• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Logan was a mean movie and still a mean future for the mutants stop being so mean

Yeah, it really is forced nonsense to make a sad story about Logan. It's pulled off effectively, but it's a kick in the face to people who are invested in the universe.

OP's reaction kinda reminds me of a Chrono Trigger fan when they first play Chrono Cross. Great game for sure. Just be ready for some bullshit lol.

uhh I was hella invested in a lot (well...half) of this film universe and I found this to be a great sense of closure for the characters. sure it was depressing, and although I wasn't a fan of them shitting on the nice finale they were given in DOFP, I also appreciated how effective the closure of the Xavier/Logan relationship was.

plus it does end on a hopeful note anyways since the torch is pretty much passed.

straight up emotional investment and drama in superhero movies is so rare, this one handled it well. I'm glad they let Jackman and Stewart have that after so many years playing these characters.

tbh if this was the last 'x-men' movie for a long time (or even forever) I would be happy with that, in fact I'd prefer it (he says on the day they announce that upcoming piece of crap Xmen: Dark Phoenix)
 
That's really stretching it. Logan isn't the best cbm to come out this year.

opinionated.gif


Same goes for me tho ;D
 

Arttemis

Member
I'm not opposed to Wolverine movies being super violent, I just feel like they saw how successful Deadpool was and went a little too crazy with the whole 'claws in faces' thing.
It was made to mimick​ the gritty Western tone of movies like Unforgiven...
 
While I can understand why someone wouldn't care for Logan (some people think it's silly), I'm not sure "lack of good continuity" is exactly the greatest reason for disliking a film.

For me personally, Logan is terrific. Best CBM of the year so far.
 
Who gives a shit about how it fits into the greater continuity? That was clearly not the point of the movie. Just tell yourself it's a what if / elseworld or a stand-alone graphic novel. I didn't even love Logan nearly as much as everyone else did but that's the least of my problems with it.
 
I'm not opposed to Wolverine movies being super violent, I just feel like they saw how successful Deadpool was and went a little too crazy with the whole 'claws in faces' thing.
Honestly, I wouldn't call the violence gratuitous. The way violence is presented couldn't be further from Deadpool. Yes, there's blood and gore, but it's always presented in a gritty matter-of-fact "yes, this is what six foot-long super-blades moving at the speed of punches would do" fashion, but the movie rarely lingers on the gore. It was actually much less gory than I was expecting after reading reviews.
 
Honestly, I wouldn't call the violence gratuitous. The way violence is presented couldn't be further from Deadpool. Yes, there's blood and gore, but it's always presented in a gritty matter-of-fact "yes, this is what six foot-long super-blades moving at the speed of punches would do" fashion, but the movie rarely lingers on the gore. It was actually much less gory than I was expecting after reading reviews.

not even the scene where kids are killing adult men in the most graphically fucked up way possible? that part felt forced and kind of made me care less about these children
 
not even the scene where kids are killing adult men in the most graphically fucked up way possible? that part felt forced and kind of made me care less about these children
Was mainly talking in regards to the claws in face comments

The stuff with the kids felt different from the way Logan's fighting was portrayed. Which is understandable; they were fueled by revenge, rage and anger on being experimented on, forced to fight each other, and treated as products rather than people

So yeah, those gruesome kills made sense for the kids, and I wouldn't really call them gratuitous, just realistic. Logan was just killing people to finish them as fast as possible. The kids were partially getting revenge on their tormentors as well as escaping, thus the more explicitly brutal deaths that didn't sugarcoat what powers would actually do to a person if used lethally
 
It just seemed really shitty to go from such a positive hopeful ending of a brand new better future in end of DOFP to this shit.
This isn't set after DOFP. Exposition within the movie makes this a certainty, the only movie that you can really assume happens is X1.

As that seems to mostly be your issue, its a redundant one.

Yup. The OP is why I hate comic book fans who get so obsessed with plots and continuity and connecting everything while never stopping to actually appreciate a movie.
I mean, I don't actually think this is anywhere near true.

Sure, people care about canon but that's only because these movies are - in cases such as Marvel - supposed to be logically consistent. I think expecting that isn't being 'obsessed' unless its about petty little things.

Also, every thread where its a 'bad' movie, there's not loads of people saying 'well, yeah, it is a bad movie but its logically consistent with the 18 other movies so I think its amazing!'

Plus, that isn't even OP's issue, OP's issue seems to be that DOFP was a good ending for Logan as a character and he didn't like that he felt this movie took away from that nor did he like character direction for Charles.
 
The movie is great because it doesn't give a shit about you or your precious canon. Best comic book movie since The Dark Knight, easily.
Yup. The OP is why I hate comic book fans who get so obsessed with plots and continuity and connecting everything while never stopping to actually appreciate a movie.
 
Was mainly talking in regards to the claws in face comments

The stuff with the kids felt different from the way Logan's fighting was portrayed. Which is understandable; they were fueled by revenge, rage and anger on being experimented on, forced to fight each other, and treated as products rather than people

So yeah, those gruesome kills made sense for the kids, and I wouldn't really call them gratuitous, just realistic. Logan was just killing people to finish them as fast as possible. The kids were partially getting revenge on their tormentors as well as escaping, thus the more explicitly brutal deaths that didn't sugarcoat what powers would actually do to a person if used lethally

every murderer has a past that brings them to that point. I just cant really understand why im supposed to like them as characters at that point.
He had to hold back Laura at times, and none of them seem affected at all by death. They're going to go on and be killers wherever they're going at the end, and I cant really see it any other way.
 

KHlover

Banned
Maybe if it were the lore of a good series I'd care, but we're talking about Xmen here. Go ahead and tear it to shreds.
 

MartyStu

Member
Yeah, it really is forced nonsense to make a sad story about Logan. It's pulled off effectively, but it's a kick in the face to people who are invested in the universe.

OP's reaction kinda reminds me of a Chrono Trigger fan when they first play Chrono Cross. Great game for sure. Just be ready for some bullshit lol.

Every single entry is a kick in the face to fans of the universe. The best way to enjoy X-Men is to ignore continuity.

This was always going to happen, yes.

Logan teaching Laura restraint is super important. She is supposed to be a moderating influence on them in the future.
 
Well, its not impossible but it makes the timeline of escalation quite tight.

Hugh Jackman said:
“When you see the full movie you’ll understand. Not only is it different in terms of timeline and tone, it’s a slightly different universe. It’s actually a different paradigm and that will become clear.

“It’s a stand alone movie in many ways. It’s not really beholden to time lines and story lines in the other movies. Obviously, Patrick Stewart was in there so we have some crossover but it feels very different and very fresh. [Following the timelines] becomes a chess game that you try to serve, which actually doesn’t help to tell a story and it’s sort of been a bit all over the place. I’m not critical of it – X-Men was the first movie really in comic book [form]. No one thought there’d be another [with] different directors different off shoots.”
Sauce.

There are mentions in the film to X1 and XMO: Wolverine.

They say that no 'new mutants' had been born in 20 years which is forgivable in terms of timeline, given that we don't see any 'new' mutants in X3.

You can take it in continuity if you like but the X-Men movies don't really give a shit about continuity which just allows you to assume - at face value - what's what.

For me, I think its a stretch to imagine that there've been no 'new mutants' for 20 years, DOFP is 6 years before so there should be no child under the age of 14 that has 'mutant powers' and yet at the end of DOFP Xavier is running a functioning school.

I mean, I'm not going to watch the ending scenes and presume the age of every child because I honestly can't be bothered and I don't care that much.

Hope I cleared some things up.
 
Best X-men movie and best CBM movie since TDK so... yeah.

Xmen and X2 are good too but Logan is TDK tier.

Agreed. I think it's actually less flawed than TDK. Look, I love so much about TDK, but there's also a ton of things that really bother me about that film. There's a lot of sloppy handwaving / move on quickly to cover up some sloppy writing. But damn, some of those scenes are pure cinematic magic - the opening, everything with Heath, Heath and Bale meeting, etc.

Anyway, I don't think Logan reaches those moments of cinematic magic, but I think it might be a stronger package overall, if that makes sense. It's just a really good film.
 

Blader

Member
Well, its not impossible but it makes the timeline of escalation quite tight.

I think he's talking about the feel and setting of the movie, compared to other X-Men films, and the fact that it's not a direct sequel to anything. Not that it's literally in its own Earth-2 or whatever. He sounds like he's using "timeline" and "universe" pretty loosely.
 

Arttemis

Member
Well, its not impossible but it makes the timeline of escalation quite tight.


Sauce.

There are mentions in the film to X1 and XMO: Wolverine.

They say that no 'new mutants' had been born in 20 years which is forgivable in terms of timeline, given that we don't see any 'new' mutants in X3.

You can take it in continuity if you like but the X-Men movies don't really give a shit about continuity which just allows you to assume - at face value - what's what.

For me, I think its a stretch to imagine that there've been no 'new mutants' for 20 years, DOFP is 6 years before so there should be no child under the age of 14 that has 'mutant powers' and yet at the end of DOFP Xavier is running a functioning school.

I mean, I'm not going to watch the ending scenes and presume the age of every child because I honestly can't be bothered and I don't care that much.

Hope I cleared some things up.
Hugh is clearly talking about Logan's reliance on the other movies. It stands on its own without any need to see the previous films. Its setting's themes and tone are unlike any of the previous films.

As for DoFP, that movie literally was a different timeline. The Sentinel filled future is changed when Wolverine is sent back in time 50 years to 1973. Everything after that is reset. Apocalypse is set in the 80s. Dark Phoenix is likely set in the 80s as well because of the age of the cast members returning. The actions taken in those movies lead to a climate that will prevent the future seen in DoFP. In the movie Logan, Charles and Logan mention the Statue of Liberty, which was the location of the first movie's climax, so that was an event that occurred despite of the timeline changes.

Logan is set so far in the future from the new timeline for a couple reasons. It removes itself from the immediacy of any loose threads from the rest of the series, and it features pessimistic political commentary on current state of affairs in the US.
 

SpaceWolf

Banned
Hugh Jackman and James Mangold confirms that Hugh's quotes in that interview were taken out of context, and that the film is definitely set in the "Happy Ending DOFP timeline". It wasn't an ambiguous matter where the film-makers were concerned.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
we should depict mean shit because it exists? im not sure what your point is

Life is full of adversity and unfairness. That tone being so pervasive in Logan along with a more grounded aesthetic overall helps it be more relatable to some audiences. Some people don't want that from their comic book movie which is fine, but to others it really resonates with them seeing a hero go through such trials and tribulations.
 

Kurdel

Banned
I was expecting it to be more inspired by the new comic boks than the Millar book, turns out it was based on neither.

It was still a fine movie, but was definitely overhyped for me.

iSsUVli.jpg
 

MisterHero

Super Member
This. I thought the whole selling point of the X-Men is that mankind hates them 24/7.
The comics can be stupid sometimes. Even soap operas, some of which have lasted as long as comics, have happy story arcs once in a while.

I'm not saying comics should be soap operas. But you are basically punishing yourself repeatedly for liking characters that get crapped on forever.
 

HeatBoost

Member
I liked Logan a lot. I was unsure at first because it seemed like a bunch of tiresome miseryguts bullshit, but then Laura shows up and just steals the show like it ain't no thing and the rest of the movie from there on actually has an emotional core beyond manly men and their manly suffering in bloody guts misery horror dread coughing up blood noises blurrrrgh

That being said

I thought the premise was kinda half baked. No more so than the X-movies usually do, and definitely not any moreso than the original comic (Mark Millar is a hack) but...

If you've got a corporation that is running illegal human experimentation, why would they balk at crossing the Canadian border? Are we meant to believe that the entire world implemented the same kind of "solution" for mutants? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when even apparently Canada hasn't done so. And what about third world countries that don't have centralized infrastructure to tamper with? Seems like a good recipe for having the new Magneto be born out of some Ex-Soviet satellite and then fold Moscow in on itself.

Ultimately none of that really matters in the context of the actual movie, but still. These were the things that ran through my head before Laura showed up and the movie got good.
 

wildfire

Banned
Name a X-Men story line with a happy ending for mutants.... ok thank you, there isn't one.

I remember there being one future timeline where humanity achieved utopia on the animated Fox tv show. It's possible but most of the time the mutants are going to have a tragic ending.

It's in the DC universe meta-humans commonly have a good future.
 
I think he's talking about the feel and setting of the movie, compared to other X-Men films, and the fact that it's not a direct sequel to anything. Not that it's literally in its own Earth-2 or whatever. He sounds like he's using "timeline" and "universe" pretty loosely.
Perhaps but its clear that the X-Men franchise isn't logically consistent as a single universe anyway so its easy enough to just assume certain things aren't.

As for DoFP, that movie literally was a different timeline. The Sentinel filled future is changed when Wolverine is sent back in time 50 years to 1973. Everything after that is reset. Apocalypse is set in the 80s. Dark Phoenix is likely set in the 80s as well because of the age of the cast members returning. The actions taken in those movies lead to a climate that will prevent the future seen in DoFP. In the movie Logan, Charles and Logan mention the Statue of Liberty, which was the location of the first movie's climax, so that was an event that occurred despite of the timeline changes.

Logan is set so far in the future from the new timeline for a couple reasons. It removes itself from the immediacy of any loose threads from the rest of the series, and it features pessimistic political commentary on current state of affairs in the US.
Yeah, I get this which is exactly why I pointed out that they make reference to X-Men 1 in my very first post (and the second too).

But I still think its a stretch to say FC - DOFP - A - X1 - DOFP Prologue - Logan.

This is my point though, the movies are so logically inconsistent that a critique of 'I preferred the ending to DOFP for Wolverine' is sort of redundant because that cans till be the ending to that if you want to embrace it.

Its not set 'far in the future' of the DOFP prologue though, its set six years after.

Its a bit like the DOFP future, there are aspects of the original X-Men trilogy that haven't been consistent with what we've seen in FC so its hard to assume they're the same universe at which point you have to assume that the DOFP future has some form of X1-3 take place but not exactly the same.

Its basically all a shit-show which, to tie back to my original point, means you shouldn't get upset with the portrayal of or events that happen to certain characters in certain movies.
 

Zoe

Member
Hugh Jackman and James Mangold confirms that Hugh's quotes in that interview were taken out of context, and that the film is definitely set in the "Happy Ending DOFP timeline". It wasn't an ambiguous matter where the film-makers were concerned.

And the after-credits scene for Apocalypse references the company in this movie.
 

Eidan

Member
But how do you apologize for x-24, and the goofy kid scientist scenes?

Metal Gear Solid 1 did the super baby method better.
X-24 worked well for the film and I'm not sure what you mean by "goofy kid scientist" scenes. This feels like film critique by way of CinemaSins.
 

SpaceWolf

Banned
And the after-credits scene for Apocalypse references the company in this movie.

Not so. Transigen was involved in the plot of Logan, the Essex Corporation (linked in the comics to the X-Men super-villain Mr Sinister) had no such involvement.
 
All this talk of canon and universe timeline around the movie makes me shake my damn head. It was clearly meant to distance itself from the other movies with only a general idea of X-men, mutants, and Logan and Professor X required to get the full experience.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
Logan was the best X-Men movie and the best Marvel film after Iron Man. If you're more concerned with faithfulness and continuity than the quality of the work, read a comic book.
 

Mesoian

Member
X-24 worked well for the film and I'm not sure what you mean by "goofy kid scientist" scenes. This feels like film critique by way of CinemaSins.

It is a little goofy that Transigen had no problem with the scientists running around the testing grounds with camcorders, capturing children being beaten, drugged and driving kids into suicide as if no one would ever find out and everyone who works for them is completely morally corrupt.

X24 is also pretty goofy, but it works for the movie.
 
Top Bottom