X-2

[Dan H]

That is all.

 

[FischerKing]

Gonna catch the first show in the morning. I've heard that it's much better than the first one - I can't wait. I feel like a kid the night before Christmas.

Shawn

 

[Chaplin]

Much, much, MUCH better than the first one my friends.

Highly recommended.

 

[FischerKing]

My buddy in LA called last night on the way home from the movie - said it was excellent.

Showtime is in an hour and a half - better be getting ready.

Shawn

 

[FischerKing]

I have watched X-Men 2 and survived. Man that was a fun movie.



Shawn

 

[Shane]

I did enjoy it but I certainly dont think it was all that much better than the 1st!

Question here????

If Wolverine was created like the story seems to show then why is he considered a mutant?

Arent mutants freaks of nature that occured through evolution like it stated atthe end of the movie? So why would something created be lumped into the same category?

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Shane H
I did enjoy it but I certainly dont think it was all that much better than the 1st!

The first movie was boring and uninvolving, this one was the complete opposite. Definitely much better--a new member of the very short list of sequels that are better than the original...

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Shane H

Arent mutants freaks of nature that occured through evolution like it stated atthe end of the movie? So why would something created be lumped into the same category?

Well, he's always thought of himself as a mutant until he found out exactly how he was "created". But then again, you heard the technical definition, but it seems to me that the real definition of a mutant is just someone that is different than human. And although Wolverine technically is only human, he has mutant qualities.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Well, he's always thought of himself as a mutant until he found out exactly how he was "created". But then again, you heard the technical definition, but it seems to me that the real definition of a mutant is just someone that is different than human. And although Wolverine technically is only human, he has mutant qualities.

Umm...Wolverine is a mutant.

He has freaking claws for starters, and an incredible healing ability.

Much of his origin is still a mystery, althought the comics have recently revealed a little more (to the dismay of most fans, cause we prefer the mysteriousness of his origin).

If Wolverine was just a human, he never would have survived the Weapon X surgery which added adamantium to his mutant skeleton.

(When Magneto removed all of the adamantium from Wolvie's body in the comics, Wolverine still had bone claws and his healing factor.)

Am I the only Marvel Comic diehard on this board?

 

[Chaplin]

Come back when you see the movie Brian.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Come back when you see the movie Brian.

Well they have taken a drastic change from the comic book Wolverine if what you're saying is true.

Seeing his father shot and killed shocked him so much that it triggered his latent mutant abilities. His claws extended and continued through Thomas.

During an encounter with the mutant Magneto on his space station called Avalon, Wolverine attempted to defeat Magneto using the claws presumably given to him by the Weapon X project. Magneto retaliated, using his powers of the magnetic field to tear the adamantium out of Wolverine's skeleton, causing extensive injuries. These injuries shorted out Wolverine's healing factor for a time, and Logan also discovered that the claws that he believed a result of the Weapon X project were in fact a natural mutation. The claws he now possesses are bone, and a natural part of his skeletal structure.

Can't believe Marvel would allow such a major change.

It was already bad enough they took away Spidey's mechanical web-shooters for that movie...

 

[Shane]

Not to be argumentative Brian because I definately do not do the comic thing whatsoever so whatever happens in there I would have no clue about at all.

But in the movie they definately imply and show that Wolverines claws were implanted surgically and is in no way a natural occurance!

But you are right I never thought about the healing powers those definately cant be implanted in any way shape or form.

Whereas I guess your right he is a mutant!

 

[DWKB]

I was a former X-Men addict for about 7 years (10-17) and so I know most of the story up until I'd say 1994. Wolverine's "mutant" ability is his incredibly fast healing power (which was the only reason he was able to survive having his bones laced with adamantium) and also his keen sense of hearing and smell. Wolverine is "animal-esque" in his mutant abilities. I don't know anything about the "bone claws" cause I quit reading them long ago.

I was much more excited about the "thing in the lake" than anything else in the movie (don't want to say anymore to avoid spoilers)

Nightcrawler was more than I ever could have expected and the beginning scene in the movie was one of the best IMO.

As the comic book fan I love the cameos of Colossus (who is supposed to be in X3 even more), Shadowcat, and The Beast (Dr. Hank McCoy on the TV)

 

[Dan H]

Movies and comics are two entirely different genres; what looks good on the page sometimes looks silly on film.

My response to the comic book die hards who like to gripe is this - Stan Lee is personally involved in every one of the Marvel film projects that he had a hand in. He signed off on every change. Considering that X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk, et al, are all his babies, he can do whatever the heck he wants to, to the property.

 

[mdamien13]

Yo DWKB, I hear ya on the "thing in the lake" bit!

I was a diehard comics fan for a long time and I think this was one of the best movies I've seen in a long while. Great sequel! Great movie! Nightcrawler was incredible. It balanced the characters well and had a very involving story. Brian Cox continues to steal the show in everything he appears in. All in all a huge step up from the first movie and a great way to start the summer run. Bring on Hulk!

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Dan H
Movies and comics are two entirely different genres; what looks good on the page sometimes looks silly on film.

My response to the comic book die hards who like to gripe is this - Stan Lee is personally involved in every one of the Marvel film projects that he had a hand in. He signed off on every change. Considering that X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk, et al, are all his babies, he can do whatever the heck he wants to, to the property.

Stan Lee has said all along that he wants all of these Marvel heroes, some of which he created and/or co-created, to remain as true to the comics as possible.

So far there has been little compromise.

Spidey's web-shooters went from being mechanical in the comics to being organic on the screen, and Mary Jane was really a combination of two female characters from the comics (MJ and Gwen Stacy).

And regardless of how he got his claws or his adamantium, Wolverine is a mutant.

Nuff said.

 

[Chaplin]

Wow. I'm trying to figure out why you're so angry about this. I know you're a fan of the comics, but if that's the case, don't bother with the movie.

Comic book adaptations are the same as book adaptations--there will ALWAYS be changes. The closest approximations I can see is in the Harry Potter movies, but even in those movies, there is some changes--strictly for cinematic reasons.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Wow. I'm trying to figure out why you're so angry about this. I know you're a fan of the comics, but if that's the case, don't bother with the movie.

Comic book adaptations are the same as book adaptations--there will ALWAYS be changes. The closest approximations I can see is in the Harry Potter movies, but even in those movies, there is some changes--strictly for cinematic reasons.

It's not anger at all. It's close to 25 years of personal knowledge about these characters enough to know they are not going to completely change them just because they are going from the comics to the screen.

My response was directed mostly at Dan H. who appeared to be calling me "a diehard who likes to gripe." It's more like a diehard clarifying characters for those just now becoming familiar with them.

As for your comparison, Chap: Comic book adaptations are very different than book adaptations (like Harry Potter). The entire Harry Potter line of movies, in the end, will be based on about what...7 books? That's it. Comic books, such as the X-Men have decades and decades of issues, including plotlines and characters which the movie-makers must sort through in a pick and choose manner in order to come up with a movie that both the comic-book-reading audience and non-comic-book-reading audience can understand and enjoy. Usualy the final product is a mishmash of several comic plotlines, including the origins of several main characters.

So far, Spider-Man, DareDevil, and the X-Men films have stayed very close to the comic-books, with no drastic changes. From what I have heard, the Hulk does too. With decades of character development and source material, there is little need to make drastic changes to these characters or their stories.

As for not going to see these movies - that's ridiculous.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa

So far, Spider-Man, DareDevil, and the X-Men films have stayed very close to the comic-books, with no drastic changes. From what I have heard, the Hulk does too. With decades of character development and source material, there is little need to make drastic changes to these characters or their stories.

If Spider-Man, Daredevil, X-Men and the Hulk, in your words, stay very close to the comic books, then what are you complaining about?