The Energon Pub

I seem to agree with most of what's been said here:

- OK movie, but not great.
- CGI concerns
- DP fans gypped
- etc....


I also completely agree with Burn's tiny print and second the motion to add Storm to the list.


My viewing did have the new TF Trailer though. I also had the bar scene so I'll have to go find the DP ending...

I got gypped on the end credits. All I got was a boring scene where they show Striker walking with bloody feet and then some MPs tell him he's being brought in for questioning on the death of the general.

AutobotJazz wrote:I got gypped on the end credits. All I got was a boring scene where they show Striker walking with bloody feet and then some MPs tell him he's being brought in for questioning on the death of the general.

That's the first end credit scene, then you have to wait longer for the other one.

I saw it last night with a couple of my friends. Overall, I liked it alot, it was a really fun movie. Hugh Jackman and Liev Schriber were both fantastic. And I was really happy with Ryan Reynolds, for the whole ten or so minutes he was there.

My main complaint comes down to the changing of charaters, mainly Deadpool, but also Agent Zero/Maverick/David North. He got screwed over just about as bad as Wade. I mean, he and Logan are friends, not enemies. And they made him a murdering prick.

Despite all the changes that they made to Deadpool, I still think that a more accurate spinoff is possible. Just call it a hunch. And faith in Ryan Reynolds.

Just got back from seeing it today with some friends, We found it really good. Great seeing Hugh Jackman play Wolverine again and Liev Schreiber plays a good Sabretooth. Also great to see Gambit, Blob, Kestrel, Emma Frost & most importantly Deadpool being put in this film.

Also the action in this film was pretty immense and the humor in this film was pretty good (Especially Deadpool's humor even if it was short)

Speaking of DP, I am looking forward to his spinoff alot

Overall I give Wolverine 8/10.

This movie was an insult. I had hoped that after teh fantastic Iron Man and Hulk films last year-it was so so so so upsetting to see this one sucked as bad as the previous xmen adn ff movies

And seriously wtf was wit deadpool!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ya know what they could have done? Instead of using Baraka..er Deadpool, they could have so used Omega Red. That would have been so much more interesting, and maybe truer to the comics?

Otherwise, I found it pretty decent.

GrimSqueaker wrote:This movie was an insult. I had hoped that after teh fantastic Iron Man and Hulk films last year-it was so so so so upsetting to see this one sucked as bad as the previous xmen adn ff movies

Well you have to remember that Wolverine was still being done by 20th Century Fox while Marvel Studios did the Hulk and Iron Man. The Fox is more interested in money can the storyline in a lot of cases. Marvel would have done it differently I think. But it is an entertaining movie, not necessarily aimed at those who are familiar with the background; I'd wager the reason you didn't like it is because it was DIFFERENT...I'd also wager that's why you didn't like the first three X-men movies either. FF I agree, the first one was bad. The second was an improvement, but still mediocre...but it was fun.

different I can handle-BAD films I have trouble accepting

My parents enjoyed hulk and iron man-when xmen was on over Christmas they tries it cause they had enjoyed iron man........ ........and ended up turning away half way through

I saw it over the weekend and it was good. Not as good as the others, but still good. I have to say, though, that I'm easily amused and there were enough shiny objects in this one to keep me going for 2 hours.

I don't understand, though; in the books, his claws were bones. And in the movie they're bones, too, but a couple references in the X-movies made it seem that they were added weapons. In X-Men #1, I think there were springs under the claws, as seen in the x-ray they took of him. In the second, Styker says he gave Wolvie his claws. I guess you could say Stryker was speaking metaphorically and you could ignore the springs from #1. Those are such minor details anyway. Movies are allowed a few tiny inconsistencies, and it gets even harder when there are four of them.

Psycho Warrior wrote:DP does not have laser eyes, retractable swords, or the innate ability to teleport.

Spider-Man didn't have the innate ability to shoot webs when his first movie came out. I guess they figured they could get away with the same thing. I wasn't as disappointed by how they handled Deadpool as others were. After seeing how they tinkered with Spider-Man and Colossus (my favourite X-character, so he's was a much bigger concern for me), I didn't mind. After all, the characterization was great... for what little we got of it. To me, Bolt was more mangled. I don't think they took any one aspect of his character from the book aside from his real name.

Psycho Warrior wrote:The blob was never part of weapon X, and Agent Zero is never reffered to as Maverick. I don't even think I heard them mention Silver Sable either. Also we see Prof X standing... wtf?

Was the Blob even the Blob? Aside from him stopping the tank blast, I don't think I ever saw a power. And his blobness was an eating disorder? Yikes, they phoned him in. Probably my only complaint in the entire movie. Seeing Xavier at the end made up for it, cuz his cameo was great.

But the movie was cool. And mindless. Everything you need in a Wolverine movie.

I missed the Quicksilver and White Queen cameos. Where were they? I imagine Quicksilver was the dude who was strapped in his cage but kept jiggling around. Is that right? A friend of mine made a joke that it was Speedball.

For those commenting about the desire for a Deadpool movie: http://www.marvel.com/news/moviestories.7931

I'm sorry, but Liev Schreiber as Victor was terrible. Good actor, terrible role for him. The entire time I was watching the movie all I could think when he was just to small, and that stupid "cat run" thing he did looked ridiculously bad. I know that's not the actor's fault, but god damn that was horrendous. I also felt jipped because of how they used Gambit and Deadpool. They couldn't even get an actor that had a cajun accent to play him? Or at least get the actor to fake one? Come on! The few lines Wade had were awesome, but they could have done so much more with him.

Did I like the movie? Yeah
Did it disappoint me? Yeah
Will I buy it when it comes out on DVD? Yeah...and I hope there's an extended version or a director's cut or something.

original sin wrote:Come on! The few lines Wade had were awesome, but they could have done so much more with him.

Which is probably why he is getting his own movie.

I have to diagree with you on Victor. I think Liev Schreiber pulled it off very good. I didn't even mind that animal pounce he did when he went after Cyclops, because he's sort of animalistic after all. As a matter of fact, he did a better job than Hugh Jackman, to whom by now the role is just running through the motions and it showed.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

original sin wrote:Come on! The few lines Wade had were awesome, but they could have done so much more with him.

Which is probably why he is getting his own movie.

I have to diagree with you on Victor. I think Liev Schreiber pulled it off very good. I didn't even mind that animal pounce he did when he went after Cyclops, because he's sort of animalistic after all. As a matter of fact, he did a better job than Hugh Jackman, to whom by now the role is just running through the motions and it showed.

He was pouncing every two seconds. It just looked really fake and lame. It looked like he was being held up by strings and he just pretended to be a cat. I know its a comic book movie, but it just looked way to dumb. I would have rather had Tyler Mane reprise the role. Or someone else that's not you know, short...

original sin wrote:
He was pouncing every two seconds.

No it wasn't. The only time he did it was when he chased Cyclops.

It looked like he was being held up by strings and he just pretended to be a cat.

Well, as far as I know Schreiber can't climb walls or jump higher than an average human, so the stunt would have required cables. And the sabretooth tiger belongs to the cat family, doesn't it? Or is it just lions?

I would have rather had Tyler Mane reprise the role. Or someone else that's not you know, short...

Mane would have been good for the visual effect, but he's nothing compared to Screiber whem it comes to dialogue. Which is why he's been in so few movies. He was good in Halloween because he didn't talk. Though I do agree, someone taller could have played Victor, but I guess the tradeoff is the really good acting job Schreiber did with emotions and dialogue. And it was worth it.

Acting trumps height. I agree that Liev Shreiber was made for that role.

He did it far more then once. Whenever him and Wolvy would run at each other he'd hunch down and pounce. Everytime he attacked ANYONE, he'd pounce. You might want to go watch again

I know Sabretooths belong to the cat family, but he's not a cat, he's a man that has animal tendencies.

While watching the movie I didn't look at him and think "wow, this is Sabretooth" I thought "Wow, this is pretty gay..."

His portrayal in X-Men 1 was far more Sabretooth like then in Origins

original sin wrote:I know Sabretooths belong to the cat family, but he's not a cat, he's a man that has animal tendencies.

Since when did cats stop being animals?

Shadowman wrote:

original sin wrote:I know Sabretooths belong to the cat family, but he's not a cat, he's a man that has animal tendencies.

Since when did cats stop being animals?

Because I totally said cats weren't animals

He's named after a cat, and has claws and animal instincts, that justifies him pouncing everytime he decides to move?

It didn't fit in the movie and looked really fake.

original sin wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

original sin wrote:I know Sabretooths belong to the cat family, but he's not a cat, he's a man that has animal tendencies.

Since when did cats stop being animals?

Because I totally said cats weren't animals

He's named after a cat, and has claws and animal instincts, that justifies him pouncing everytime he decides to move?

It didn't fit in the movie and looked really fake.

You said it looked bad that he moved too much like a cat. But then you say he's supposed to have "animal tendencies," which makes no sense; if cats are animals, then wouldn't moving like one qualify as animal tendencies?

Shadowman wrote:

original sin wrote:I know Sabretooths belong to the cat family, but he's not a cat, he's a man that has animal tendencies.

Since when did cats stop being animals?

March 30th. They were downgraded. It was all over Fox News. Strangely enough, no other station said a word about it.

Shadowman wrote:

original sin wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

original sin wrote:I know Sabretooths belong to the cat family, but he's not a cat, he's a man that has animal tendencies.

Since when did cats stop being animals?

Because I totally said cats weren't animals

He's named after a cat, and has claws and animal instincts, that justifies him pouncing everytime he decides to move?

It didn't fit in the movie and looked really fake.

You said it looked bad that he moved too much like a cat. But then you say he's supposed to have "animal tendencies," which makes no sense; if cats are animals, then wouldn't moving like one qualify as animal tendencies?

I didn't say that it looked bad because he was moving like a cat, I was saying it looked bad because it looked horrendous. It looked more unrealistic and fake then Scott's optic blast.

If it would have done better, I wouldn't be complaining about it. But no, it looked like ****.

original sin wrote:
I didn't say that it looked bad because he was moving like a cat, I was saying it looked bad because it looked horrendous. It looked more unrealistic and fake then Scott's optic blast.

If it would have done better, I wouldn't be complaining about it. But no, it looked like ****.

Well, the way you posted it made it sound like you had a problem with him moving like an animal. Clarify next time. And the optic blast looked exactly the same as the one he shot when Toad knocked off his glasses at the train station in the first X-Men. It was fine.

Rodimus Prime wrote: And the optic blast looked exactly the same as the one he shot when Toad knocked off his glasses at the train station in the first X-Men. It was fine.

I think that's what he's saying: that the completely unrealistic idea of shooting beams of energy from your eyes looked more real than the way Sabertooth moved - and moving like that isn't quite as far fetched as eye beams.



I'm forced to agree though, the way the movement effects were executed was subpar. For a movie this big the special effects didn't seem to always be 'up to snuff'.... A shame really.

Iron Prime wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote: And the optic blast looked exactly the same as the one he shot when Toad knocked off his glasses at the train station in the first X-Men. It was fine.

I think that's what he's saying: that the completely unrealistic idea of shooting beams of energy from your eyes looked more real than the way Sabertooth moved - and moving like that isn't quite as far fetched as eye beams.



I'm forced to agree though, the way the movement effects were executed was subpar. For a movie this big the special effects didn't seem to always be 'up to snuff'.... A shame really.

I see where you are coming from with this statement, but I had no issues with Sabretooth in any way. I will agree with you on your more general comment as I cringe every time I think about Gambit's completely unrealistic pole jump.