well, they shouldn't target to one group!" I'm totally being PC but if you don't take the time to view JJ Abrams about Trek (yes, slightly off topic but relevant in a generic way) then I award you a free hug to cool off for a minute.
Interview: http://www.movies.ie/html/article.aspx?articleid=4740
The idea is of appealing to both hardcore die hard fans vs. newbies
EDIT: I just realized my last paragraph was really confusing. I might as well leave it up for posterity
Either way, I do find it understandable when die-hard fans are upset over character adaptions. I just think they that in most cases they're overstepping their bounds when they stop saying "I don't like this adaption/direction of the character" to "this isn't that character".
In the end, readers have no control or possession of the characters. They can choose to accept changes, and continue to enjoy the medium, or they can choose to not accept changes and move on. To think there's a third option is just being silly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3maOccM24I
It deals with the Star Trek universe but also about the re-imagining of characters and what-not (this one, not as much as my first post
). Sorry for a bad link!So, out of curiosity, has there been an X-Men movie yet that wouldn't be improved with more explicit homoeroticism?
Nope.
TBH, I don't think there's been an X-Men comic that wouldn't be improved with more explicit homoeroticism. ;)
Homoeroticism is hot. It makes everything better. :D
EDIT: The fact that I needed to remove that hyphen in order to have that word show up offends me...
The fact that I needed to remove that hyphen in order to have that word show up offends me...
Tell me about it. In WoW [British slang for cigarette] isn't caught by the language filter, but homosexual is. My SO reported it as a bug.
So lets force it back on topic, how would you design a D&D campaign based on Wolverine Origins if it were modified to be more homoerotic.
First thing we'd need is a way to get armor bonuses without wearing shirts...
First thing we'd need is a way to get armor bonuses without wearing shirts...
I solved that problem way back when 300 came out. The solution is to allow a character to add either their STR or CHA modifier (whichever is higher) to their AC when wearing either no armor or light armor in the form of fishnet or leather bondage harnesses. :D
Would need at least one bard in the group...
Preferably one with lighting powers so that they could have electronica.
What exactly are you talking about?
"Non-mutants" wish to limit the mutant's powers. Usually the easiest way is to kill them, but a "cure" that makes them "the same as" normal humans is acceptable.
Professer X created the school as a haven for mutants to learn to use their powers, and coexist with the rest of mankind.
Then Professer Xaviar limited Jean Gray's powers. He considered killing her if her powers could not be controlled.
So, just like Magneto pointed out, Xavier did exactly what "non-mutants" wanted to do to mutants. He was "afraid" of her power.
Relevent quote- "I fear for democracy when one man can level cities with his mind."