X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Wow, so the movie was very bad. Had a few interesting parts but overall I think "Last Stand" might have been better.....

As someone mentioned previously some of the CG was very bad. Just me alone could have done a better job on the wolverine claws in the bathroom scene. Lets hope the Magneto film turns out better.
 
I haven't seen it yet, nor am I very interested in doing so, but I keep hearing about how bad the effects are. WTF???? All these overbloated mega budget movies and their massive effects budgets are a huge part of the reason Hollywood is on such a remake streak, and isn't very open to taking the financial risk on original content anymore.

Maybe it is just me, but I've begun to notice visual effects becoming less believable and effective (no pun intended) over the past 3 years or so. It seems that effects in general should be getting better as the average budget of a studio film continues to climb from 120-150 million towards 200 million in the coming years.

I think they should ban CGI for five years and go back to miniatures, prosthetics, and other in-camera methods. Maybe allow 2D digital matte painting but no more CGI!!!!!
 
Last edited:
You know, it's funny that these actors are getting slammed for mediocre scripts. Barry was fine as Catwoman, it was the story that was weak. Same goes for Clooney as Batman. Yet you get "Mummbles and Mopes" as Batman, and he is the greatest thing since Christ, Buddah, and Mohammad all rolled up into one... unless you're a grip on "His" set.
 
Capt Quirk said:
You know, it's funny that these actors are getting slammed for mediocre scripts. Barry was fine as Catwoman, it was the story that was weak. Same goes for Clooney as Batman. Yet you get "Mummbles and Mopes" as Batman, and he is the greatest thing since Christ, Buddah, and Mohammad all rolled up into one... unless you're a grip on "His" set.
Click to expand...

Actually I've always thought Christian Bale was a very mediocre actor at best. His Batman for example is bland, flat, 2 dimensional, and it's not like Michael Keaton for example had any better a script or dialogue, but he's an interesting actor who BROUGHT depth and layers to the part. Bale's only as good as the words on the page.

On that note I think the same for Hugh Jackman (relating to Keaton). Even in a somewhat crappy movie (Origins) or heck even in a horrible movie (Van Helsing) he really sells it to you. You totally believe him and he makes it interesting, he just brings that stuff as a performer. I think the Wolverine movie was crap, but I'll never rag on Jackman for it.

Last note Quirk, just my thoughts on Barry as Storm, she was totally cast because of her popularity. I really believe that. I think she's okay, but really that's it. Again it's a matter of what does she bring to that script as a performer. If the part of Storm had been cast correctly to begin with it would've gone to Angela Basset, who both looks exactly like the character, and can also bring the gravitas to the role (and do an accurate accent as well).

Well, I've been wanting to say all of those things for some time now. Whew. To anyone who read this whole thing, thanks.
 
Capt Quirk said:
You know, it's funny that these actors are getting slammed for mediocre scripts. Barry was fine as Catwoman, it was the story that was weak. Same goes for Clooney as Batman. Yet you get "Mummbles and Mopes" as Batman, and he is the greatest thing since Christ, Buddah, and Mohammad all rolled up into one... unless you're a grip on "His" set.
Click to expand...


that's funny, i thought the complete opposite. i really dont hold the script to too much standard on action films or superhero films, it is what it is. i dont expect to see Titanic or something with a deep story. i want action baby. halle berry's fighting scenes and VFX were just str8 up cheesy in catwoman. the part where she was playing basketball with the police guy and the cornball music came out of nowhere while she hopped around like someone was animating her in after effects, lol, or the bank robbery scene where you could tell she was obvisouly doing it based on wires and low tech stuff you see in some music videos, nah, this was just in 2004 with a $100 million dollar budget..i can see if they were working with less resources and it was maybe $15 or 20 million. blame it on whoever, but the end result was bad. her acting was fine. whwtaver went wrong, the actors are on the front line regardless. good directors and actors can make mediocore scripts better.

didint have a problem with any of the batman movies to be honest. they are all good for the time they were made.
 
Wow the reviews for this one are putrid!

They were afraid of the supposed "leaked' workprint when in reality it's the good ol' word of mouth that's going to save people from wasting their money on this garbage.

And with Star Trek & Terminator coming, they'll be lucky if it makes it among the top 10 movies of the summer.

I agree with the second post of this thread, it sounded terrible from the beginning.

If you adapt a story, you can only change so much before it becomes total BS. It's like making a Superman movie and insisting he is asian and was born on earth but adopted by a Kansas couple...wtf.

I do find it interested how many people compare this movie to the Mortal Kombat movies, terrible stories, bunch of cameos, crappy CG. oh and Baraka!
 
I wonder if the super hero movie phenomenon is starting to fizzle a bit?

Look what happened with big fantasy films after Lord of the Rings. All these fantasy book film adaptations came out and overdid it. I think people got sick of it, especially since Lord of the Rings was such a hard act to follow. What fantasy novel do you adapt that still has marketable appeal and that is half as good or well loved as Lord of the Rings (besides The Hobbit)? Sure there is still Harry Potter, but even then those will come to an end when there are no more books in the series.

What happens when they exhaust all the good superheroes? Will they go to the third rate ones that no one besides die hard comic book readers have even heard of? Obviously Dark Knight and Iron Man did really well last year, but I feel like the whole big budget comic book movie is starting to wear thin. Especially the Marvel ones. More Sin City or adaptations of those kinds of comic books please.

I'm more of a sci-fi dude myself. Superheroes just were never as big a deal to me. I'm glad there are a good deal of big sci-fi films coming out this year (Star Trek, Terminator, District 9, Avatar). Maybe not having so many comic book super hero based films this summer will give audiences a breather for next summer?
 
Last edited:
It's not so much that the fantasy and superhero genres are fizzling it's just that, more often than not, they aren't treated with the same level of love and respect as Lord of the Rings was. The Harry Potter series is a good example of that. Look at the first film with all of its magical whimsy and then look at how the last few films have done. It's like they're just cranking them out now for the money instead of faithfully reproducing the books for the screen.

Also, many of those fantasy films that came after Lord of the Rings were just either really junky stories or, as with the above, they just tried to make them fast and cheap and with no thought at all. A great example of this is "Eragon". I've never read the books but I did hear about the outcry from fans about the film treatment. Boy, did someone mess up on that one. They dropped nearly 90% of the story because of money and "they didn't think audiences would get it". Well, if that's the case then why make a movie about it in the first place? Book adaptations should not be used to lure in audiences, they should be made with the fanbase in mind, hence why really successful comic book movies like "Iron Man" and "Sin City" have raked in the dough whereas others like "Ghost Rider" have failed miserably. Betray the source material and you betray your audience.

Of course, the filmmakers aren't left out of the blame either. The handling of the first "Hulk" film led to the massive bomb it turned out to be and why the Marvel version, "The Incredible Hulk" succeeded far beyond it. Going with a fantasy film, look at "The Seeker". Holy heck! Someone was doing drugs on that one! It's literally unwatchable as a film, every part of it is offensive to a viewing audience. I mean it, the editing is on speed, the script is ridiculous (how many times does the kid need to be told that he is "The Seeker"? You could make a wicked drinking game out of that line, the sister game being the villain's constant "Give me the Sign!" or whatever that line was), and the cinematography was ridiculously handheld shaky slush. Now, I actually liked "The Golden Compass" but they needed another half an hour added on to it to explain some things, especially whatever the heck "sand" was supposed to be. Another good film I think got passed up was "Stardust". That was a very well done fantasy film but, if anything, it probably was a touch too long and, again, it too was an adaptation that recieved quite a few changes but it still maintained an entertainment factor instead of rubbing it in your face that it's a completely altered interpretation of the book.
 
Jack_Felis said:
Book adaptations should not be used to lure in audiences, they should be made with the fanbase in mind, hence why really successful comic book movies like "Iron Man" and "Sin City" have raked in the dough whereas others like "Ghost Rider" have failed miserably. Betray the source material and you betray your audience.
Click to expand...

This, I think, is a huge part of the problem with Hollywood's currently mentality that everything has to be an adaptation from some previous source, whether a book, comic book, video game, old TV series, or remake of a previously successful film.

I agree with your points too. I also didn't mean to say that fantasy or super hero films as a genre are dead, just that as you said, the studios cranked 'em out one after the other and the films have suffered from that mentality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top