So do I, but it's making this thread a very disjointed read. I gather that some know-nothing keeps obliterating any reasonable and worthwhile discussion, but I haven't the foggiest who...
The X-Men Cinematic Universe (General Discussion)
- Thread starter DigificWriter
- Start date
Well that "I'm done talking about this movie" didn't last, huh?
Just because speaking of I watched it again last week (the directors cut) and it's been a couple of years but wow I really do enjoy it more every time I watch it. Brilliant film, I really really enjoyed it, some fantastic sequences for both action and character. And thought the two actresses playing Mariko and Yukio were excellent.
What part of the movie is that in? Not arguing, I just can't recall.
Just because speaking of I watched it again last week (the directors cut) and it's been a couple of years but wow I really do enjoy it more every time I watch it. Brilliant film, I really really enjoyed it, some fantastic sequences for both action and character. And thought the two actresses playing Mariko and Yukio were excellent.
Last edited:
My weakness is not being able to stop replying to people who reply to me. Kind of like right now. But, I am definitely planning to stop at this point, by using the novel strategy of refusing to check this thread for awhile, and not responding to any more posts on this topic. Believe me, its gotten about as tedious for me as it has for everyone else.
Kirk, this is very true.
You can say I doubt I'll like it. You can say I'll probably hate it, but until you see it, however close minded you are, you don't know.
I expected from what I knew about Batman vs Superman (especially as I'm not very fond of DC) to hate it. Although it had major problems, I still enjoyed it. I do find it somewhat odd that you appear to make a habit of judging things before you've seen them...
Ugh...Can't. Not. Respond. Ok, this isn't about Logan specifically, so I'm using that as a loophole to explain why I'm responding to this.
On a personal level, I have rarely been wrong when it comes to movies I dislike/hate before I see them. The only one that comes to mind immediately is The Lego Batman Movie, which I thought I would dislike but I ended up loving. But, to be fair, I didn't think it would be the worst movie ever, and I didn't have any solid problems with it before hand like I do with that other movie I won't name because I'm not talking about it anymore. So, my track record on predicting which movies I hate is basically 99%, and the one or two times I was wrong the movies didn't have any irredeemable problems before I saw them like you-know-what does.
Another random question about The Wolverine I wondered, how did Logan even remember Yashida and the events of Nagasaki? (when he lost his memories from the adamantium bullet in Origins)
Is this just one of the various unanswered XCU plot points, or did Xavier partially given him back some memories in X1 or 2? (been a while since I've watched either of those.)
If not that's what I'd assume anyway, like how I suppose Magneto somehow gave him his adamantium claws back in between The Wolverine and DOFP
Is this just one of the various unanswered XCU plot points, or did Xavier partially given him back some memories in X1 or 2? (been a while since I've watched either of those.)
If not that's what I'd assume anyway, like how I suppose Magneto somehow gave him his adamantium claws back in between The Wolverine and DOFP
X2 showed that some bits and pieces are there. Maybe over the years some of those pieces have reformed into something comprehensible.
That said, the reality is that Wolverine remembers whatever parts of his life prior to Weapon-X that are convenient to a given plot.
It's always been my understanding that Logan's memories returned in full during X2.
I have no reason why so much energy is used battling this poster over this decision making processes. He has proven time and again to be steadfastly obstinate when concepts or products do not fit his preferred vision. So far do his heels dig in over inane fictional minutiae that I genuinely have concerns how he reacts to actual life. The meltdown that could ensue should they change the recipe to his favourite cereal...
Logan was a good little film and a great capstone to both Stewart's and Jackman's magnificent input to the comic book film medium.
I have no doubt that Simon Kinsberg and Fox will continue to torture the nonsensical X-Timeline to try and find the next populist pathway for the franchise to follow. I take each one of these films as they come these days. I appreciate there is connective tissue, but so much twisting and fan-conning has to be done by the audience to make it all work in the same continuity that, simply, life is easier if each film is viewed independently. Others I am sure will hate this approach. But given where we appear to be in this thread, demanding that everything fit not only throughout the films, but also with the endlessly re-set comics, seems a wholly futile effort.
Hugo - more interested in the upcoming TV shows
I wonder some times if James Bond fans get into these arguments. I mean with all those films ostensibly about the same character, yet there's multiple different versions over the years, some of which seems to share cast members a seemingly some disjointed continuity too. Do they argue whether it's all one continuity, several overlapping ones or have they just decided that it doesn't bloody matter because they're just movies made by numerous people, most of which don't really care about creating a cohesive narrative?
No idea why that might have suddenly crossed my mind...
No idea why that might have suddenly crossed my mind...
Before he wakes up after the battle with the ninjas, iirc.
kirk55555 said:
That could be explained easily enough - something changed him in the interim ( in the original version of the timeline ). A wizard did it, or to put it in X-Men terms, a mutant did it? It could have been something similar to Magneto's machine in X1, but with the power to alter mutants, or some other plot device.
Last edited:
^ I remember when I saw Origins at the cinema, I was expecing there to be a scene near the climax where Victor says to Stryker "I need to be stronger than him" or something, and Stryker like gets out this untested syrum and injects Victor with it, which mutates him more monsterous looking but also makes him less intelligent. Or whatever, something like that.
... But that didn't happen, and instead we got "Deadpool."
Hmm...
... But that didn't happen, and instead we got "Deadpool."
Hmm...
I thought the general view was that all the series films, pre-Craig, all had the same character, just on a sliding timescale. The interactions with Q I think make more sense and are more enjoyable that way.
All of the pre-Craig films were indeed meant to feature the same character even though people for some reason tend to ignore that fact.
As far as the time-scale thing goes, I believe that Eon Productions' official stance on the matter is that the CHARACTERS remained sort of 'frozen in time' even though the world around them progressed.
I'd call that a win-win on both counts!
This kind of mental gymnastics just baffles me. I mean why bother when even the people making the movies don't seem to care all that much.
Same goes for the likes of the Mad Max movies, which have less and less to do with the original with each new instalment. As with Bond, the draw in the character and (in a broad sense) the character in which he inhabits.
This is pretty much how I view the X-Men movies. I'm more invested in the characters and the world than I am in the minutia of timelines, cameos and minor plot points. Indeed I think this was why 'Logan' included that bit about the comic book. There are many stories of the X-Men and which ones are "true" and which are not depends on whether or not it matters to a given movie. It's subjective, just like what James Bond looked like or whether the tales attributed to "Mad Max" even refer to the same man.
The notion that "the people making the movies don't seem to care all that much" when it comes to the pre-Craig Bond films and continuity is disproven by the fact that we see several different references to previous adventures/specific incidents interspersed across the breadth of the 20 pre-Craig Bond movies, from Roger Moore's Bond visiting Tracy's grave to a tiny mention of Timothy Dalton's Bond having been previous married to Judi Dench's M referencing Pierce Brosnan's Bond being a "Cold War Dinosaur".
Not only did you miss the point, you managed to reiterate it for me. Bravo!
Yes, various of the Bond movies make a few scattered references, nods and even dare I say "allusions" to a smattering of the previous ones. Hence the comparison to the X-Men movies, since that kind of thing is a far cry from the coherent are carefully overseen continuity some people seem to think it has, when in fact it does not.
I don't remember exactly how it went, but theory I heard about Mad Max was that Max is a mythical figure in the wasteland and that the movies are basically just stories people have told about "Max" and not necessarily real events.
You wrote the words "all that much", but you don't seem to have taken them to heart. A throwaway line here or there indeed doesn't constitute caring "all that much."
Happily, Cracked is here to humorsplain things for us:
Similar threads
