Logan Spoilers from post 212

Sad Professor · 10-03-2017 09:24PM

Alright, folks, spoil away from this post onwards. Anyone who hasn't seen the film yet, leave now!

Earthhorse · 10-03-2017 09:41PM

Logan has claws in his hands.

Sad Professor · 10-03-2017 09:53PM

flangemeistro wrote: »

Well I'd start with trimming down the half a western movie that they watched in the hotel room.
Also where was Laura when the nurse got killed?

They needed the scene of them watching Shane to set up Laura's monologue at the end when she quotes from it. I suppose they could have shown less, but then it might not have made sense thematically for people who haven't seen it.

Earthhorse · 10-03-2017 10:10PM

I felt they could have left that out altogether. It was the one part of the movie that felt forced.

11-03-2017 11:03AM

Earthhorse wrote: »

I felt they could have left that out altogether. It was the one part of the movie that felt forced.

But it was Shane.

Speaking of which that's what The Wolverine film should have been. Not the Silver Super Shredder Megatron Samurai

Agent Coulson · 11-03-2017 04:46PM

This video tries to sort out the timeline.

Agent Coulson · 11-03-2017 04:54PM

Prediction from in The Wolverine of course it holds a major spoiler.

https://twitter.com/mang0ld/status/839888687227789312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

12-03-2017 09:55AM

Anyone think that it would be easy to make a sequel with Logan?

Based on a previous (shudder) film, shooting Logan in the head will not kill him, just remove all memory.
Based on that, the Clone Wolverine could regenerate but with none on the mental programming of the cloning project. Basically be reset to default Logan

Sad Professor · 12-03-2017 10:01AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyone think that it would be easy to make a sequel with Logan?

Based on a previous (shudder) film, shooting Logan in the head will not kill him, just remove all memory.
Based on that, the Clone Wolverine could regenerate but with none on the mental programming of the cloning project. Basically be reset to default Logan

But the adamantium bullet?

12-03-2017 10:15AM

Sad Professor wrote: »

But the adamantium bullet?

Does what though?

Logan has been shot with them before. They have retro removed Origins but it should still show what being shot in the head does to Logan

Sad Professor · 12-03-2017 11:06AM

I'm not sure I saw Origins or if I did I don't remember anything about it, but in Logan at least it's explained that the bullet will kill him. I suppose they can retcon anything if they want, but I can't see them wanting to ruin a perfect send-off for this character. Bringing Wolverine back by just ignoring that he died in this film is far more likely than a direct sequel.

TerrorFirmer · 12-03-2017 11:33AM

Origins is not considered canon and a lot of aspects from that film don't add up with the other films, the adamantium bullet being just one of many large inconsistencies.

We will see wolverine again but hopefully not for a while, I'd be more than happy to see X23 take up the mantle for a good long run.

I think 'The Wolverine' and 'Logan' are to be treated as their own universe in a lot of ways, similar to how the comic universe works.

Given what they're done with Days of Future Past, there is no linear timeline anymore, so the possibilities are endless (but a trifle confusing). Wolverine could be back in the next movie if they really wanted him to be but hopefully they'll give the character the respect he deserves for a while and give him a break.

12-03-2017 11:55AM

Not saying that I would want a sequel but an adamantium bullet being able to kill him is nonsensical

FunLover18 · 12-03-2017 01:15PM

TerrorFirmer wrote:

I think 'The Wolverine' and 'Logan' are to be treated as their own universe in a lot of ways, similar to how the comic universe works.

But how did he get his adamantium claws back?

Drumpot · 12-03-2017 03:06PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

But how did he get his adamantium claws back?

And what exactly happened when Charles killed kids off X men?

I don't think these are important questions in the context of the movie. I've listened to an interview with James Mangold and I think he is spot on about some cinema goers who want everything explained and neatly closed off from ambiguity.

Mangold didn't want to be limited by previous movies like marvel and other comic book movies. It made for a better movie and meant people have to get over the continuity or timeline bullsh*t.

We don't need to know how he got his claws back. It makes no difference to the enjoyment of the movie. It's the same that we don't need to know exactly what Charles did. It's not that people wanting to know these things are wrong but that they are not important for the storytelling.

It's funny that people say we didn't need the "Shane" movie scene. Part of Mangolds love of the movie was that "Shane didn't have to fully explain itself for audiences at that time to appreciate and enjoy it". It's the exact same thing he wanted with Logan. Even though he knew the "everybody's a critic" portion of society would want things spoon fed or tidied up, he knew that some people want a non sterile, grainy movie that doesn't explain or clear up everything.

Earthhorse · 12-03-2017 03:11PM

Drumpot wrote: »

It's funny that people say we didn't need the "Shane" movie scene. Part of Mangolds love of the movie was that "Shane didn't have to fully explain itself for audiences at that time to appreciate and enjoy it". It's the exact same thing he wanted with Logan. Even though he knew the "everybody's a critic" portion of society would want things spoon fed or tidied up, he knew that some people want a non sterile, grainy movie that doesn't explain or clear up everything.

Uhm, isn't that the point of the criticism of the Shane scene? That it takes a heavy handed approach to exposing the movie's theme rather than letting us work it out for ourselves?

FunLover18 · 12-03-2017 03:12PM

Drumpot wrote:

We don't need to know how he got his claws back. It makes no difference to the enjoyment of the movie. It's the same that we don't need to know exactly what Charles did. It's not that people wanting to know these things are wrong but that they are not important for the storytelling.

I agree, I was merely pointing out a flaw in the quoted post which suggested The Wolverine and Logan should be considered the same universe.

FunLover18 · 12-03-2017 03:15PM

Drumpot wrote:

It's funny that people say we didn't need the "Shane" movie scene. Part of Mangolds love of the movie was that "Shane didn't have to fully explain itself for audiences at that time to appreciate and enjoy it". It's the exact same thing he wanted with Logan. Even though he knew the "everybody's a critic" portion of society would want things spoon fed or tidied up, he knew that some people want a non sterile, clean movie that doesn't explain or clear up everything.

This is argument doesn't work because Logan uses Shane to explain what the movie is about, it practically screams "Hey, Logan is Shane!! Do you get it? He's a good guy who's done bad things and it haunts him! Got it? Ok, on with the film."

Drumpot · 12-03-2017 03:49PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

This is argument doesn't work because Logan uses Shane to explain what the movie is about, it practically screams "Hey, Logan is Shane!! Do you get it? He's a good guy who's done bad things and it haunts him! Got it? Ok, on with the film."

The Shane scene wasn't just about saying that. It was also important for Laura's final dialogue with Logan. She had limited English and used pretty much what she heard in the movie earlier.

And it's not an argument, that implies somebody is right or wrong. It is a choice to not consider the fact that Shane was in the movie as in anyway an issue on any level. I could switch on the tv and find a meaning in a programme or movie that happens to be on. I feel it's the same with people that either choose to get annoyed or frustrated with elements of a movie that do not need to be important. If I didn't know anything about any meaning behind the Shane movie I could take it simply that it was a nice family moment for the three characters where Charles was reminiscing about his childhood.

TerrorFirmer · 12-03-2017 03:56PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

I agree, I was merely pointing out a flaw in the quoted post which suggested The Wolverine and Logan should be considered the same universe.

I said they should be treated as 'their own' universe not that they're set in the exact same universe.

X-Men has used Days of Future Past to give themselves extreme creative license with the films in that there is no linear timeline anymore.

It means unlike other franchises they've embraced one-shots, retcons, etc as part of the wider series.

Some people are trying to join together dots as if there is a linear storyline in place when there isn't.

Logan does it own thing with cues from previous films but as to how it ties in with the wider picture, we have yet to see.

It does have nods to 'The Wolverine' but ultimately as it stands at the moment it's not a direct sequel to any of the existing films, it's only based on the same universe.

FunLover18 · 12-03-2017 04:36PM

TerrorFirmer wrote:

I said they should be treated as 'their own' universe not that they're set in the exact same universe.

Ok, probably going to come across as a pedantic dick but nonetheless you mean 'their own universeS'. I follow you now and I'm in agreement.

FunLover18 · 12-03-2017 04:48PM

Drumpot wrote:

And it's not an argument, that implies somebody is right or wrong. It is a choice to not consider the fact that Shane was in the movie as in anyway an issue on any level. I could switch on the tv and find a meaning in a programme or movie that happens to be on. I feel it's the same with people that either choose to get annoyed or frustrated with elements of a movie that do not need to be important. If I didn't know anything about any meaning behind the Shane movie I could take it simply that it was a nice family moment for the three characters where Charles was reminiscing about his childhood.

But it's not, they used Shane and they used that particular scene from Shane, I don't think it's open to interpretation as proved by the fact that Laura uses that dialogue at the end in that manner.

12-03-2017 04:49PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

I agree, I was merely pointing out a flaw in the quoted post which suggested The Wolverine and Logan should be considered the same universe.

Umm Mangold has said that The Wolverine and Logan are.

Also if they are changing Universe, that IS something which should be made clear by the studio/director (so people can leave preconceived ideas behind)

Skerries · 12-03-2017 07:08PM

X-23 is a child with Adamantium claws (possibly all bones), what happens when she keeps growing and the adamantium doesn't give?
will it kill her or will she be stunted at that height and the adamantium will kill her quicker than logan?

Nervous Wreck · 12-03-2017 10:17PM

Skerries wrote: »

X-23 is a child with Adamantium claws (possibly all bones), what happens when she keeps growing and the adamantium doesn't give?
will it kill her or will she be stunted at that height and the adamantium will kill her quicker than logan?

She just has adamantium-coated claws; it doesn't cover her bones like Logan.

.ak · 13-03-2017 12:05AM

Just watched it.

Loved it, absolutely loved it!

I might get lambasted for this, but it's actually a better story than the Old Man Logan comics.

Turning the Winchester incident into something Prof. X did instead of Logan was a masterstroke. Logan is already the embodiment of pain and suffering, throwing it onto another character who's stronger willed was brilliant.

The trio of actors Jackman, Steward and Keen put in masterclasses.

My only negative was Holbrook, like in Narcos I find him very hard to believe. He'd fit right in on another X-Men movie but not this one, he was too hammy and didn't fit the hyper-realistic flow of the movie.

Also that gore... Finally! That's what Wolverine is all about.

13-03-2017 12:30AM

.ak wrote: »

Just watched it.

Loved it, absolutely loved it!

I might get lambasted for this, but it's actually a better story than the Old Man Logan comics.

Turning the Winchester incident into something Prof. X did instead of Logan was a masterstroke. Logan is already the embodiment of pain and suffering, throwing it onto another character who's stronger willed was brilliant.

The trio of actors Jackman, Steward and Keen put in masterclasses.

My only negative was Holbrook, like in Narcos I find him very hard to believe. He'd fit right in on another X-Men movie but not this one, he was too hammy and didn't fit the hyper-realistic flow of the movie.

Also that gore... Finally! That's what Wolverine is all about.

Lad I've just ordered the comic, please no more comments about differences between film and it

TheDoc · 13-03-2017 11:15AM

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The first guy, you can actually see his eyes slowly turning to Logan, and there's a haunting sense in terror in them - he knows what's about to happen and he's powerless to do a thing about it. The film is just packed with subtle brutality from start to finish.

Yeah while I was doing a lot of "holy ****ing ****" in my head during the action things, it was all so brutal and visceral it never felt gratuitous or flashy. It just felt raw and brutal in every action scene.

I'm delighted Logan worked out, I like Hugh Jackman, thought he has been a great Wolverine and has gotten bum deals with his franchise films. This was an incredible film. Not many things make it onto my bluray shelf, but I'll be happily buying this when it's released.

TheDoc · 13-03-2017 11:22AM

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

That's a seperate issue though, I'm not talking about that, but about his healing ability for example
X24 wasn't able to heal from the damage he took at the farm and needed to be injected with the 'super serum' By Dr. Rice to recover, - Weapon X/Wolverine was able to heal from wounds like that.

That shows the clones regenerative powers were deliberately neutered compared to Wolverine's to avoid a repeat of what happened with Weapon X (ie go rogue and be beyond control)....but it doesn't explain why he was able to heal normally (ie instantly and on the fly) from stab and slash wounds like Wolverine was in his prime.

It's one part of the movie I don't quite understand exactly.

I took it that he was given the injection to speed up the healing process. He was very much alive but yeah I know what you mean, it did make it odd considering how he seemed to keep going during the fights.

At the same time, I'd taken x24 to be a pure Wolverine, animal instincts, adrenaline, rage. I figured that was the point of him hacking up the guys who come along in the jeeps at the farm, to show how he is just primal. So I didn't think anything more of the injuries being sustained as him operating on pure adrenaline

El Duda · 13-03-2017 03:25PM

Logan - 8.5/10

The third and final solo Wolverine film in the X-Men franchise. Unlike all of the other films in this franchise, this is inspired not so much by comic books or other Marvel films, but by the likes of Little Miss Sunshine and The Wrestler. Director James Mangold has opted for a much more sombre tone giving the film a weighty realism which lends itself very well to the on screen dramas that unfold.

Much like the finale of a beloved long running TV series, this is a meticulously planned out story that ensures Hugh Jackman gets to give Logan the swansong he deserves. The approval of an R rating by the studio meant that the filmmakers no longer had a vested interest that this film would play with children. Not only does this mean we're finally getting to see Wolverine in a gratuitous, ultra-violent, no holds barred manner, but also allows the films to tackle some tougher themes.

The Wrestler is frequently cited as a big inspiration for this film and whilst it's not quite as drenched in melancholy and poignancy, it certainly follows a lot of the same beats. Jackman and Rourke both portraying aging, lethargic men who lack a sense of purpose in life.

It's also great to finally see a comic book film which has ambiguity and unexplained plot points. At points it alludes to certain past events but doesn't feel the need to hold the audiences hand and show everything in a condescending way.

I was really looking forward to seeing Merchant but was left a little disappointed. He essentially just plays himself where I'd hoped this might have been a bit of a breakthrough role for him.

In general, the performances across the board are incredible. Stewart and Jackman find new depths to their characters almost 10 films in which is testament to their dedication to the role. Dafne Keen is all bite and no bark as the muted infant mutant.

Easily one of the best X-Men films which has both heartfelt sentimentality and severed head splatter in equal measure. Hopefully a bit of financial success here will pave way to seeing more R rated blockbusters being made. This film has benefited from the rating so much it has to be seen as a bit of a game changer.

Logan **Spoilers from post 212**

Comments

Logan Spoilers from post 212