x-men origins

[capthowdy575]

Looks like a nice movie. the cgi looks better every movie

[Turophiliac]

Looks like a nice movie. the cgi looks better every movie

awesome movie. I like wolverine anyway, and his story is by far the best x-men yet.

[Verran]

The early reviews are saying it's quite terrible. I wouldn't be surprised. I think there was a story on DailyTech a while ago about it being "accidentally" leaked.

 

I liked X-Men 1 and 2. 3 was just OK for me. I'm skeptical about this one though. Wolverine is not my favorite.

[psycho_terror]

The early reviews are saying it's quite terrible. I wouldn't be surprised. I think there was a story on DailyTech a while ago about it being "accidentally" leaked.

a friend of mine downloaded the leaked workprint. he wasn't impressed, even taking into account that it's unfinished.

 

really though, even if you forget about the missing effects the workprint version is unfinished in other ways and it would be wrong to judge the film on those reviews.

[ClayMeow]

I loved all the X-Men movies, and Wolverine has always been my favorite X-Men (plus I think Hugh Jackman does an excellent job).

 

I'm definitely looking forward to the movie, regardless of what initial reviews of the unfinished project may be.

[Verran]

really though, even if you forget about the missing effects the workprint version is unfinished in other ways and it would be wrong to judge the film on those reviews.

That may be so, but I've never been one to have post-production effects and such really impact my opinion of a movie. They usually just don't mean much to me.

 

I'm also concerned though that the Wolverine character doesn't have the depth to stand on his own. I know he's got the storyline, but the character himself has always been pretty one-dimensional to me. Then again, most of the X-Men are (and that's coming from a big X-Men fan). But there's so many of them that most of them turned into just one trick ponies when it came to actual personalities. I hope I'm wrong, but I just see this relying a lot more on Michael Bay-style theatrics and a lot less on plot and acting.

[Turophiliac]

I would say that the workprint was great. (I watched the one a friend downloaded) I know that a lot of the movie's action sequences rely on the special effects, so if someone was watching it without the premise that it was an unfinished copy, they would definitely not like it. But after seeing the unfinished one, it makes me want to go see it in theaters, so I can truly appreciate the movie.

[ClayMeow]

That may be so, but I've never been one to have post-production effects and such really impact my opinion of a movie. They usually just don't mean much to me.

 

I'm also concerned though that the Wolverine character doesn't have the depth to stand on his own. I know he's got the storyline, but the character himself has always been pretty one-dimensional to me. Then again, most of the X-Men are (and that's coming from a big X-Men fan). But there's so many of them that most of them turned into just one trick ponies when it came to actual personalities. I hope I'm wrong, but I just see this relying a lot more on Michael Bay-style theatrics and a lot less on plot and acting.

I think Wolverine has an awesome story to him, which is probably why they chose him for the first of the "Origins" movies.

 

Seeing how he becomes Wolverine should add another dimension to the character (assuming they do the lead up well), but even aside from that, I didn't feel he was one-dimensional in the X-Men trilogy. I mean, for the most part, he's the aggressive type...the type you wouldn't think could care for anyone...but then on one hand, he's in love with Jean...and he's acts like a big brother to Rogue....so he has this compassionate part of him that you wouldn't typically expect out of a "guy" like that. That doesn't scream one-dimensional to me. shrug

[Verran]

I think Wolverine has an awesome story to him, which is probably why they chose him for the first of the "Origins" movies.

He does have a great story (Weapon X). That's what I was saying. I don't doubt that the storyline is there, I just doubt that the character has any real depth. That was the problem I had with the new Hulk. It was a cool story but I just didn't get invested in the character. They didn't develop him much. Probably because there was nothing to develop. And when you don't care about the main character, it's just a long series of explosions and car chases. Hence, Michael Bay. That works for some people, though. Just not me.

 

And of course, I always contrast the Hulk with Iron Man. That one had the same level of explosions and action, but they really sold you the character. You got attached to him and you started seeing the story through his eyes. As I've said before, they're both good movies, but I've watched Iron Man several times since, yet I have no doubt I'll never watch Hulk again.

 

I mean, for the most part, he's the aggressive type...the type you wouldn't think could care for anyone...but then on one hand, he's in love with Jean...and he's acts like a big brother to Rogue....so he has this compassionate part of him that you wouldn't typically expect out of a "guy" like that. That doesn't scream one-dimensional to me. shrug

Tough guy turned softy? Not exactly shockingly new theatrical ground, there.

[ClayMeow]

Tough guy turned softy? Not exactly shockingly new theatrical ground, there.

You didn't say you wanted them to break new theatrical ground, you said he was one-dimensional, which I don't see. And regardless, he doesn't exactly turn softy...he could care less about anyone else.

 

But I mean, I don't exactly see what you want out of him...you change his personality and you don't have Wolverine...the Marvel fanboys will have a riot if you have him do something out of character. I haven't seen the workprint, but maybe you see a bit of the inner turmoil he undergoes during Weapon X, which ultimately leads to his "tough guy" attitude and stance on life...hopefully they develop that...but I wouldn't expect anything more, because frankly, they can't do anything more without ruining the source material.

[Verran]

But I mean, I don't exactly see what you want out of him...you change his personality and you don't have Wolverine...the Marvel fanboys will have a riot if you have him do something out of character. I haven't seen the workprint, but maybe you see a bit of the inner turmoil he undergoes during Weapon X, which ultimately leads to his "tough guy" attitude and stance on life...hopefully they develop that...but I wouldn't expect anything more, because frankly, they can't do anything more without ruining the source material.

You and I agree here. I don't want them to change him. I want them to not make the movie I'm saying that I don't think the character has enough depth to support a feature movie. We'll see though.

[Kash]

You keep going on about how the character has no depth yet don't actually state why you think so, despite conceding that there is plenty of storyline available for the character. Wolverine has a ton of source material in the comics and over the course of history he has been shown to have great depth. Just because he tends to play a certain type of character doesn't mean he's all flash and no substance.

 

Let's look at your Iron Man reference. You enjoyed that movie because you thought there was substance to the character. Yet throughout the whole movie, his character didn't change much. Sure, he had a change of heart after his capture, but he was still that egotistical, selfish genius. There's not much depth to the character personality itself, yet you can't say the character himself has no depth. This is exactly the same situation with Wolverine. He plays that tough guy with a soft spot for certain things, but that doesn't mean he lacks substance.