Logan **Spoilers from post 212**

helimachoptor

Can someone explain to me how Logan gets adamantium after DoFP?

TerrorFirmer

helimachoptor wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how Logan gets adamantium after DoFP?

It's not explained and doesn't really need to be, it just is what it is, a dreary and largely self contained take on a cold, hostile world Logan and Charles are just trying to get by in a world that's left them behind.

As Will56 outline above the Wolverine films in general are set in the same universe but they don't follow a canon linear storyline so there's no point trying to join dots that don't officially exist.

But the films, on the other hand, also established the whole ripples in time thing where the end result may be the same, so either way he ends up with it - somehow - regardless of alterations to the timelines.

We may get a film that takes cues from the ending of Logan - or it may never be explored further from a continuity POV and X23 will appear again out of context with her first appearance, or else Wolverine himself will reappear in a timeline that contradicts the events and timeline of Logan.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Cineflix has produced a pretty excellent timeline of the events with Wolverine in the X-Men movies

Sad Professor

One thing I don't understand: why did Singer end DoFP the way he did, undoing the events of Last Stand, only to go make the next sequel set in the '80s? Was there a plan to bring back the original cast?

TheDoc

Have to say think people wanting to organise timelines and get context for the events of Logan are just missing the point entirely and I don't understand peoples necessity to be fully clued in on the context.

I havn't read the Old Man Logan Comics, although plan too, but was taking this very much as a standalone finale for the character.

That there was no clear explanation in the film, or a timeline linkup to previous films, I thought made the entire realisation by Xavier of what he did to be that more harrowing and visceral. It brought some serious impact and unfolding about his and Logans relationship and a real development for Wolverine I thought, especially about his unwillingness to accept any responsibility for their new arrival.

Foxtrol

helimachoptor wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how Logan gets adamantium after DoFP?

In Apocalypse we see Wolverine escape from the Weapon X program and I believe at that point he has adamantium claws. That is the new timeline that leads into Logan

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

In Apocalypse we see Wolverine escape from the Weapon X program and I believe at that point he has adamantium claws. That is the new timeline that leads into Logan

To add, where the timeline makes no sense is actually between DOFP and Apocalypse not Logan.

At the end of DOFP they have Mystique masquerading as Stryker pulling Wolverine from the water but then in the intervening years before Apocalypse he still ends up being captured and brought to Alkali Lakes. If they just didn't try to add a clever twist (or planned out their universe better) the whole adamantium timeline between the 3 movies would make sense.

Riddle101

Just back from Logan and I loved it. I wouldn't so much call it a superhero movie, it was more of an action movie based on a comic book, but it doesn't matter because it was entertainment. I enjoyed the acting in it, loved the story, and I think the ending was perfect.

Malari

Riddle101 wrote: »

Just back from Logan and I loved it. I wouldn't so much call it a superhero movie, it was more of an action movie based on a comic book, but it doesn't matter because it was entertainment. I enjoyed the acting in it, loved the story, and I think the ending was perfect.

I felt like this too. I go to almost all Marvel movies and if the central character of this movie wasn't Logan I might have skipped it, but very glad I didn't. I'm not usually a fan of such violence but it worked well here. I'm not one to remember details of incongruencies in movie timelines, but I felt that Logan referring to the comics as being 'not what really happened' was a sort of reflection of the CGI-heavy X-Men movies being one interpretation of a story and maybe not 100% accurate. Loved the film.

Seanachai

Riddle101 wrote: »

Just back from Logan and I loved it. I wouldn't so much call it a superhero movie, it was more of an action movie based on a comic book, but it doesn't matter because it was entertainment. I enjoyed the acting in it, loved the story, and I think the ending was perfect.

I really enjoyed it and I'm very picky, the film had a human element to it that a lot of sci-fi and action films lack. I've always liked his surliness and weariness with fighting. Hugh Jackman really pulled out all the stops playing Logan as a broken wreck, but still powerful even in his ill state, the relationship between himself and Xavier though fraught, was still very touching. Especially when he was carrying him to bed and then

the heartbreaking scene where he had to tell him that he hadn't killed him

Even though his spirit and body are broken he still had that heroic element in him and it brought a smile to my face to see him come to the kids rescue and we got to see one last spectacle of the Wolverine. The girl playing his daughter put on a great performance too.

I was really looking forward to this but I found it not only dumb, but deeply unpleasant to sit through.

Seanachai

Deleted User wrote: »

I was really looking forward to this but I found it not only dumb, but deeply unpleasant to sit through.

Unpleasant in what way?

Seanachai

Seanachai wrote: »

Unpleasant in what way?

I can't believe I'm saying this, but the violence was off-putting.

I get that there was meant to be a theme running through it of Logan's being sickened and affected by the constant violence.

But aside from that, the general incompetence of the chasing posse and the setpiece, chase, pause, setpiece, chase, pause plot did nothing for me.

The Shane theme was forced and clumsy.

The fight scenes were among the worst I've ever seen for big strong fellas standing around waiting to be killed. And no, I'm not referring to the one scene where that literally happens!

Logan was vulnerable half the time but utterly indestructible the other half (not talking about the magic potion here, just from one scene to the next throughout)

The xkids were being killed off in Mexico but couldn't be taken out in a forest at the end of the movie.

Overall, i guess, i didn't feel it earned its attempt at intelligent, grown up movie status because there were such glaring gaps throughout. Once that failed for me, the sweariness and extreme violence just became gimmicks. Fine in a deadpool with a throwaway tone, not in a weighty tragedy.

Performances were excellent throughout and deserved better than the overplotting that we got.

Talk of this being a great movie as if it surpassed its genre is misguided imo. In a few months the ratings and the fervent praise will look a bit silly.

Seanachai

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't believe I'm saying this, but the violence was off-putting.

I get that there was meant to be a theme running through it of Logan's being sickened and affected by the constant violence.

But aside from that, the general incompetence of the chasing posse and the setpiece, chase, pause, setpiece, chase, pause plot did nothing for me.

The Shane theme was forced and clumsy.

The fight scenes were among the worst I've ever seen for big strong fellas standing around waiting to be killed. And no, I'm not referring to the one scene where that literally happens!

Logan was vulnerable half the time but utterly indestructible the other half (not talking about the magic potion here, just from one scene to the next throughout)

The xkids were being killed off in Mexico but couldn't be taken out in a forest at the end of the movie.

Overall, i guess, i didn't feel it earned its attempt at intelligent, grown up movie status because there were such glaring gaps throughout. Once that failed for me, the sweariness and extreme violence just became gimmicks. Fine in a deadpool with a throwaway tone, not in a weighty tragedy.

Performances were excellent throughout and deserved better than the overplotting that we got.

Talk of this being a great movie as if it surpassed its genre is misguided imo. In a few months the ratings and the fervent praise will look a bit silly.

You sound like myself criticising other similar films , I'm not trying to convince you otherwise but I was actually really impressed by the fight scenes for a change. They weren't cut too fast in Jason Bourne style and it conveyed how serious a set of metal claws are when wielded by a beast-man like Logan.

He was dying from metal poisoning so it's plausible that he would have had good days and bad days or peaks and troughs throughout the day, his healing factor and strength while depleted were not completely banjaxed, so he was still a force to be reckoned with. Stewart was brilliant in this movie, he got to show Xavier with a lot more humanity and edge than we've previously seen, I don't normally cry with films but the eyes did water a bit when he died, the dementia theme is close to home too.

I was also really impressed with Jackman's primal performance and the way he can summon up the rage and aggression needed. There's not many actors that have that grit in them. I want to re-watch the scene where we hear him roar in the woods before we see him.

ps3lover

I'm loving this new trend of allowing film makers to make the movies they want to make and not forcing them into a box (usually 12a). It's a shame this could t have happened before the Robocop as I would have loved to have seen the movie the director intended, rather than what he was forced to make.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

I'm loving this new trend of allowing film makers to make the movies they want to make and not forcing them into a box (usually 12a). It's a shame this could t have happened before the Robocop as I would have loved to have seen the movie the director intended, rather than what he was forced to make.

True as that wasnt actually a bad flick anyway, just severely hamstrung, although the organic reveal was really well done

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

True as that wasnt actually a bad flick anyway, just severely hamstrung, although the organic reveal was really well done

If you read any recent interviews with the director he really doesn't hold back, makes it sound like making Robocop was a miserable experience.

BMMachine

excellent film. best comic film by a country mile.
they reduced everything down and didnt overload it with meaningless crap and you know what, they got it bang right. Should be a lesson on how to construct a really quality comic book film...
but Guardians of the Galaxy is out next month and well I don't want to give the plot away but Rob Schneider derp de durr and then one day derp de derpy derpy derp and then a talking plant derp de derr with a racoon! But its from the makers of Durrr and Dumpility dump de derr de Derr and its part of the cinematic DERRRRRRR universe so you know its going to be good

Corvo

I absolutely loved it.

The violence was very welcome, I'm sick to death of comic book movies being toned down when some of the main characters (e.g. Wolverine) are in their essence extremely violent. It was a tad predictable, but not enough to turn me off it.

Just on the Adamantium poisoning, there is a part in the comics where Magneto rips it from Logan's body and his healing effects are enhanced, showing that maybe it in fact is slowly killing him? Or at least hindering him?

Seanachai

Malari wrote: »

I felt like this too. I go to almost all Marvel movies and if the central character of this movie wasn't Logan I might have skipped it, but very glad I didn't. I'm not usually a fan of such violence but it worked well here. I'm not one to remember details of incongruencies in movie timelines, but I felt that Logan referring to the comics as being 'not what really happened' was a sort of reflection of the CGI-heavy X-Men movies being one interpretation of a story and maybe not 100% accurate. Loved the film.

The lack of cgi was very refreshing, cgi makes me switch off at this stage. It has very little impact as it's usually just too cartoonish to have any significance. It's best used sparingly as a very subtle tool. Give me wire-flying, makeup ,good choreography and good hard graft from the actors any day.

El Duda

Just coming in here for a quick lol at Griff

I rewatched it last night. Only copped that during the trip, right after the Hotel, they were listening to the radio and it mentioned the Westchester accident and how mutants were killed, including several of the X-me -- at which point Logan turned off the radio.

Dr Crayfish

As someone who's not really into comic book films I saw this last night and loved it. I absolutely love Patrick Stewart and it was amazing seeing him effing and blinding in a superhero film! Great performances from the little girl and Hugh and P-Stew. I was quite upset at the end, Hugh Jackman has such an amazing presence on screen, I hope he can knock out some more great films.

Seanachai

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

As someone who's not really into comic book films I saw this last night and loved it. I absolutely love Patrick Stewart and it was amazing seeing him effing and blinding in a superhero film! Great performances from the little girl and Hugh and P-Stew. I was quite upset at the end, Hugh Jackman has such an amazing presence on screen, I hope he can knock out some more great films.

His performance is all the more impressive given how unlike his own personality Logan is. There's a lot of guys in action films throwing shapes that just couldn't summon up that kind of grit, he brought a very vulnerable human element to the role too.

ps3lover

This is now the first solo Wolverine movie to cross the $200 million mark in the US box office. I seem to recall wondering why they couldn't make the first 2 R rated and being told that an R rated Wolverine movie wouldn't make much money.

Earthhorse

ps3lover wrote: »

This is now the first solo Wolverine movie to cross the $200 million mark in the US box office. I seem to recall wondering why they couldn't make the first 2 R rated and being told that an R rated Wolverine movie wouldn't make much money.

That was the conventual wisdom in Hollywood up until Deadpool. Who knows, perhaps it was even true for the demographics at the time? Nobody knows anything.

constitutionus

Deleted User wrote: »

I rewatched it last night. Only copped that during the trip, right after the Hotel, they were listening to the radio and it mentioned the Westchester accident and how mutants were killed, including several of the X-me -- at which point Logan turned off the radio.

took me the second time around to cop the "waiting for you at the statue of liberty" bit xavier was saying near the start was about the Motel laura and her "mom" were at and not Charlie having a "moment" in relation to the first X movie.

lotta nice stuff in this.

Seanachai

constitutionus wrote: »

took me the second time around to cop the "waiting for you at the statue of liberty" bit xavier was saying near the start was about the Motel laura and her "mom" were at and not Charlie having a "moment" in relation to the first X movie.

lotta nice stuff in this.

I thought when Charles whispered 'Sunseeker' to Logan while he was dying he was referring to Logan himself and not the boat. He must have saw Logan overcoming his resistance to getting involved with people again and helping them.

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote: »

took me the second time around to cop the "waiting for you at the statue of liberty" bit xavier was saying near the start was about the Motel laura and her "mom" were at and not Charlie having a "moment" in relation to the first X movie.

lotta nice stuff in this.

It was excellent. What it also meant was that these still happened in the new timeline, which was altered when Logan went back to the 70s in Days of Future Past.

Agent Coulson

Logan is getting a Black and White limited release.

The Black Oil

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Logan is getting a Black and White limited release.

https://twitter.com/mang0ld/status/858061142609940480

It might just be me, but I can't see what adding a black and white release would add to the movie.

Earthhorse

Dollar bills.

Sad Professor

Deleted User wrote: »

It might just be me, but I can't see what adding a black and white release would add to the movie.

It's just a fun alternative for fans that seems to suit the film's gritty western aesthetic, I guess. The official Instagram account posted a series of black and white stills from the film on the run up to release. It looks good in b&w.

Digital colour grading has kinda destroyed the cinematography of blockbusters, so these b&w versions may be the start of a shift away from the orange-and-teal look, which is pretty much the default now even in films trying to avoid it.

MilesMorales1

I hope they include it on the blu ray though. Mad Max FR got a rerelease recently with the Black/White edition.

Fysh

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

I hope they include it on the blu ray though. Mad Max FR got a rerelease recently with the Black/White edition.

According to some news reports about the B&W version it'll be included on one of the home releases. I haven't watched Logan so far, but a B&W version that hews closer to the feel of the early trailers/teasers that used "Hurt" as the music would definitely get me watching.

How does the B&W translate across when done retroactively? I might be totally wrong, but doesn't it have to be shot and lit in a very specific way for it to be proper? Or would it just be a case of applying a B&W filter?! :pac:

Fysh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How does the B&W translate across when done retroactively? I might be totally wrong, but doesn't it have to be shot and lit in a very specific way for it to be proper? Or would it just be a case of applying a B&W filter?! :pac:

It helps if it has been considered when framing and lighting the scenes during shooting, but with access to the original materials a lot can be achieved by reworking the grading and colour timing, particularly on newer digital kit. I guess we'll find out when it's released.

learn_more

I don't 'get' this movie at all. It was too disconnected from the series. I was constantly wondering what time frame we were supposed to be in, given the time warping themes of previous movies.

There was a LOT of fighting in this movie which isn't too much different from a lot of special effects. Take you pick which is better.

The movie turned out to be a long winded version of the trailer. You kinda see the whole move in the trailer but just much more long drawn out.

I think it was a really 'odd' movie overall and far too long which imo was an attempt to fake a good narrative.

Although Patrick Stewart was very good in his scenes and it showed that Jackman can act well if given the right roles, I think the movie was a mess. It did some things right but overall it was all meaningless.

I know this movie is quite popular but I have to say I found it quite boring.

Seanachai

learn_more wrote: »

I don't 'get' this movie at all. It was too disconnected from the series. I was constantly wondering what time frame we were supposed to be in, given the time warping themes of previous movies.

There was a LOT of fighting in this movie which isn't too much different from a lot of special effects. Take you pick which is better.

The movie turned out to be a long winded version of the trailer. You kinda see the whole move in the trailer but just much more long drawn out.

I think it was a really 'odd' movie overall and far too long which imo was an attempt to fake a good narrative.

Although Patrick Stewart was very good in his scenes and it showed that Jackman can act well if given the right roles, I think the movie was a mess. It did some things right but overall it was all meaningless.

I know this movie is quite popular but I have to say I found it quite boring.

Fair enough, I'm normally hyper-critical but this film got past my cynical shell. I'll take fight scenes, which I think were done very well in this case over CGI any day. I actually zone out with CGI now, I don't think the human eye will ever be fully fooled by it no matter how realistic it gets.

Nervous Wreck

Seanachai wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm normally hyper-critical but this film got past my cynical shell. I'll take fight scenes, which I think were done very well in this case over CGI any day. I actually zone out with CGI now, I don't think the human eye will ever be fully fooled by it no matter how realistic it gets.

Ironically, Logan was jammed full of CGI that you didn't notice!

TerrorFirmer

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Ironically, Logan was jammed full of CGI that you didn't notice!

I don't think it's ironic, when most people talk about Logan they're more referencing the lack of plot dependent obvious CGI spectacle that normally dominates superhero movies.

Loads of movies have subtle CGI in every genre - look at something like the drama-thriller Gone Girl, huge amount of CGI in that movie but CGI isn't the driver of the film nor would the vast majority of people even have noticed.

Obviously Logan still has tonnes of conventional CGI necessitated by the script (as well as a lot of subtle CGI) but it's not in the same league as most other comic book movies.

Nervous Wreck

I was referring to the last sentence in the quoted post. "The human eye will never be fooled by cgi" Lots of CGI in Logan that you'd never spot.

TerrorFirmer

Yes but I got from his post that he actually meant in the sense of huge CGI spectacle like crumbling cityscapes, fantastical enemies, creatures, generally huge set pieces and the rest of it rather than subtle CGI.

I don't think he was actually talking about backdrops, overlays, etc - more just the typical superhero/comic book action fare that could not possibly be replicated via anything other than CGI.

With Logan, they wanted to tell a character driven story without the distraction of that lavish popcorn spectacle we've come to expect from comic book movies and as a result it feels more grounded and is a totally different experience. Doesn't mean there wasn't a ton of CGI but it was used in a very different and far more subtle way to previous outings.

At least I assume that's what he actually meant!

Nervous Wreck

Yep, that's very obviously what he meant, I was just having a little joke.

TerrorFirmer

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Yep, that's very obviously what he meant, I was just having a little joke.

Hush you...let me have my pointless argument!

learn_more

Logans look was obviously half make-up and half cgi. The cgi part was easily noticeable on a tv screen , maybe not so noticeable on a cinema screen.

Seanachai

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Ironically, Logan was jammed full of CGI that you didn't notice!

I did notice the cgi that was added, it was done in a subtle way that complimented the scenes though. It wasn't gratuitous and overpowering as it normally is on a lot of sci-fi. I watched an EPK on it on online so I'm aware of what was added. I'm not anti-cgi, I just feel that it should be used like you use embellishments on a cake.

MilesMorales1

Hooray noir version.

Deisler

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Hooray noir version.

Superb must order. Is b&w version getting a cinema release here?