Logan **Spoilers from post 212**

Slydice wrote: »

Well. I think we have a nominee for best Computer Generated content award based on these replies

Plenty of CG in that film.

To be fair I think you know what was meant. Not that CGI isn't used - of course it is - but there's not a reliance on it to drive the story nor is there a reliance on huge CGI spectacle that has come to define the majority of superhero movies.

It's an emotionally loaded and adult character driven story and a strong departure from the established standard. Deadpool was a departure in that it was r-rated, but thematically and stylistically it was very similar to previous films in the universe and followed a familiar narrative.

Logan is quite different, an adult film but not simply by virtue of the violence and profanity ala Deadpool. It's a heavy, weighted film that exposes franchise characters we know and love at their weakest - frail, vulnerable and mortal individuals who no longer seem to have a place in a world that previously revolved around them.

Jackman and Stewart's portrayals of their older, disillusioned and failing selves are so astoundingly good it's frankly an upsetting film to watch as a franchise fan.

How is it a disservice to call it a superhero movie?

Because it's a film I'd recommend to people who simply enjoy excellent film even if they weren't genre fans. I couldn't personally say the same about most 'superhero' movies, even though I personally very much enjoy them.

There's a huge weight behind Logan that other superhero/comic book films lack, and it sets it apart - I feel it's a shame to solely label it as just a 'superhero' or 'X-Men' film because it offers so much more in character development and human emotion than previous films in the franchise have done up until now and it's a much more grounded affair than the label 'superhero' movie would suggest.

It's not any sort of slight against superhero movies if that was your thinking.

A lot of the emotional gravitas comes from the close familiarity with the characters, though no, it's a good movie as movies go even if you haven't seen any of the prior movies.

It would definitely help to watch the first two X-Men movies and Days of Future Past at least, though it's actually fine to not have seen the previous two Wolverine movies (Origins and The Wolverine).

Days of Future Past really messes with the timeline but it leads into Logan as it ends in 2023 - Logan's set in 2029, though in that world, no mutants have apparently been born in 20 years and Logan has aged hugely....so it seems that generally speaking Logan seems to be sort of a self contained affair doing it's own thing to some extent, and doesn't really establish what exact timeline it belongs to.

It's quite difficult to explain as Days of Future Past basically flung the entire toolbox in the works and confused the timeline for virtually every film prior to it.