Kitsch:


Reynolds:


Schreiber:


Huston:


Collins:

Schreiber as Sabertooth?
That's gunna be a lot of makeup and costume padding.

I kinda like Reynolds as Deadpool. He definitely fits that wise cracking, confident loud mouth type. I never really cared for the character though. Always thought his trash talking was a really bad version of what Spiderman does.

Yeah Deadpool always struck me as a 90's reimagining of Spider-Man, which is to say, a bad idea. Whatever, Reynolds is good. I'd rather see him as the Flash, but that movie is never going to be made, so I guess it's fine to see him here.

Gambit, eh whatever. Don't like the character, can't imagine a compelling reason to include him in a Wolverine origin story, but Kitsch is great casting for the character.

Unfortunately since I think this projected was begun before Marvel Studios, there probably won't be a Fury appearance.

Well Gambit did assembled the Marauders for Mr Sinister, maybe they're going to say he got these mutants together for the Weapon X program. They've just be dieing to get him in a movie and are probably just throwing him in.

Why would Fury be in a Wolverine origin movie?

Weapon X would definitely have some run ins, and possible illicit dealings, with S.H.I.E.L.D.

I feel like Gambit is just in there for the same reason Venom got shoehorned into Spidey3: to appease a segment of fandom, potentially at the expense of the story.

Yeah. This movie is goign to suck as bad as X-Men 3 or Daredevil did.

I agree, I would hate to see them shoehorn a character into a movie just for the sake of saying "See there he is, now shut up" just doesn't do any of the franchises any good and hurts the overall movie in my opinion. I hate it when I go to a movie hoping for a character I like to be introduced only to have it crapped on. examples

Batman and Robin: Not only did they have waaay to many villians but one of my favorites "Bane" was made a into a mockery of his true self. They also take the actual characters physically and motivationally and crap on them. I like the Governator as much as the next action fan but Mr Freeze? c'mon..

Spiderman 3: Would have been better if either Sandman or Venom were left out. Placing both in the movie is a typical hollywood error placing so many characters that you have no time to develop any of them, even the hero. With this franchise you not only have the Hero but reoccuring villians, less screen time overall. Hell this movie would have benn better if it was just the Suit and Harry. More time to work and actual storyline.

X-men 3: While the first 2 did well in adding characters and still moving the storyline this was an embarrassment to the franchise. Not only did they introduce WAY to many mutants, most of the ones they did include had the wrong powers. Character motivations and known Timeline Lore discarded, sometimes I wonder if the Writers/Directors even know what they are dealing with.

With this movie I hope that they don't oversaturate the cast and ignore the history of the character. I will see it, but Man i have been burned to many times to get all hyped up about it. Only to find out someone crapped on my childhood.

Fuck your childhood, movies made in the 21st century have absolutely no effect on it unless you are presently eight years old.

It's sort of tangential, but it's worth mentioning. With adaptations of works from other medium, the most important part of casting is the character. You DO NOT cast to fit a look, you cast the character. Not saying that Arnold was right for Victor, but you get the point.

You just have a hard on for the Flash, Speedy.

Deadpool is crazy. He's not Spiderman or even like him. Spiderman was changed in the 90's. Deadpool is a different character entirely...

I'm happy to see Reynolds as the Flash. He's one of my two choices to play him. Jeffery Donovan was the other one. (The guy from Burn Notice) Sadly, there won't be many shirtless scenes for him.. considering the scarring.

I meant he was like Spidey with regards to the constant quipping.

Wow, you failed.

You took one small part of the point I was making and mis-interpreted it. I could really care less as to what the Actor looks like if they can portray the character, but in most cases it is tough to suspend your disbelief, If the character is a small frail nerd. Making them a big over the top Body Builder is pushing that suspension of disbelief add on poor storyline and bad acting and it is over. In the end the most important thing is that they can ACT. Most cases you don't believe they are the character and it kills the movie. What you are saying is for creative freedom hollywood can get a big named actor who doesn't fit the part in acting skill or physique then change the storyline.

So you like the Flash, It would be like them getting, hell lets go with it "Arnold" to play the Flash. But instead of being hyper-active physically, he is super fast mentally. We can get Arnold to portray a heavy fisted fast thinking hero type. Then we can chalk it up to creative freedom.

If Hollywood did that tell me it wouldn't feel like someone was shitting where you eat.

Fuck my childhood? Wow, makes me wonder if you even thought your post through before you typed it. My childhood and everyone else's is what all of this is based off of. You piss of the consumer and eventually you run out of customers.

And to re-explain my point was hoping that they don't over populate this movie with cameo's all the while changing what made this franchise something movie worthy in the first place. The story behind the character. Make sure your not screwing with the fundamentals of what made this character, the character people want to pay to see on the big screen.

That's not what I said at all. I said that you cast for the character. You cast the best actor or actress capable of portraying the personality, the "voice", and the other ethereal traits. I said absolutely nothing about changing the character.



This is you completely misinterpreting what I said. Continuing with the Flash as an example. In the comics Wally West is a white male with red hair and green eyes. From his voice work and interviews though, Michael Rosembaum is absolutely perfect for capturing the character of Wally West. He doesn't look like him, and he's not as tall as him, but he would very much be him.



My posts are all stream of consciousness, there's very little though involved.

Your childhood is inconsequential. Nothing any movie made now does will ever have any sort of effect on your childhood. Yeah, it might be nice if it was made exactly as your memories hold it to be. The problem is you have to examine when those memories were formed, were you as discerning an audience as a child as you are now? Is there the possibility that nostalgia has in any way affected your recollection?

I'm going to try and help here, and hopefully avoid any unnecessary flaming. I, like SS are both tired of that "Shit on my childhood" argument. SS is more expressive though.

Your childhood is what it was, nothing that's done today will change that. Now your experiences with story's and hero's as a child may lead you you have expectations, sometimes unfairly, and the movies often don't live up to that. The point SS is making is that if you are allowing a movie today to affect your memories as a child then that's a shame, but entirely up to you. Just don't allow it. Also, and this is my main point, it is not based on your childhood. It is based on a hero or comic you read as a child. It is based on a character and story someone else created that you got to see/read. Just like this movie will be based on someone else's character and story that you are paying or getting to see. It is not "yours." The Character's themselves have been changed so many times since their creation. This movie's version is already different then when you were a child (unless you're 8) so you really shouldn't be comparing it to your childhood memories.

Apparently I'm not communicating my thoughts properly. My fault, I appologise. If I would have know that you both have a Hot Button with the Term Shitting On My Childhood. I would not have used it.

It seems to invoke some emotion in you that I did not intend. In doing so I also failed myself because I took your focus off of my point. Which up to this point has still been ignored.

Consistancy

If you are going to take a well know Character and mutilate it past the point of recognition then don't treat it like the same person. I guess a better term would have been stop screwing with the continuity. I don't care about the small changes like you said they have happened from the beginning. Hair color, skin color, don't matter. You are not going to find a GOOD actor to perfectly match every part. Would Micheal Rosembaum be a good Flash. Yes because he is close to what the character started out to be, does he fit perfectly NO. But he would do well. My example was trying to convey the BIG changes. Like what they did to Bane in Batman movie. They wanted to add background and ended betraying what that character was at its foundation. Bane was Big and Intelligent before he took venom serum. That is what made him the character that he was. They made him out as a mindless wuss that was hopped up on drugs. Not the same character at its base. As I said I don't have a problem with changes, I thought Micheal Clark Duncan did a good job of being the Kingpin. Even tho that character was not black or from the Bronx. But it also didnt dramatically change the Base that the character was built on.

Origins change, each new telling of the story has it's ups and downs and different perspectives. That is Not the issue, but if you take the green lantern and make him weak against RED instead of yellow then you might as well be watching Super Fuzz. Or better yet make him the Blue lantern because blue is in this week. I'm not a super fanboi that has to have everything exactly in it's place. I like a good story and a strong plot. But don't tell me I'm looking at a cat when you're holding up a picture of a dog.

The stuff I learned as a child makes me who I am, can not change my childhood. In that same note I cannot discard what I learned, and experienced as a child. If I read the comics of Wolverine and learned the timeline and lore as a child or adult. Don't expect me to accept a movie where he has fairy wings and bones covered in aluminum foil just because you want creative freedom. He is an established character. My point is try and be consistant with established lore the fundamentals of the character. Anything else comes across as treating me like an uneducated idiot.

I am actually amazed that you guys actually watched Batman and Robin.


Yes, of course Bane was going to be SHIT in that movie. That movie - even before it was filmed - never wanted to be anything more than shit. You saw Batman 1 and you kind of liked it IF - and only if - you were a Tim Burton fan. You watched Batman two and even the Tim Burton fans thought it sucked but you figure: Meh, Michelle of kind of hot in a cat suit. You see a third one come out and you just say: "What else is showing?"

The original Batman is the best of the Batman movies and that includes Batman Begins.

This movie sounds like it's going suck really hard.

The best Batman movie was Mask of the Phantasm.

Fine. The best of the live action Batman movies is the original.

Yeah, I loved the 1966/Adam West Batman film too, Arthur.

. Okay, okay. The first Tim Burton Batman movie, entitled Batman, starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson, was the best.

They made batman movies?


To stick with the topic at hand: I used to really like Gambit, and would have liked to see him in A movie just cuz I thought he was sweet. I didnt read the comics. I didn't memorize the x-men cartoon(s). I enjoyed watching them but, like many shows I enjoyed as a kid, I somehow never got to watch the whole seasons. So what I'm saying is, I don't know as many details as you guys, and a lot of these superhero movies that you guys think are terrible, I enjoyed simply because they had cool characters and fun stuff happened. I was entertained, and I didn't leave with a feeling of "Wow, Jean Gray's hair just wasnt that great in that movie..." or something. I can recognize a deviance from the style of the original movies, i.e. Resident Evil 3: We Turned Alice Into A Weak Smartass Instead Of A Badass

leaked trailer from comic con, probably won't be up for long, but the official one should be out soon I assume:

pt 1: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=mU9aMjybCJw
pt 2: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=P__qgySbNIo

ignoring the video quality and all the nerdgasms, it looks surprisingly entertaining.

It's weird, I was just talking to a guy (who doesn't follow Comic-con at all) about this today. And yeah, aside from the fact that it's hard to see some of it, and you can't hear some of it over the shouting, it does look pretty good. Wondering, however, if they'll even try to stay true to source material, seeing how far away it went with the trilogy.

I mean, there's the girl there that should be Silver Fox, but really didn't look enough like a Native American to fit the part. Switching Sabertooth looks like a smart move, excepting the fact that they made him and Logan look a bit too similar.

But then, it's not out for nearly a year, so making any kind of criticisms is a bit premature, isn't it?

I think my favourite calls of all time is when Wraith (Who is a mutant hating human general of the Ultimate X-men series)
refers to Sabretooth as 'the poor mans Wolverine'.

I always wondered why Liev Schrieber was sporting the Wolverine style mutton chops. Now I know. Huh.

I'm happy. I saw Deadpool in the trailer. I'm willing to go see it... I just want to know why the Blob and Gambit are there...

Schrieber looks awesome, and it's nice to see Wolverine finally fight a male.

The shit with the motorcycle looked really stupid.