|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 30, 2017 12:49:51 GMT -5
I've never been able to get all the way through X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It makes my brain hurt. Cei-U! Life's too short! Must be that adamantium bullet. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 30, 2017 13:30:31 GMT -5
To be fair, there was no indication that he had "bone claws" until the 90s. And I don't think I've ever seen ones drawn that would actually fit into his hand/arms. If they were uniformly thin and tapered to a point, they would. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 30, 2017 15:41:29 GMT -5
I hate when artists draw the claws like flat blades. Not only is that not how they were drawn for years after he first appeared, not only (as you mention) does it go against the "bone" concept...but in this example at least:  ...there's no way they'd be able to fit back up his arm! To be fair, there was no indication that he had "bone claws" until the 90s. And I don't think I've ever seen ones drawn that would actually fit into his hand/arms. The original concept was that the claws were not attached to him at all and, in fact, retracted into his gloves. Of course, this had already changed long before McFarlane decided to give him exagg-o-claws. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 30, 2017 15:51:30 GMT -5
To be fair, there was no indication that he had "bone claws" until the 90s. And I don't think I've ever seen ones drawn that would actually fit into his hand/arms. The original concept was that the claws were not attached to him at all and, in fact, retracted into his gloves. Of course, this had already changed long before McFarlane decided to give him exagg-o-claws. That was the way I remembered it from the short period I read the X-Men. But I don't know when that part changed either. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 30, 2017 15:55:42 GMT -5
The original concept was that the claws were not attached to him at all and, in fact, retracted into his gloves. Of course, this had already changed long before McFarlane decided to give him exagg-o-claws. That was the way I remembered it from the short period I read the X-Men. But I don't know when that part changed either. I may be remembering this complegely wrong, but I think it was in space, maybe on the Shi'ar home world. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 30, 2017 16:07:24 GMT -5
To be fair, there was no indication that he had "bone claws" until the 90s. And I don't think I've ever seen ones drawn that would actually fit into his hand/arms. The original concept was that the claws were not attached to him at all and, in fact, retracted into his gloves. Of course, this had already changed long before McFarlane decided to give him exagg-o-claws.That might be your Mcfarlane love bursting through.  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 30, 2017 16:08:56 GMT -5
I hate when artists draw the claws like flat blades. Not only is that not how they were drawn for years after he first appeared, not only (as you mention) does it go against the "bone" concept...but in this example at least: ...there's no way they'd be able to fit back up his arm! Don't hate on an iconic cover. It's artistic license.  |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 30, 2017 17:19:07 GMT -5
That was the way I remembered it from the short period I read the X-Men. But I don't know when that part changed either. I may be remembering this complegely wrong, but I think it was in space, maybe on the Shi'ar home world. It was in space when Logan's claws were shown to not be part of his gloves. Against the Sentinels when Wolvie was captured in civilian clothing along with the rest of the X-Men at Christmas time and he broke loose shirtless from the manacles he was placed into popping his claws while they were trapped in the S.H.I.E.L.D. satellite. The Sentinels read him as something other than a mutant and the rest of the team were all shocked to find out that the claws were actually part of him. The being other than a mutant idea was never developed or discussed and i think i remember reading somewhere it was the Adamantium in his skeleton which confused the Sentinels. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 30, 2017 17:22:43 GMT -5
The being other than a mutant idea was never developed or discussed and i think i remember reading somewhere it was the Adamantium in his skeleton which confused the Sentinels. Claremont has explained this. The original concept was for Wolverine to be an actual wolverine altered by the High Evolutionary. Thus, not actually a mutant. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 30, 2017 19:26:42 GMT -5
The being other than a mutant idea was never developed or discussed and i think i remember reading somewhere it was the Adamantium in his skeleton which confused the Sentinels. Claremont has explained this. The original concept was for Wolverine to be an actual wolverine altered by the High Evolutionary. Thus, not actually a mutant. Sometimes I kinda wish they'd run with that origin. Cei-U! Would that mean Logan smells like musk? |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 31, 2017 5:43:58 GMT -5
I love the movie version played by Hugh Jackman but I've never liked the comic version. I've never understood what made him special.
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Apr 2, 2017 15:04:28 GMT -5
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) Directed by Gavin Hood Produced by Lauren Shuler Donner, Ralph Winter, Hugh Jackman, and John Palermo Screenplay by David Benioff and Skip Woods Box office $373.1 million Haven't seen it since the theatres. I considered rewatching it to go along with your review, but I'm not sure it's worth hunting down (X-Men 3 I owned on DVD for some reason). It is currently in last place in my ranking of X-Men films, but I don't have too many specific gripes that I remember. I mostly recall blandness. Lots and lots of blandness. In hindsight, the new Deadpool film highlights just how wasted that film's take on Deadpool was. But it was true of all the characters they included. I recall Liev Schreiber doing a good job as Sabretooth, and pretty much nothing else positive to say about it. I'll rewatch it one day. Have to confirm it really is the worst X-Men film and it's not just my memory playing tricks on me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 1:48:30 GMT -5
Don't hate on an iconic cover. It's artistic license. There'a artistic license and then there's just bad art, and for me that's solidly in the bad art camp. The effect could still have worked with Wolvie's arm turned more, and segments of the Hulk's face showing on the claws drawn correctly, instead of at right-angles to where they should be |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Apr 3, 2017 9:08:05 GMT -5
There'a artistic license and then there's just bad art, and for me that's solidly in the bad art camp. The effect could still have worked with Wolvie's arm turned more, and segments of the Hulk's face showing on the claws drawn correctly, instead of at right-angles to where they should be Some would argue that art is art, and while subjective, there is no such thing as "bad art" because who are we to objectively say someone's artist expression is good or not? ...I think that is a load of rubbish, personally, but there are some people who feel that way.  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 3, 2017 9:19:38 GMT -5
If it was truly terrible, why would it be homaged over and over again?
|
|
