Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 23:58:20 GMT
Man, I couldn't agree more. I HATED X24. He basically ruined the movie for me. He is nothing but a prop, a cheap movie monster. He doesn't even speak. He has no motives, no personality, no point. He's just there for cheap thrills. IMO he was way worse than the awful Silver Samurai robot suit in the last one.
Also who didn't see his death coming a mile away. Adamantium bullet was so conveniently introduced just to kill him.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Mar 18, 2017 12:09:09 GMT
Man, I couldn't agree more. I HATED X24. He basically ruined the movie for me. He is nothing but a prop, a cheap movie monster. He doesn't even speak. He has no motives, no personality, no point. He's just there for cheap thrills. IMO he was way worse than the awful Silver Samurai robot suit in the last one. Also who didn't see his death coming a mile away. Adamantium bullet was so conveniently introduced just to kill him. X-24 was one of those steps to other obscure villains. You'd never think they would put Albert in a movie. And yeah, that bullet was so telegraphed when it first appeared. Would have been better if it came from the villains.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 20, 2017 16:36:00 GMT
I'd say X-24 was a good introduction. It's a nice nod to Albert and it makes for a great contrast to the older, war weary, not as animalistic Logan.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 20, 2017 18:06:02 GMT
I'd say X-24 was a good introduction. It's a nice nod to Albert and it makes for a great contrast to the older, war weary, not as animalistic Logan. Problem was that wasn't exactly Albert. It was a "nod" which means it was still a made-up villain. Now to be fair, I'm not saying exactly that he was a bad villain, just that given an already established rogue gallery for Wolverine and considering that this is his last movie, you'd have expected them to use a more iconic villain.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 20, 2017 19:52:27 GMT
That's not really a problem. The movie didn't really need some iconic villain. The story was Wolverine's swan song, not necessarily a chance to see a villain to geek out over. Heck, I'd say the Reavers were iconic enough.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 21, 2017 4:46:50 GMT
That's not really a problem. The movie didn't really need some iconic villain. The story was Wolverine's swan song, not necessarily a chance to see a villain to geek out over. Heck, I'd say the Reavers were iconic enough. The debate seems to be centered on the dissatisfaction of some with the X-24 character and the contention that another "classic" villain would've been better. While I agree with those in the latter camp from a pure fan standpoint, especially with respect to my personal favorite Wolverine villain Omega Red, that another chance to include a Cyber or a Red would've been fun I've gotta side with those defending the movie as-is. Here's what swayed me: they've put Logan over as being nigh-unstoppable (to the detriment of other onscreen characters, in fact, particularly Scott in the second and third X-movies) so much so that for his final appearance the only thing that makes sense WITHIN THE CINEMATIC UNIVERSE THEY'VE BUILT in terms of Logan's fate by the end of the movie is the choice they made creatively. Don't get me wrong: the over-emphasis and overreliance on the Wolverine character is, in my view, one of the biggest flaws of the X-flicks, so I'd be lying if I said a part of me didn't roll my eyes inside when the X-24 character was revealed; but upon reflection I like what they did, and the movie as a whole, quite a lot.
|
|
|
Post by lukelovesfilm34 on Mar 22, 2017 4:25:05 GMT
They really needed to set up Mr. Sinister in this movie. They could've even suggest that Sinister took Lauren back in time in an after-credit scene. And then, for another after-credit scene show Lauren give Professor X his pills before he can flip out and kill everyone... or something.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 25, 2017 0:49:13 GMT
They really needed to set up Mr. Sinister in this movie. They could've even suggest that Sinister took Lauren back in time in an after-credit scene. And then, for another after-credit scene show Lauren give Professor X his pills before he can flip out and kill everyone... or something. It would've been cool, but I don't think it was absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 28, 2017 13:18:43 GMT
They really needed to set up Mr. Sinister in this movie. They could've even suggest that Sinister took Lauren back in time in an after-credit scene. And then, for another after-credit scene show Lauren give Professor X his pills before he can flip out and kill everyone... or something. But that ruins one of the film's central themes: finality.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Sept 29, 2018 10:49:36 GMT
Agreed!
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 29, 2018 18:02:19 GMT
The villains here were menacing and effective, both the main villain as well as the Logan clone.
I was genuinely worried for Logan - and this is one of the 3% of CBMs were the concern was warranted.
Thus, complaints in this regard are unwarranted.
|
|
|
Post by No Morpho, Only Bánh mì on Sept 30, 2018 5:32:20 GMT
I wish they’d used Daken instead. That could have been stellar.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 1, 2018 2:15:06 GMT
I wish they’d used Daken instead.That could have been stellar. You don't know just how right you are about that, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 1, 2018 2:52:43 GMT
This is one of the few times I didn't mind the villain having the same powerset as the hero. The adamantium bullet was telegraphed horribly though.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 1, 2018 13:32:04 GMT
This is one of the few times I didn't mind the villain having the same powerset as the hero. The adamantium bullet was telegraphed horribly though. For me, Logan was one of the worst instances of a mirror-villain. There were better ways to thematically reflect Logan's former adherence to violence and animalistic nature back at him. Creating an automaton was a bit lazy.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 1, 2018 17:08:39 GMT
This is one of the few times I didn't mind the villain having the same powerset as the hero. The adamantium bullet was telegraphed horribly though. For me, Logan was one of the worst instances of a mirror-villain. There were better ways to thematically reflect Logan's former adherence to violence and animalistic nature back at him. Creating an automaton was a bit lazy. I didn't put Logan on as high of a pedestal as most. I was expecting something a little different, but can still see the quality of the film. (in part I wanted to see the pacifist Old Man Logan that was so broken he was unwilling to pop his claws until the end. I am also a realist and know that the general audience would hate that) That being said the mirror-villain automaton fit here for me. The movie did well portraying the self hate that Logan was feeling in other ways, so fighting the literal embodiment of his baser self fit. It's on the nose don't get me wrong, but still worked for me.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 1, 2018 17:51:29 GMT
For me, Logan was one of the worst instances of a mirror-villain. There were better ways to thematically reflect Logan's former adherence to violence and animalistic nature back at him. Creating an automaton was a bit lazy. I didn't put Logan on as high of a pedestal as most. I was expecting something a little different, but can still see the quality of the film. (in part I wanted to see the pacifist Old Man Logan that was so broken he was unwilling to pop his claws until the end. I am also a realist and know that the general audience would hate that) That being said the mirror-villain automaton fit here for me. The movie did well portraying the self hate that Logan was feeling in other ways, so fighting the literal embodiment of his baser self fit. It's on the nose don't get me wrong, but still worked for me. I admired Logan as well but, I also share some of your reservations. X-24 didn't resonate for me at all. He seemed hollow as a villain. I often wondered what an alternate version of the film would have been like had they gone with Wolverine's son, Daken, as the powered henchmen. As a natural-born son, Daken, X-23, and Wolverine would have formed a thematic triangle. Daken is a sadist and psychopath who enjoys killing and would have had no compunctions about putting his father down to take the mantle of the Wolverine. Daken is what Wolverine once was but highly refined and unfettered by morality and conscious. X-23, as a cloned offspring who is closer to her "father" than Daken would have been interesting (if a touch obvious). I would have also played up the Reavers as psychotic, cybernetic killing machines - they're wasted in Logan and they were one of my favorite mainstay of late 80s/90s X-Men books. They could have easily replaced the weak, mutant child-army stuff. It's a well-made film but, as a comic book fan, I have to hold it at arm's length because it actively eschews the source material from which it originates. Logan literally and figuratively finds Wolverine deriding comic books as fanciful and childish. It's as if the film had to distance itself from the source material to be considered noteworthy and serious. At the end of the day, for all of the amateur analysis that goes on in these virtual walls, cinema is just another lie that aims at that the truth. It is not higher than the source.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 1, 2018 19:46:43 GMT
I understand why they did X-24. It's meant to reflect Logan's inner demons really of the violence and animalistic rage he's capable of but had always suppressed in the other films. But if they really wanted to do that, they should have gone with Sabretooth, because he's essentially represents the pure animal and embodies the darker side of Wolverine's character. But he's always been part of Wolverine's history and it would have made sense if he was in it. On the plus side, they could have brought back Liev Schreiber. Origin may have been shit, but Schreiber wasn't the problem at all and I loved his sadistic take in the performance.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 1, 2018 23:11:22 GMT
I understand why they did X-24. It's meant to reflect Logan's inner demons really of the violence and animalistic rage he's capable of but had always suppressed in the other films. But if they really wanted to do that, they should have gone with Sabretooth, because he's essentially represents the pure animal and embodies the darker side of Wolverine's character. But he's always been part of Wolverine's history and it would have made sense if he was in it. On the plus side, they could have brought back Liev Schreiber. Origin may have been shit, but Schreiber wasn't the problem at all and I loved his sadistic take in the performance. You are right, Liev Schreiber was one of the few highlights of X-men Origins: Wolverine. I know they were tinkering with a cameo for him. I think it was a timing or money issue can't remember which. Also I don't know if they wanted to bring up any more concrete attachments with Logan and Origins.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 2, 2018 0:54:30 GMT
I understand why they did X-24. It's meant to reflect Logan's inner demons really of the violence and animalistic rage he's capable of but had always suppressed in the other films. But if they really wanted to do that, they should have gone with Sabretooth, because he's essentially represents the pure animal and embodies the darker side of Wolverine's character. But he's always been part of Wolverine's history and it would have made sense if he was in it. On the plus side, they could have brought back Liev Schreiber. Origin may have been shit, but Schreiber wasn't the problem at all and I loved his sadistic take in the performance. Sabertooth would have been a very good choice had they not already used him in other films. The rivalry between the two is legendary but, I see Creed as long dead before Wolverine reaches the twilight of his own life.
|
|