Wolverine movie poll. Did you like it?

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Raiden256
Anybody else think the makeup/cgi/whatever they did to Patrick Stewart / Professor X looked REALLY WEIRD? He didn't look younger... he looked like he was dunked into a vat of botox!

Ya, that was hideous. More like they dunked him in some ass-gel. It looked terrible on him. Stewart probably would have looked fine with his "today" face.

 

[middlehead]

Originally posted by: hdeck
side note, what happens in the "bar scene" secret ending? i saw the deadpool one.

Logan's doing shots in a bar in Japan, bartender asks if he's drinking to forget, "No. I'm drinking to remember."

 

[middlehead]

Originally posted by: Imp

Originally posted by: Raiden256
Anybody else think the makeup/cgi/whatever they did to Patrick Stewart / Professor X looked REALLY WEIRD? He didn't look younger... he looked like he was dunked into a vat of botox!

Ya, that was hideous. More like they dunked him in some ass-gel. It looked terrible on him. Stewart probably would have looked fine with his "today" face.

I'm thinking Captain Picard wasn't there. I'd bet he was only available for voice work and they CGI'd his face over a stand-in.

 

[DJFuji]

I was really, really disappointed with the movie.

The acting was atrocious.

The plot was abysmal.

The action scenes got old (how many times can we see wolverine and sabretooth run and dive at each other?)

The character development was non existent.

They deviated so far from the comics towards the end that it might as well have been a non-comic book action movie.

Hell, they didn't even explain any of the basic questions that non-comic book fans might have had. How is wolverine so old? How did he fight in all those wars? Why is his name James when everyone called him Logan in the other xmen movies?

Why wasn't david north EVER referred to as maverick?

Gambit's accent was non existent.

I think one of the worst parts was when wolverine muttered his famous quote 'im the best there is at what i do... but what i do isnt very nice.' He got the words right, but there was no emotion behind it. He said it so flatline that i almost missed it. By contrast, the mood and vibe of the cal dodd wolverine from the 90's cartoon was WAY more accurate.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: middlehead

Originally posted by: jonks
Good to know that shooting someone in the head at close range guarantees amnesia.

this was a perfectly acceptable movie-style way of explaining the amnesia

disagree. You can't cause selective amnesia by shooting people in the head. it's dumb. off the top of my head, more plausible ways to accomplish this in movieland:

1. use a psychic mutant to brainwash him
2. use advanced computer technology to brainwipe him
3. super high voltage electrocution
4. massive head trauma (which unintentionally causes memory loss). Falling off that nuclear reactor and landing on his head would have been more plausible an explanation.

How did stryker know an adamantium bullet to wolvie's head would cause amnesia when humans get shot in the head and survive without amnesia? It's not a scientific or even likely result.

You dont consider being shot in the head as "massive head trauma" ?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DJFuji
I was really, really disappointed with the movie.

The acting was atrocious.

The plot was abysmal.

The action scenes got old (how many times can we see wolverine and sabretooth run and dive at each other?)

The character development was non existent.

They deviated so far from the comics towards the end that it might as well have been a non-comic book action movie.

Hell, they didn't even explain any of the basic questions that non-comic book fans might have had. How is wolverine so old? How did he fight in all those wars? Why is his name James when everyone called him Logan in the other xmen movies?

Why wasn't david north EVER referred to as maverick?

Gambit's accent was non existent.

I think one of the worst parts was when wolverine muttered his famous quote 'im the best there is at what i do... but what i do isnt very nice.' He got the words right, but there was no emotion behind it. He said it so flatline that i almost missed it. By contrast, the mood and vibe of the cal dodd wolverine from the 90's cartoon was WAY more accurate.

parf of the reason everyone in Xmen 1-3 called him logan is they took place AFTER wolverine. so he has lost his memoires and only stays with them to try to get them back. his ID says logan/wolverine so thats all he knows.

 

[DJFuji]

I know, but where did "logan" come from? Why did it appear on his dog tags? They never really explained things like that. Hell, half the audience was confused when his claws looked 'weird,' cause they never explained that he was born with bone claws.

I just realized that the old couple that found him was supposed to be the hudsons aka guardian and vindicator from alpha flight. Hahahaha maybe it was the hudsons' grandparents?

 

[DJFuji]

Oh and I almost forgot. Silverfox is now related to emma frost? Ha, maybe they should make agent zero/maverick related to silver samurai while they're at it.

 

[Newbian]

Seriously... if this movie pissed you off compared to the comic books why would you even had watched it with how much the first 3 xmen movies did the same and in some cases many times worse.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DJFuji
Oh and I almost forgot. Silverfox is now related to emma frost? Ha, maybe they should make agent zero/maverick related to silver samurai while they're at it.

yeah that was bullshit. silverfox and emma are sisters? lol though emma did look cute..

 

[Spoooon]

It was okay up until the climax. Needed more Deadpool. And not that weapon 11 crap. I could handle most of the liberties they took, but some of it, bah.

 

[meltdown75]

i guarantee that i'll like it. zero expectations, not a critic, and i know how to enjoy something without overanalyzing it. in other words, ATOT would never hire me as a movie critic, because i actually enjoy movies.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Spoooon
It was okay up until the climax. Needed more Deadpool. And not that weapon 11 crap. I could handle most of the liberties they took, but some of it, bah.

deadpool is the only thing that really ticked me off. he is sucha great charector (in the comics) that iw ish they had more of him. that thing was not deadpool..just something they named wade and called deadpool!

ugh. deadpool BEFORE they butchered him was great.

 

[TheSlamma]

Zero continuity with the 3 X-men movies. IMO that's horrid writing.

Why doesn't Saber tooth in X-men part 1 recognize him as his brother.
Why doesn't Cyclops recognize his rescuer.
Why didn't the experiment on Wolverine take place under that lake that was in part 2 where it showed his visions of him breaking out?

Bad writing.

 

[ballmode]

i liked it better than all but xmen 2

 

[middlehead]

Originally posted by: DJFuji
I know, but where did "logan" come from? Why did it appear on his dog tags? They never really explained things like that.

You're right that they never mentioned its origin on camera, but he did ask to have it on his dog tags. Logan was the last name of his actual father, he started using it as he was changing his identity.

 

[BoomerD]

Haven't seen it. Most likely will not see it.

The trailers have been enough to convince me that it's nothing worth wasting money on.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Zero continuity with the 3 X-men movies. IMO that's horrid writing.

Why doesn't Saber tooth in X-men part 1 recognize him as his brother.
Why doesn't Cyclops recognize his rescuer.
Why didn't the experiment on Wolverine take place under that lake that was in part 2 where it showed his visions of him breaking out?

Bad writing.

Global warming?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: middlehead

Originally posted by: jonks
Good to know that shooting someone in the head at close range guarantees amnesia.

this was a perfectly acceptable movie-style way of explaining the amnesia

disagree. You can't cause selective amnesia by shooting people in the head. it's dumb. off the top of my head, more plausible ways to accomplish this in movieland:
4. massive head trauma (which unintentionally causes memory loss).

You dont consider being shot in the head as "massive head trauma" ?

Of course it is, but you missed the argument even though you bolded "unintentionally causes memory loss." Amnesia can be brought about by head trauma, but there's no "hit person here to cause memory loss" button.

There's two sensible ways they could have gone about it. Amnesia can either be an unintentional byproduct of trauma, or it can be intentionally induced by some means other than trauma (chemicals/mutant telepathic brainwipe). What makes no sense is to have amnesia intentionally induced through trauma.

What I object to is Stryker calculating to cause amnesia by shooting Logan in the head, especially when there is a wealth of more plausible options for bringing about that result. The screenwriters who came up with this one phoned it in.

 

[middlehead]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Zero continuity with the 3 X-men movies. IMO that's horrid writing.

Why doesn't Saber tooth in X-men part 1 recognize him as his brother.
Why doesn't Cyclops recognize his rescuer.
Why didn't the experiment on Wolverine take place under that lake that was in part 2 where it showed his visions of him breaking out?

Bad writing.

They could've done better, but "zero continuity" is an exaggeration.

A) They may have decided that Victor Creed and Sabretooth are different guys, or Magneto may have altered him in the interim.
B) Cyclops was blind at the time. And that escape does help explain Xavier's foreknowledge of Wolverine in X1.
3) I haven't watched X2 in a while, Wolverine's escape didn't jump out at me as a big change.

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: jonks
Of course it is, but you missed the argument even though you bolded "unintentionally causes memory loss." Amnesia can be brought about by head trauma, but there's no "hit person here to cause memory loss" button.

My point was about plausible ways for the plot of the movie to incorporate amnesia. Stryker shot him in the head not to kill him, but with the motivation of causing memory loss.

If Stryker said "He's too dangerous, we need to kill him. Adamantium bullets through his brain ought to do it," Stryker could then shoot Logan in the head thinking he killed him, but then get interrupted by someone else before cremating the body or something.

What I object to is Stryker calculating to cause amnesia by shooting Logan in the head, especially when there is a wealth of more plausible options for bringing about that result. The screenwriters who came up with this one phoned it in.

I agree. They should have made it serendipitous. Now though, any time his brains gets scrambled in a movie, you're going to wonder about amnesia.

 

[middlehead]

Originally posted by: Spoooon

Originally posted by: jonks
Of course it is, but you missed the argument even though you bolded "unintentionally causes memory loss." Amnesia can be brought about by head trauma, but there's no "hit person here to cause memory loss" button.

My point was about plausible ways for the plot of the movie to incorporate amnesia. Stryker shot him in the head not to kill him, but with the motivation of causing memory loss.

If Stryker said "He's too dangerous, we need to kill him. Adamantium bullets through his brain ought to do it," Stryker could then shoot Logan in the head thinking he killed him, but then get interrupted by someone else before cremating the body or something.

What I object to is Stryker calculating to cause amnesia by shooting Logan in the head, especially when there is a wealth of more plausible options for bringing about that result. The screenwriters who came up with this one phoned it in.

I agree. They should have made it serendipitous. Now though, any time his brains gets scrambled in a movie, you're going to wonder about amnesia.

I just pinned it on the extra force and reverberations exerted by that hot adamantium-on-adamantium action. A normal bullet beats a normal skull easily, but two extremely dense chunks of metal colliding at high speed? That's going to shake the shit out of everything in the general vicinity.

 

[Q]

I saw it Saturday night, and while it wasn't as good as the other Xmen movies, it was still worth the ticket IMO. Hugh Jackman is great, and I really liked how they did Gambit.

Not the greatest movie but deserved WAY higher than a 36% or whatever crap RottenTomatoes gave it

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: middlehead

Originally posted by: Spoooon

Originally posted by: jonks
Of course it is, but you missed the argument even though you bolded "unintentionally causes memory loss." Amnesia can be brought about by head trauma, but there's no "hit person here to cause memory loss" button.

My point was about plausible ways for the plot of the movie to incorporate amnesia. Stryker shot him in the head not to kill him, but with the motivation of causing memory loss.
What I object to is Stryker calculating to cause amnesia by shooting Logan in the head, especially when there is a wealth of more plausible options for bringing about that result. The screenwriters who came up with this one phoned it in.

I agree. They should have made it serendipitous. Now though, any time his brains gets scrambled in a movie, you're going to wonder about amnesia.

I just pinned it on the extra force and reverberations exerted by that hot adamantium-on-adamantium action. A normal bullet beats a normal skull easily, but two extremely dense chunks of metal colliding at high speed? That's going to shake the shit out of everything in the general vicinity.

I edited my post for clarity. I'm not claiming headshots can't cause amnesia. I'm saying if you want to give someone amnesia, shooting them in the head to bring about that result is a pretty low percentage way of bringing it about, daytime soap operas excluded.

 

[Q]

Oh, I did not like the actor who did Stryker, the guy from X2 was perfect, should have had him.