Keep "comic book" in the front of your mind to retain perspective, please.

(October 22, 2016 at 8:14 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(October 22, 2016 at 6:55 am)Faith No More Wrote: What, did you watch a pirated version or something?

No that was just a lie I haven't seen it.

But I can magically predict this film will be shit.  Just for the sheer reason that wolverine is the most over focused on x men character in the comic books and in the films and is just simply a cash cow they can milk whenever they like.

CURMUDGEON DETECTED

(October 22, 2016 at 9:49 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 22, 2016 at 8:14 am)paulpablo Wrote: But I can magically predict this film will be shit.  Just for the sheer reason that wolverine is the most over focused on x men character in the comic books and in the films and is just simply a cash cow they can milk whenever they like.

So, he's no different than any of the other comic book characters.

I said he's the most over focused on x men character, so the difference is the amount of focus put on that character as opposed to most other x men characters.

Do they ever explain why he starts aging? Is he supposed to have Legacy Virus or something, or does his healing factor just kind of catch up with his age, eventually?

Anyway, I rather enjoy superhuman, human stories; this looks like a particularly good one.

I'll be checking it out.

Paging Agent Carter.

I don't watch Agent Carter. Or Agents of SHIELD.

If you don't want to answer that's fine, though. 
I'll figure it out.

(October 23, 2016 at 8:02 am)Thena323 Wrote: I don't watch Agent Carter. Or Agents of SHIELD.

If you don't want to answer that's fine, though. 
I'll figure it out.

He died in "Avengers Assemble". Then he got the lead in a TV show. 

My apologies for not having the time to read or watch every single installment/issue of every single series.
I'm an asshole like that, I guess.

Thank you, for your assistance.

(October 22, 2016 at 8:14 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I said he's the most over focused on x men character, so the difference is the amount of focus put on that character as opposed to most other x men characters.

Well Jackman has shown remarkable commitment to the role. Sure his stand alone outings have been shit in comparison to X1/X2, but in terms of potential they already know they have a great actor on board with a Wolverine movie. With other films it's hit-and-miss. Superman Returns cast, or should I say miscast Brandon Routh in the role and he was totally shit. He didn't do justice to the film. This is supposedly Jackman's last outing as the character, so the other thing is that it's best to get in while you have your lead actor on board, rather than shelve it in favour of some other X-Man character that may or may not have an actor who's ready for the role.

(October 24, 2016 at 12:46 am)Aractus Wrote:

(October 22, 2016 at 8:14 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I said he's the most over focused on x men character, so the difference is the amount of focus put on that character as opposed to most other x men characters.

Well Jackman has shown remarkable commitment to the role. Sure his stand alone outings have been shit in comparison to X1/X2, but in terms of potential they already know they have a great actor on board with a Wolverine movie. With other films it's hit-and-miss. Superman Returns cast, or should I say miscast Brandon Routh in the role and he was totally shit. He didn't do justice to the film. This is supposedly Jackman's last outing as the character, so the other thing is that it's best to get in while you have your lead actor on board, rather than shelve it in favour of some other X-Man character that may or may not have an actor who's ready for the role.

That's a really good point I never thought of it that way.

I think a relatively obscure, rarely focused on character like juggernaut would be good to make a film with, but it was vinny jones who played the juggernaut and I don't think he's of the same acting calibre as Jackman.