X-men Origins-Wolverine

[orion]

I'm not a huge fan of the X-men movies, but this new one coming out looks like its going to blow the other ones away!

http://www.x-menorigins.com/

[Grasshopper]

Looks very promising. It's a smart move to base the movie around Wolverine. He is by far the coolest of the X-Men characters.

[shmokes]

The first two X-Men movies were two of the best comic book movies ever made.  This new one may end up being good too, but I really don't see how you can watch a trailer and come to the conclusion, based on that 30 seconds of disjointed footage, that this movie is going to blow the others away.  I mean, the mere fact that it's a sequel makes it statistically very unlikely that it will even be nearly as good as the films that came before it.

*shrug*  Don't get me wrong.  I hope it's awesome.  It just probably won't be, and even if it is it probably won't be better than X-Men or X2.

[orion]

Really? I thought that they were kind of slow in parts and didn't really have a lot of character development. My favorite Superhero movies are Iron man and the second Spiderman, because I thought that they did a good job of rounding out the characters. You are absolutely right though, no one can watch a trailer and say that it's going to be a great movie.  However, it would seem to me that based on the trailer (and the title) that it's going to go into a lot more detail surrounding Wolverine and I would think that by necessity the film is going to have to have a much more sinister and darker edge to it than any of the previous X-men movies. Of course to reinforce your point I did think that the Phantom menace was going to be great right before it was released.... still waiting for some character development and a decent plot for old Darth's past. 

[ChadTower]

Of course, the X-Men are pretty two dimensional in the comics, so why would they be better in the movies?  Spiderman had character depth because he has had character depth for 30 years. 

[orion]

Of course, the X-Men are pretty two dimensional in the comics, so why would they be better in the movies?  Spiderman had character depth because he has had character depth for 30 years. 

That's true! You have to hand it to Stan Lee for developing such an in depth character in Spiderman, though he did a lot with the character even from the get go. From my limited knowledge though (I have never been much of a comic junkie) there is a pretty solid back line that they have created for Wolverine.

[somunny]

Of course, the X-Men are pretty two dimensional in the comics, so why would they be better in the movies?  Spiderman had character depth because he has had character depth for 30 years. 

Guess you haven't read much X-men.  Many of Marvel's popular comics that debuted in the early/mid-sixties featured characters with "real" problems.  Teen angst, relationships, inner demons and the like.  The X-Men were no different.  They really came into their own with Giant Size #1 and Uncanny #94, though (thirty+ years ago).

[ChadTower]

I've read almost the whole run of X-men from their origins up to the last few years.  They are not nearly as deep of character as Spiderman.  Wolverine is the deepest of them but he's still not Spiderman in those terms.  The X-Men are maybe as deep as the people on 90210 - they have problems but you never get into real causes or the type of soul searching Spiderman goes through.

[FrizzleFried]

Does anyone else see the absolute absurdity in discussing how "deep" a COMIC BOOK character is?   

Seriously...

[ChadTower]

Does anyone else see the absolute absurdity in discussing how "deep" a COMIC BOOK character is?   

Seriously...

Why is it absurd to say this about characters that appear monthly over the course of 30 years when it is normal to have this discussion about characters on a 90 minute movie?  Or a 27 minute sitcom with 12 episodes a year?

[thatitalian]

Is it me or has Jackman bulked up like a mother ---smurf---!

Gotta love Gambit! I was a bit pissed he wasn't in the other movies!

[2600]

I'm hoping they continue the Origins Series.  Magneto is next in line and I could see that being an interesting story.

[shmokes]

I was disappointed that Gambit wasn't in the other movies, but only because I like his character.  I was actually very happy that Bryan Singer made choices, and limited the number of characters in the films.  Of course, Bret Ratner tossed all that aside and gave us the clusterfuck that was X-men 3.

[orion]

I'm hoping they continue the Origins Series.  Magneto is next in line and I could see that being an interesting story.

Yea he was about the only other character in the X-men movies that even seemed closed to being developed. I am glad to see Gambit in this new movie as well, I always wondered why they didn't have him in the movies.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Does anyone else see the absolute absurdity in discussing how "deep" a COMIC BOOK character is?   

Seriously...

You've never read anything by Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, Paul Chadwick, or Garth Ennis have you?
Gaiman is the first comic book author to win an actual literary award for Sandman #19.

I'm not saying Spider-man is Shakespeare, but to write off all comic books as shallow is equally, absolute absurdity.

[somunny]

I've read almost the whole run of X-men from their origins up to the last few years.  They are not nearly as deep of character as Spiderman.  Wolverine is the deepest of them but he's still not Spiderman in those terms.  The X-Men are maybe as deep as the people on 90210 - they have problems but you never get into real causes or the type of soul searching Spiderman goes through.

The fact supporting your argument is that Spider-Man focused on one character whereas X-Men focused on literally dozens over the years.  Personnaly, I preferred the variety as it seemed like Peter Parker was rehashing the same problems over and over.