Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Filming The Wolverine is so easy, even a caveman can do it   (io9.com) divider line 71
    More: Interesting, wolverines  
•       •       •

10189 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 04 Aug 2012 at 11:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-04 08:28:51 PM  
I thought we already had this movie.
 
2012-08-04 08:33:07 PM  
The Wolverine

What's with this lazy ass naming for sequels? John Rambo, Rocky Balboa, Fast and Furious, this. I suppose it's better than yet another form of "rise" in the title.
 
2012-08-04 08:45:16 PM  
Honestly, I like Hugh Jackman, but his version of the character needs to go away. He's a full farking foot taller than he's supposed to be, and he's a remnant from the important, yet horribly funded original X-Men movie.

I've seen portions of that other Wolverine origin movie, and it's awful. They had a great opportunity to kill the Singer created X-Men with First Class. They kinda blew it.

/really liked X2
//I know Singer was a First Class producer
 
2012-08-04 08:50:08 PM  
Tyler Perry presents his latest Tyler Perry version of Tyler Perry's The Wolvermedearine, a Tyler Perry production in association with Tyler Perry Productions and Tyler Perry Films.
 
2012-08-04 08:50:26 PM  

Hoban Washburne: Honestly, I like Hugh Jackman, but his version of the character needs to go away. He's a full farking foot taller than he's supposed to be, and he's a remnant from the important, yet horribly funded original X-Men movie


In their defense, you're not going to find an above-the-title movie star who is 5'3. Maybe Tom Cruise but they use every trick in the book to make him not look 5'3.
 
2012-08-04 09:21:57 PM  

Mugato: Hoban Washburne: Honestly, I like Hugh Jackman, but his version of the character needs to go away. He's a full farking foot taller than he's supposed to be, and he's a remnant from the important, yet horribly funded original X-Men movie

In their defense, you're not going to find an above-the-title movie star who is 5'3. Maybe Tom Cruise but they use every trick in the book to make him not look 5'3.


Oh, I know. I'm just saying, Jackman is the product of a very low budget (for a major studio) superhero movie. There are plenty of 5'9" ish actors that wouldn't tower over Cyclops.
 
MBK [TotalFark]
2012-08-04 10:02:05 PM  

Mugato: Hoban Washburne: Honestly, I like Hugh Jackman, but his version of the character needs to go away. He's a full farking foot taller than he's supposed to be, and he's a remnant from the important, yet horribly funded original X-Men movie

In their defense, you're not going to find an above-the-title movie star who is 5'3. Maybe Tom Cruise but they use every trick in the book to make him not look 5'3.


Peter Dinklage!
 
2012-08-04 11:05:02 PM  
I thought this was a superhero movie, not an Alan Moore biopic.
 
2012-08-04 11:08:18 PM  

MBK: Mugato: Hoban Washburne: Honestly, I like Hugh Jackman, but his version of the character needs to go away. He's a full farking foot taller than he's supposed to be, and he's a remnant from the important, yet horribly funded original X-Men movie

In their defense, you're not going to find an above-the-title movie star who is 5'3. Maybe Tom Cruise but they use every trick in the book to make him not look 5'3.

Peter Dinklage!


He's playing Bat-Mite in the next Batman reboot
 
2012-08-04 11:09:37 PM  
How are they going to explain why the 1940s Wolverine looks at least 10 years older than 2000 Wolverine?
 
2012-08-04 11:12:11 PM  

TheManofPA: Peter Dinklage!

He's playing Bat-Mite in the next Batman reboot


No. No. He's playing BATMAN in the next movie reboot.
 
2012-08-04 11:13:50 PM  

Mad_Radhu: I thought this was a superhero movie, not an Alan Moore biopic.


Niiiiice.
 
2012-08-04 11:20:16 PM  
Here's hoping that this completely erases the memory of the abomination that was X-Men Origins: The Wolverine.*

I really don't expect it to,but a man can dream.
 
2012-08-04 11:29:35 PM  
Honey badger don't care.
 
2012-08-04 11:36:40 PM  

Apos: Here's hoping that this completely erases the memory of the abomination that was X-Men Origins: The Wolverine.*

I really don't expect it to,but a man can dream.


i1190.photobucket.com


I'll leave it at that.
 
2012-08-04 11:37:10 PM  

Aboleth: TheManofPA: Peter Dinklage!

He's playing Bat-Mite in the next Batman reboot

No. No. He's playing BATMAN in the next movie reboot.


I'm so there.

/I liked the Wolverine solo movie.
//But I'm really weird.
///So, I got that going for me - which is nice.
 
2012-08-04 11:40:37 PM  

Apos: Here's hoping that this completely erases the memory of the abomination that was X-Men Origins: The Wolverine.*

I really don't expect it to,but a man can dream.


The easiest way to deal with that movie is to pretend that it was one of Deadpool's delusions.
 
2012-08-04 11:49:34 PM  

Mad_Radhu: I thought this was a superhero movie, not an Alan Moore biopic.


WHY CAN'T IT BE BOTH?
 
2012-08-04 11:56:08 PM  

MBK: Mugato: Hoban Washburne: Honestly, I like Hugh Jackman, but his version of the character needs to go away. He's a full farking foot taller than he's supposed to be, and he's a remnant from the important, yet horribly funded original X-Men movie

In their defense, you're not going to find an above-the-title movie star who is 5'3. Maybe Tom Cruise but they use every trick in the book to make him not look 5'3.

Peter Dinklage!


He'd make a good Puck.
 
2012-08-05 12:01:26 AM  

NobleHam: How are they going to explain why the 1940s Wolverine looks at least 10 years older than 2000 Wolverine?


Secondary mutation.

Or, healing factor malfunction.
 
2012-08-05 12:01:45 AM  

Vash's Apprentice: He'd make a good Puck.


This, but what are the chances of an Alpha Flight movie being made?
 
2012-08-05 12:04:21 AM  

Hoban Washburne: Honestly, I like Hugh Jackman, but his version of the character needs to go away. He's a full farking foot taller than he's supposed to be the Marvel comics version of the character, and he's a remnant from the important, yet horribly funded original X-Men movie.


This isn't comic book Wolverine. It's another version of the same character. A taller version. I read Wolverine and X-Men comics as a child and a teenager, and I have no problems with Jackman.

I enjoyed his performance in all X-Men movies. The third movie was crap, but Jackman had nothing to do with writing or producing it, so I can't hold it against him. The same could be said of the Wolverine movie, which I haven't seen, because so many people have told me not to see it.
 
2012-08-05 12:07:14 AM  

NobleHam: How are they going to explain why the 1940s Wolverine looks at least 10 years older than 2000 Wolverine?


Same way they'll explain why Gandalf looks looks a decade older in a movie that takes place a generation* earlier?

*actually not sure what the time gap between The Hobbit and LOTR is
 
2012-08-05 12:11:42 AM  

Baron Harkonnen: Hoban Washburne: Honestly, I like Hugh Jackman, but his version of the character needs to go away. He's a full farking foot taller than he's supposed to be the Marvel comics version of the character, and he's a remnant from the important, yet horribly funded original X-Men movie.

This isn't comic book Wolverine. It's another version of the same character. A taller version. I read Wolverine and X-Men comics as a child and a teenager, and I have no problems with Jackman.

I enjoyed his performance in all X-Men movies. The third movie was crap, but Jackman had nothing to do with writing or producing it, so I can't hold it against him. The same could be said of the Wolverine movie, which I haven't seen, because so many people have told me not to see it.


Jackman produced the Wolverine movie, along with his production company. He's definitely shares the blame for that filmed abortion. I love him as Wolverine, I really do, but Origins was godawful. And, besides from that 5 minute sequence in X2 with Stryker's men storming the mansion, they've never really done the character right combat-wise. He's always getting his ass kicked. He's supposed to a first-class hand-to-hand fighter, capable of standing toe to toe with most villains, but instead he just kind of flails wildly, like he's hoping his claws hit something. I'm hopeful for the new one, since it's taking on one of the better Wolvie story lines, but at this point, who knows what's going to happen.
 
2012-08-05 12:13:37 AM  

fusillade762: NobleHam: How are they going to explain why the 1940s Wolverine looks at least 10 years older than 2000 Wolverine?

Same way they'll explain why Gandalf looks looks a decade older in a movie that takes place a generation* earlier?

*actually not sure what the time gap between The Hobbit and LOTR is


*SPOILER ALERT*

Middle Earth isn't real.
 
2012-08-05 12:24:47 AM  

fusillade762: NobleHam: How are they going to explain why the 1940s Wolverine looks at least 10 years older than 2000 Wolverine?

Same way they'll explain why Gandalf looks looks a decade older in a movie that takes place a generation* earlier?

*actually not sure what the time gap between The Hobbit and LOTR is


The thing is, he doesn't. It helps that Ian McKellen was old to begin with. Hugh Jackman on the other hand has aged from handsome early-30s to mid-40s.
 
2012-08-05 12:43:23 AM  

Mentat: Apos: Here's hoping that this completely erases the memory of the abomination that was X-Men Origins: The Wolverine.*

I really don't expect it to,but a man can dream.

The easiest way to deal with that movie is to pretend that it was one of Deadpool's delusions.


actually the easiest way to deal with it is to have missed it entirely (didnt see X3 either and just recently watched First Class
 
2012-08-05 12:43:24 AM  
I see Hugh Jackman's mutant power is the ability to become a hobo at will.
 
2012-08-05 01:20:40 AM  
I have no problem with Hugh Jackman's wolverine, don't give a flying fark about the height issue, and still don't get all the hate on him about it for some reason.. But wtf is this one supposed to be if not just a mulligan on the origins crap?

/wanted a cameo in captain america, not xmen first class :(
 
2012-08-05 01:38:34 AM  
If you completely ignore the first Wolverine movie and X3, and just go with First Class, Xmen and X2 as the trilogy, the continuity isnt too bad. Its the Wolverine movie that really farks it up.
 
2012-08-05 01:39:56 AM  

almandot: I have no problem with Hugh Jackman's wolverine, don't give a flying fark about the height issue, and still don't get all the hate on him about it for some reason.. But wtf is this one supposed to be if not just a mulligan on the origins crap?

/wanted a cameo in captain america, not xmen first class :(


You can blame Marvel's marketing and licensing for that not ever happening. Capt. America is produced by Disney. Xmen by Fox. As Hugh is likely contracted to play Wolverine from now till death (probably some deal with Satan sorta thing, although Rupert Murdoch isn't that far removed), Wolverine will only be in Fox produced movies. Sorry, bub.

Unless Fox just hands over the licensing back to Marvel / Disney.
 
2012-08-05 02:02:16 AM  

fusillade762: NobleHam: How are they going to explain why the 1940s Wolverine looks at least 10 years older than 2000 Wolverine?

Same way they'll explain why Gandalf looks looks a decade older in a movie that takes place a generation* earlier?

*actually not sure what the time gap between The Hobbit and LOTR is


A wizard is never getting older, NobleHam, nor does he get younger. He ages precisely as he has too.
 
2012-08-05 02:33:25 AM  
Wait, this is actually an X-Man movie? I assumed it was a wildlife documentary or some other project involving Jackman and we were just being sarcastic.

Jeez.

fusillade762: *actually not sure what the time gap between The Hobbit and LOTR is


A year or so before Frodo starts his messing about Bilbo turns 111. In The Hobbit he was something on the order of 40 or 50. So 60 to 70 years between.

Frodo isn't actually a blood relative of Bilbo, iirc, he was something like an adopted heir because Bilbo's family was always hassling him over who would get all his shiat when he died.

Either way, doesn't really matter that much since The Hobbit is very firmly written from Bilbo's perspective until the very end (with a couple very, very out-of-place passages about the actual hero of the story, who doesn't appear until like the second-to-last chapter, never gets a single line of dialogue, and disappears unremarked after his heroic archery from nowhere). So the dwarves are arbitrarily fractious and greedy, the trolls are stupid to an exaggerated degree, Gollum is more pitiful than threatening, and Gandalf is, like, waaaaaay old, man. Whereas in LOTR there's an attempt to present characters from the perspective of an abstracted third-person perspective and the character's personalities as they relate to the plot are more important than how they relate to the protagonist.
 
2012-08-05 03:46:15 AM  
Am I the only one that liked X3?

I'm not saying it was my favorite or anything, but I thought it was enjoyable. Well worth the $0.00 I paid to see it....
 
2012-08-05 03:59:38 AM  

Nobodyn0se: Am I the only one that liked X3?

I'm not saying it was my favorite or anything, but I thought it was enjoyable. Well worth the $0.00 I paid to see it....


Go watch this, which was written by Joss Whedon and the storyline on which X3 is based and see how it stacks up to the source material.

/hint: not well.
 
2012-08-05 04:14:39 AM  

Cyno01: Nobodyn0se: Am I the only one that liked X3?

I'm not saying it was my favorite or anything, but I thought it was enjoyable. Well worth the $0.00 I paid to see it....

Go watch this, which was written by Joss Whedon and the storyline on which X3 is based and see how it stacks up to the source material.

/hint: not well.


Why would I give a crap about how it stacks up against source material I've never read?

I care about whether it was worth the two hours of my life or not. It was. It wasn't Star Wars or The Dark Knight or anything, but it was an enjoyable movie. I was glad I watched it.
 
2012-08-05 04:21:27 AM  
Is this going to suck like Origins?
 
2012-08-05 05:27:31 AM  
Why so hairy? It's not like he doesn't have something to cut his hair with.

Origins was okay, IF you treated it as a stand alone movie with no source material.
 
2012-08-05 06:20:57 AM  

fusillade762: NobleHam: How are they going to explain why the 1940s Wolverine looks at least 10 years older than 2000 Wolverine?

Same way they'll explain why Gandalf looks looks a decade older in a movie that takes place a generation* earlier?

*actually not sure what the time gap between The Hobbit and LOTR is


About fifty years or so, if I remember correctly. At least that long, Bilbo was in his early 50s in the beginning of The Hobbit, and he's 111 in the beginning of Fellowship.

/I shouldn't know this information off of the top of my head
 
2012-08-05 06:22:27 AM  
Okay, fill me in since I seem to be the only one not familiar with the finer details of X Men, since I never read the comics and only have watched the movies when my kids rented them. I am not much odd sci-fi fan but I have enjoyed watching the movies and just a few days ago watched "Origins" for the second time. I liked Origins, I found the whole flashback thing very helpful in putting the story together for me. Plus I found the war progression timeline interesting. I had no idea these characters were a hundred years old. So why am I supposed to hate Origins? What am I missing?
 
2012-08-05 06:30:26 AM  

Dalek Caan's doomed mistress: fusillade762: NobleHam: How are they going to explain why the 1940s Wolverine looks at least 10 years older than 2000 Wolverine?

Same way they'll explain why Gandalf looks looks a decade older in a movie that takes place a generation* earlier?

*actually not sure what the time gap between The Hobbit and LOTR is

About fifty years or so, if I remember correctly. At least that long, Bilbo was in his early 50s in the beginning of The Hobbit, and he's 111 in the beginning of Fellowship.

/I shouldn't know this information off of the top of my head


Bilbo was 50 exactly, I think. And Frodo was 50 when he left the Shire, but 33 on Bilbo's 111th birthday. 33 was 'coming of age' when hobbits are considered adults.
 
2012-08-05 06:32:15 AM  

Dalek Caan's doomed mistress: fusillade762: NobleHam: How are they going to explain why the 1940s Wolverine looks at least 10 years older than 2000 Wolverine?

Same way they'll explain why Gandalf looks looks a decade older in a movie that takes place a generation* earlier?

*actually not sure what the time gap between The Hobbit and LOTR is

About fifty years or so, if I remember correctly. At least that long, Bilbo was in his early 50s in the beginning of The Hobbit, and he's 111 in the beginning of Fellowship.

/I shouldn't know this information off of the top of my head


Did anyone catch the 19 year leap in time in the Fellowship of the Ring movie. It wasn't mentioned in the movie, but that's how long it took between two consecutive scenes in the movie if you go by the book.
 
2012-08-05 06:35:19 AM  
My previous post is related to Alphax's just above it.
 
2012-08-05 06:37:49 AM  

Aboleth: My previous post is related to Alphax's just above it.


Yeah, they left out that gap of years, watching for the Enemy to move, and treated Frodo as a young man throughout the movies.
 
2012-08-05 06:53:50 AM  
Granted, now that I think of it, Frodo possessing the Ring at 33 would keep him looking 33 from then on. Also Gandalf had his own ring. But we're getting far afield.
 
2012-08-05 07:27:26 AM  
Origins was almost as bad as Phantom Menace.
 
2012-08-05 07:32:27 AM  
I thought the montage in Origins where they were fighting in all the various wars was pretty cool. That's about it.
 
2012-08-05 07:54:32 AM  

YodaBlues: Jackman produced the Wolverine movie, along with his production company. He's definitely shares the blame for that filmed abortion.


I did not know that. I stand corrected.
 
2012-08-05 08:03:45 AM  

Nobodyn0se: Am I the only one that liked X3?

I'm not saying it was my favorite or anything, but I thought it was enjoyable. Well worth the $0.00 I paid to see it....


It was the worst of the first 3, but it wasn't terrible by any means. I never understood all the hate it got.
 
2012-08-05 08:09:02 AM  

MagSeven: Nobodyn0se: Am I the only one that liked X3?

I'm not saying it was my favorite or anything, but I thought it was enjoyable. Well worth the $0.00 I paid to see it....

It was the worst of the first 3, but it wasn't terrible by any means. I never understood all the hate it got.


Because a lot of people really thought it was truly terrible. And it is.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report