The 10 Most WTF Wolverine Moments

[slym2none]

I said "act OK" - not great. He gets the aggro parts down pretty well.

 

 

 

No, my problem is with Hugh Jackman. I don't like him as Wolverine. Being able to do one part of the role "OK" isn't making me a fan.

 

 

 

-slym

[Spidey-fan73]

(thumbs u my interpretation stands corrected sir Slym

[Comicopolis]

so your issue isn't with Hugh, rather than whomever decided to have a polished/metro Wolverine with claws that exit from the wrong area. I agree with you on the prettyboy look, but his acting is spotty IMO. First thing that comes to my mind when I do recall the role is the crying scene when Jean/Phoenix "dies". I can't think of anyone that would be a good choice for the role, not that there are many, if any, 5' whatever gritty actors around. Had they thought outside the box, perhaps they could have casted Sully Erna from Godsmack, he's short and gritty.

 

So - he shouldn't have cried when the woman he loves dies?

 

Or he should have cried better?

[techtre2003]

I actually think Hugh does pretty well as Wolverine myself.

[Doc McCoy]

The only true WTF moment in Wolverine's history is when Joe Q walked into Marvel that fateful day and said:

 

"You know, I woke up this morning and had a brilliant idea! I realize Wolverine is a complete badass due to the mystery that surrounds him, but let's say F it and reveal his origins! We'll start by revealing that his name isn't even Logan, which is too cool for school. We'll call him James! Or Jimmy! Or Jimbo! The fans will love it!"

 

[Dr. Balls]

so your issue isn't with Hugh, rather than whomever decided to have a polished/metro Wolverine with claws that exit from the wrong area. I agree with you on the prettyboy look, but his acting is spotty IMO. First thing that comes to my mind when I do recall the role is the crying scene when Jean/Phoenix "dies". I can't think of anyone that would be a good choice for the role, not that there are many, if any, 5' whatever gritty actors around. Had they thought outside the box, perhaps they could have casted Sully Erna from Godsmack, he's short and gritty.

 

So - he shouldn't have cried when the woman he loves dies?

 

Or he should have cried better?

 

He should have never cried openly. That's not the Logan we've come to know. Of course, he's allowed feelings, but he keeps them in check in situations when other people could not - that's one of the things that we all like about his character!

 

Also, him forcing himself on her in X-Men 2 is also pretty atrocious. I think they were going for "unrequited love" and they kinda got "face rape".

 

I actually like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but man - the whole 'sensitive tough guy' schtick is better left for Sawyer on Lost than in my comic movies - and that is the fault of the writers, not the actor.

[Dr. Balls]

The only true WTF moment in Wolverine's history is when Joe Q walked into Marvel that fateful day and said:

 

"You know, I woke up this morning and had a brilliant idea! I realize Wolverine is a complete badass due to the mystery that surrounds him, but let's say F it and reveal his origins! We'll start by revealing that his name isn't even Logan, which is too cool for school. We'll call him James! Or Jimmy! Or Jimbo! The fans will love it!"

 

 

+1,000,000

 

"James Howlett" When it comes to stupid ham-fisted pretentious names, that is right up there with "Eric Draven". Did Joe Q sit down with his freakin' mother and watch some soap operas before he came up with that ridiculously stupid name?

 

When I finished Origins, I threw the book away and wished that I'd have never read it. It got even worse when people in the MU started calling him "James".

 

I would buy 10 copies of every variant #1 cover if Marvel retconned the whole Origins story and erased it from history.

 

Step aside Spidey One More Day haters: Origins is - by far - one of the worst ideas ever dreamed up and it's an atrocity that Joe Q even has a job in this business after either one of those turds.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

The only true WTF moment in Wolverine's history is when Joe Q walked into Marvel that fateful day and said:

 

"You know, I woke up this morning and had a brilliant idea! I realize Wolverine is a complete badass due to the mystery that surrounds him, but let's say F it and reveal his origins! We'll start by revealing that his name isn't even Logan, which is too cool for school. We'll call him James! Or Jimmy! Or Jimbo! The fans will love it!"

 

 

+1,000,000

 

"James Howlett" When it comes to stupid ham-fisted pretentious names, that is right up there with "Eric Draven". Did Joe Q sit down with his freakin' mother and watch some soap operas before he cam up with that ridiculously stupid name?

 

When I finished Origins, I threw the book away and wished that I'd have never read it. It got even worse when people in the MU started calling him "James".

 

I would buy 10 copies of every variant #1 cover if Marvel retconned the whole Origins story and erased it from history.

 

Step aside Spidey One More Day haters: Origins is - by far - one of the worst ideas ever dreamed up and it's an atrocity that Joe Q even has a job in this business after either one of those turds.

 

That is interesting… As a passive Wolverine and X-Men fan, I sort of enjoyed Origins. It has been years since I read the story though.

 

Are your complaints with the first 6 or so issues, or the continuation of the series? Didn't it run for a long time?

[Comicopolis]

so your issue isn't with Hugh, rather than whomever decided to have a polished/metro Wolverine with claws that exit from the wrong area. I agree with you on the prettyboy look, but his acting is spotty IMO. First thing that comes to my mind when I do recall the role is the crying scene when Jean/Phoenix "dies". I can't think of anyone that would be a good choice for the role, not that there are many, if any, 5' whatever gritty actors around. Had they thought outside the box, perhaps they could have casted Sully Erna from Godsmack, he's short and gritty.

 

So - he shouldn't have cried when the woman he loves dies?

 

Or he should have cried better?

 

He should have never cried openly. That's not the Logan we've come to know. Of course, he's allowed feelings, but he keeps them in check in situations when other people could not - that's one of the things that we all like about his character!

 

Also, him forcing himself on her in X-Men 2 is also pretty atrocious. I think they were going for "unrequited love" and they kinda got "face rape".

 

I actually like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but man - the whole 'sensitive tough guy' schtick is better left for Sawyer on Lost than in my comic movies - and that is the fault of the writers, not the actor.

 

So, people, or fictional characters, can only behave in a manner 'that we've come to know.' They can't behave out of character?

[Dr. Balls]

The Origins mini-series was what I dislike with every non-adamantium laced bone in my body. The Origins regular series (50 issues) wasn't bad. I wasn't sure I liked Logan's past being solidified in that way - but it was an interesting read and great art for the most part (other than the Romulus business).

 

I'm not so rigid that I won't accept new Wolverine permeatations in his history - but man, for one of Marvel's most-loved characters, I do expect that they handle it with some care.

[Dr. Balls]

so your issue isn't with Hugh, rather than whomever decided to have a polished/metro Wolverine with claws that exit from the wrong area. I agree with you on the prettyboy look, but his acting is spotty IMO. First thing that comes to my mind when I do recall the role is the crying scene when Jean/Phoenix "dies". I can't think of anyone that would be a good choice for the role, not that there are many, if any, 5' whatever gritty actors around. Had they thought outside the box, perhaps they could have casted Sully Erna from Godsmack, he's short and gritty.

 

So - he shouldn't have cried when the woman he loves dies?

 

Or he should have cried better?

 

He should have never cried openly. That's not the Logan we've come to know. Of course, he's allowed feelings, but he keeps them in check in situations when other people could not - that's one of the things that we all like about his character!

 

Also, him forcing himself on her in X-Men 2 is also pretty atrocious. I think they were going for "unrequited love" and they kinda got "face rape".

 

I actually like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but man - the whole 'sensitive tough guy' schtick is better left for Sawyer on Lost than in my comic movies - and that is the fault of the writers, not the actor.

 

So, people, or fictional characters, can only behave in a manner 'that we've come to know.' They can't behave out of character?

 

Not in fiction, no. That's called inconsistency. Why would you develop a character for decades and then have him act inconsistently with his established personality traits? If you want to make a more sensitive change for the character, you spread it out over a span of time to allow for the idea that they are experiencing personal growth.

[Comicopolis]

so your issue isn't with Hugh, rather than whomever decided to have a polished/metro Wolverine with claws that exit from the wrong area. I agree with you on the prettyboy look, but his acting is spotty IMO. First thing that comes to my mind when I do recall the role is the crying scene when Jean/Phoenix "dies". I can't think of anyone that would be a good choice for the role, not that there are many, if any, 5' whatever gritty actors around. Had they thought outside the box, perhaps they could have casted Sully Erna from Godsmack, he's short and gritty.

 

So - he shouldn't have cried when the woman he loves dies?

 

Or he should have cried better?

 

He should have never cried openly. That's not the Logan we've come to know. Of course, he's allowed feelings, but he keeps them in check in situations when other people could not - that's one of the things that we all like about his character!

 

Also, him forcing himself on her in X-Men 2 is also pretty atrocious. I think they were going for "unrequited love" and they kinda got "face rape".

 

I actually like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but man - the whole 'sensitive tough guy' schtick is better left for Sawyer on Lost than in my comic movies - and that is the fault of the writers, not the actor.

 

So, people, or fictional characters, can only behave in a manner 'that we've come to know.' They can't behave out of character?

 

Not in fiction, no. That's called inconsistency. Why would you develop a character for decades and then have him act inconsistently with his established personality traits? If you want to make a more sensitive change for the character, you spread it out over a span of time to allow for the idea that they are experiencing personal growth.

 

Er, what Fictional characters can't be inconsistent.

 

OoooooKkkkkkk

[Dr. Balls]

so your issue isn't with Hugh, rather than whomever decided to have a polished/metro Wolverine with claws that exit from the wrong area. I agree with you on the prettyboy look, but his acting is spotty IMO. First thing that comes to my mind when I do recall the role is the crying scene when Jean/Phoenix "dies". I can't think of anyone that would be a good choice for the role, not that there are many, if any, 5' whatever gritty actors around. Had they thought outside the box, perhaps they could have casted Sully Erna from Godsmack, he's short and gritty.

 

So - he shouldn't have cried when the woman he loves dies?

 

Or he should have cried better?

 

He should have never cried openly. That's not the Logan we've come to know. Of course, he's allowed feelings, but he keeps them in check in situations when other people could not - that's one of the things that we all like about his character!

 

Also, him forcing himself on her in X-Men 2 is also pretty atrocious. I think they were going for "unrequited love" and they kinda got "face rape".

 

I actually like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but man - the whole 'sensitive tough guy' schtick is better left for Sawyer on Lost than in my comic movies - and that is the fault of the writers, not the actor.

 

So, people, or fictional characters, can only behave in a manner 'that we've come to know.' They can't behave out of character?

 

Not in fiction, no. That's called inconsistency. Why would you develop a character for decades and then have him act inconsistently with his established personality traits? If you want to make a more sensitive change for the character, you spread it out over a span of time to allow for the idea that they are experiencing personal growth.

 

Er, what Fictional characters can't be inconsistent.

 

OoooooKkkkkkk

 

Huh? You're telling me that fictional characters are written inconsistently and act differently from book to book is good writing? You do realize that fans express major complaints in comics about storylines that have to do with the character acting/being inconsistent to what has already been established, right?

[Dr. Balls]

Worst events in comic history. Here's some great examples of inconstency in characters, and why people disliked them.

 

Here are some others in a list, most notably, Inferno - which had Cyclops and Madelyn Pryor going against their established personalities in a span of a few issues.

 

And I don't have time to address the inconsistent power levels for comic characters, which affects how they act, the choices they make etc - this also adds to the issue.

 

If it were Saturday, I'd spend a little more time on this point. It's not inconsistency in character 100% of the time, but it's a pretty big problem with fans, to the point that I can say - yes - fictional characters should not act inconsistently.

[Comicopolis]

so your issue isn't with Hugh, rather than whomever decided to have a polished/metro Wolverine with claws that exit from the wrong area. I agree with you on the prettyboy look, but his acting is spotty IMO. First thing that comes to my mind when I do recall the role is the crying scene when Jean/Phoenix "dies". I can't think of anyone that would be a good choice for the role, not that there are many, if any, 5' whatever gritty actors around. Had they thought outside the box, perhaps they could have casted Sully Erna from Godsmack, he's short and gritty.

 

So - he shouldn't have cried when the woman he loves dies?

 

Or he should have cried better?

 

He should have never cried openly. That's not the Logan we've come to know. Of course, he's allowed feelings, but he keeps them in check in situations when other people could not - that's one of the things that we all like about his character!

 

Also, him forcing himself on her in X-Men 2 is also pretty atrocious. I think they were going for "unrequited love" and they kinda got "face rape".

 

I actually like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but man - the whole 'sensitive tough guy' schtick is better left for Sawyer on Lost than in my comic movies - and that is the fault of the writers, not the actor.

 

So, people, or fictional characters, can only behave in a manner 'that we've come to know.' They can't behave out of character?

 

Not in fiction, no. That's called inconsistency. Why would you develop a character for decades and then have him act inconsistently with his established personality traits? If you want to make a more sensitive change for the character, you spread it out over a span of time to allow for the idea that they are experiencing personal growth.

 

Er, what Fictional characters can't be inconsistent.

 

OoooooKkkkkkk

 

Huh? You're telling me that fictional characters are written inconsistently and act differently from book to book is good writing? You do realize that fans express major complaints in comics about storylines that have to do with the character acting/being inconsistent to what has already been established, right?

 

So, people in the real world behave inconsistently because that's human nature and people in the fictional world can't because they are not real, is that right?

 

You're using moaning comic book fans as an example of intelligent thinking?

 

Right.....

[Comicopolis]

Worst events in comic history. Here's some great examples of inconstency in characters, and why people disliked them.

 

Here are some others in a list, most notably, Inferno - which had Cyclops and Madelyn Pryor going against their established personalities in a span of a few issues.

 

And I don't have time to address the inconsistent power levels for comic characters, which affects how they act, the choices they make etc - this also adds to the issue.

 

If it were Saturday, I'd spend a little more time on this point. It's not inconsistency in character 100% of the time, but it's a pretty big problem with fans, to the point that I can say - yes - fictional characters should not act inconsistently.

 

So - fictional characters should be predictable? Poor Wolverine crying in that movie - no wonder so many people hate The Last Stand.

 

You're basically saying that fictional characters should never do anything out of the ordinary.

 

The weak man should never become strong.

The coward should never be a hero.

The good should never become bad.

The loving parent will never be a bad father or mother.

The husband or wife will never be unfaithful.

The non-believer will never discover God.

The priest will never renounce his faith.

 

Ad infinitum.

[Dr. Balls]

So, people in the real world behave inconsistently because that's human nature and people in the fictional world can't because they are not real, is that right?

 

You're using moaning comic book fans as an example of intelligent thinking?

 

Right.....

 

I'm sensing that you're trying really, really hard to make this an argument. Writing fictional characters requires you to maintain consistency in their personalities and that acting outside of those traits suddenly or without an established reason causes the reader to take issue with that - there really isn't any gray area here. if you can't understand that concept - no amount of rebuttals will convince you.

[Dr. Balls]

Worst events in comic history. Here's some great examples of inconstency in characters, and why people disliked them.

 

Here are some others in a list, most notably, Inferno - which had Cyclops and Madelyn Pryor going against their established personalities in a span of a few issues.

 

And I don't have time to address the inconsistent power levels for comic characters, which affects how they act, the choices they make etc - this also adds to the issue.

 

If it were Saturday, I'd spend a little more time on this point. It's not inconsistency in character 100% of the time, but it's a pretty big problem with fans, to the point that I can say - yes - fictional characters should not act inconsistently.

 

So - fictional characters should be predictable? Poor Wolverine crying in that movie - no wonder so many people hate The Last Stand.

 

You're basically saying that fictional characters should never do anything out of the ordinary.

 

The weak man should never become strong.

The coward should never be a hero.

The good should never become bad.

The loving parent will never be a bad father or mother.

The husband or wife will never be unfaithful.

The non-believer will never discover God.

The priest will never renounce his faith.

 

Ad infinitum.

 

You are pretty much off base at this point. You seemed to have missed that I said this a few posts ago:

 

If you want to make a more sensitive change for the character, you spread it out over a span of time to allow for the idea that they are experiencing personal growth.

[Comicopolis]

So, people in the real world behave inconsistently because that's human nature and people in the fictional world can't because they are not real, is that right?

 

You're using moaning comic book fans as an example of intelligent thinking?

 

Right.....

 

I'm sensing that you're trying really, really hard to make this an argument. Writing fictional characters requires you to maintain consistency in their personalities and that acting outside of those traits suddenly or without an established reason causes the reader to take issue with that - there really isn't any gray area here. if you can't understand that concept - no amount of rebuttals will convince you.

 

No argument chasing from me

 

I just like my fictional characters to have some emotional depth and not be ridged in their behaviour. If you know how they are going to behave all the time what's the point or reading?

[Comicopolis]

Worst events in comic history. Here's some great examples of inconstency in characters, and why people disliked them.

 

Here are some others in a list, most notably, Inferno - which had Cyclops and Madelyn Pryor going against their established personalities in a span of a few issues.

 

And I don't have time to address the inconsistent power levels for comic characters, which affects how they act, the choices they make etc - this also adds to the issue.

 

If it were Saturday, I'd spend a little more time on this point. It's not inconsistency in character 100% of the time, but it's a pretty big problem with fans, to the point that I can say - yes - fictional characters should not act inconsistently.

 

So - fictional characters should be predictable? Poor Wolverine crying in that movie - no wonder so many people hate The Last Stand.

 

You're basically saying that fictional characters should never do anything out of the ordinary.

 

The weak man should never become strong.

The coward should never be a hero.

The good should never become bad.

The loving parent will never be a bad father or mother.

The husband or wife will never be unfaithful.

The non-believer will never discover God.

The priest will never renounce his faith.

 

Ad infinitum.

 

You are pretty much off base at this point. You seemed to have missed that I said this a few posts ago:

 

If you want to make a more sensitive change for the character, you spread it out over a span of time to allow for the idea that they are experiencing personal growth.

 

Since we are talking about Wolverine crying in The Last Stand you'll have to define what you mine by a span of the time - over that film, over all three films?

 

I think some people just don't like to see men crying.