Logan-First R Rated Wolverine Movie?

[red snow]

I just took this news as part of their $50 million dollar marketing plan. Endear all those fans by letting us know how much the character means to Jackman. Given the previous films I'm surprised he didn't offer to pay someone to give him a decent story to work from.

I suspect Deadpool's success and Mad Max probably had more to do with them going R-rated. And also drumming up the "creative/indie" angle.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, red snow said:

I just took this news as part of their $50 million dollar marketing plan. Endear all those fans by letting us know how much the character means to Jackman. Given the previous films I'm surprised he didn't offer to pay someone to give him a decent story to work from.

I suspect Deadpool's success and Mad Max probably had more to do with them going R-rated. And also drumming up the "creative/indie" angle.

 

Edgy, don't forget edgy.

This is Jackman's outro in the X-Men.

Also interesting on the pay front is that Jackman got $500K for the first X-Men movie, which in contrast seems like a pretty pathetic amount. But then, given exchange rates, it would take me 7 years to earn that "meagre" amount of money.

[red snow]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Edgy, don't forget edgy.

This is Jackman's outro in the X-Men.

Also interesting on the pay front is that Jackman got $500K for the first X-Men movie, which in contrast seems like a pretty pathetic amount. But then, given exchange rates, it would take me 7 years to earn that "meagre" amount of money.

How could I forget to say "edgy" or "gritty"?

It's crazy how we think actors/sportspeople are on a pittance if it's less than a few million, isn't it? I can only imagine there's a whole industry around each actor in terms of agents, acounts PAs etc, etc to spread some of that wealth around as it's hard to imagine how they spend it all. I guess it always seems hard to imagine how you can spend so much money when it's out of your league. I'm sure those worse off than me can't understand how I'm not rich either.

[The Anti-Targ]

Yeah, managers, agents, publicists get their cut, ad the IRS, so there's no way Jackman saw all of that $500K in his bank account. But he still made a helluva lot more for that movie than the vast majority of people do in a year. And he wasn't working a full time year to earn that. So his hourly rate, even for $500K less "fees", is still nose bleedingly high compared to other employees and casual contractors.

IMO Actors and professional sport's people should not earn ridiculous amounts of money, like $20 million per movie, or $300 million for a 5 year deal (pro sports). I certainly think sports teams and movie producers should fork out that much money for the stars, but IMO the stars should only pocket at most $1 million per year + agents etc fees. And the rest of the contracted payment should go to NGOs, NPOs, community groups, scholarships etc nominated and mutually agreed between the management and the star. Or it goes into a "players association benevolent fund" that is managed like things like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Imagine the number of scholarships and school grants that could be available to underprivileged kids back in the home towns / states of the major baseball, football and basketball stars if the Le Bron James' of this world only kept 5 million of their $300 million contracts for themselves and the rest went to programmes to help the poor and needy. I'm not saying you could end poverty, illiteracy, hunger and disease, but it can put a significant dent into those things. Now that would be trickle down economics.

[red snow]

It's tricky as I'd probably rather the stars eg actors/sportsmen get the excessive money than the behind the scenes folk. At the end of the day particular with sports it's the individual that gets viewers attention. Film at least rewards the directors and I guess screenwriters do ok (although looking at some blockbuster films I wouldn't want the screenwriters getting paid too much).

Can't really escape it in a capitalist society though. If people are willing to pay a fortune for tickets then there's going to be a huge box office and the people who initially invest will happily/deservedly take their cut. With sports I feel fans should get cheap tickets for making the effort to turn up and support when said team is making filthy money.

I do think the actors making millions a year could generate some good PR by setting up scholarships for young actors/directors etc - give a little back. To be fair a lot of them do just that and have scholarships and foundations etc. Some actors also do indie works to help promote a film they beleive in as well. Daniel Radcliffe is a good example of a rich young actor who's decided to do films he likes rather than just do blockbusters which I think he could easily have done.

Jackman was 32 before he got the X-men role too. That means he probably had 16 years of slogging his guts out and making very little. It's probably why he comes across so well in interviews - he had to earn his success.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Ryan Reynolds Shoots Deadpool Scene for Logan Post Credit Teaser

http://io9.gizmodo.com/ryan-reynolds-will-show-up-as-deadpool-in-logan-report-1790560723?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[The BlackBear]

James Mangold seems very annoyed about the reports.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Boo! Boo the fake news!

[williamjm]

On 12/13/2016 at 2:03 PM, The BlackBear said:

20 million for a film? Fucking Christ. Surely at some point you have to think 'that's enough money now.' How do you even spend 20 million?

According to some estimates Robert Downey Jr gets paid $40-50 Million for some of his later appearances as Iron Man, given how much more successful those films have been than most of the recent Wolverine films it's believable that he does get paid twice as much as Jackman.

[RumHam]

I came to comment on the new trailer and was shocked to find it wasn't even posted here yet. 

Well here it is: 

Thoughts:

 

First of all, "No. No. Nooo...NO." is amazing. First thing that stuck out to me.

Secondly it seems like in one shot she's carrying something (her attacker's head?) under her arm, then it cuts to her pulling the handcuffs out. From either her backpack or between her back and backpack. If she actually tosses the dude's head back at them between those shots then that's awesome.

I'm already sold on this version of Wolverine, but still confused how they will integrate her into the existing Mutant universe. I feel like this film was put into production during the "lets reboot it" / "pre-Deadpool" era. 

I love the idea of X-Men comics existing in universe and of Laura seeing Wolverine as some sorta comic book super hero that he is not . What flows from that is pretty organic especially considering the supposed source material.

Edit: also is Logan cutting himself because his blood is some kinda elixir for Charles? or because he's a masochist? I'd guess some version of the two because it's Hollywood and a transfusion isn't compelling enough. 

[The BlackBear]

7 minutes ago, RumHam said:

 

  Hide contents

Secondly it seems like in one shot she's carrying something (her attacker's head?) under her arm, then it cuts to her pulling the handcuffs out. From either her backpack or between her back and backpack. If she actually tosses the dude's head back at them between those shots then that's awesome.

I'm already sold on this version of Wolverine, but still confused how they will integrate her into the existing Mutant universe. I feel like this film was put into production during the "lets reboot it" / "pre-Deadpool" era.

Edit: also is Logan cutting himself because his blood is some kinda elixir for Charles? or because he's a masochist? I'd guess some version of the two because it's Hollywood and a transfusion isn't compelling enough. 

Definitely a head, but this isn't a red band so they can't show it too much.

The scene with the claws is confusing, he's holding them the blunt way up, so looks like he's cleaning them, but you see a definite spatter of blood come off.

I don't think it enormously matters which continuity it's in, I'd quite like it to be it's own thing like the comic Old Man Logan not being part of the 616.

[The BlackBear]

Though speaking of Red Band:

It has one extra superflous holy fuck, a deiffernt shot of Charles in a room as the camera shakes, and a little bit where Charles complains about his age with a fucking for good measure (seems out of character for the Charles they've so far portrayed.)

Also Richard E Grant's outfit appears to be... a white jacket. Is that the best they can do?

[The BlackBear]

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/new-logan-trailer-40-minute-preview-review-james-mangold-interview-712

[karaddin]

From the comments about it being in a different continuity and the X-Men comics existing in the movie it almost seems like they're going with "X-Men is set in an alternate universe, Logan is set in the real world" or at least close to it kinda vibe. Both Jackman and Sir Pat are really really bringing the "worn down by decades of pain and grief and suffering", if that tone is nailed for the whole movie I can see myself being very upset watching it in the way that I enjoy.

[RumHam]

3 hours ago, The BlackBear said:

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/new-logan-trailer-40-minute-preview-review-james-mangold-interview-712

Fuuuuck. 

 

I mean...In theory I wanted them to have him have done that thing he did that I won't even say even in spoiler tags. But damn now that I think they're really going to do it I dunno if I'm ready to actually see it happen.

Also the boobs thing seems so dumb. That is not the reason people wanted this to be a "hard R" movie. 

[The BlackBear]

 

6 hours ago, RumHam said:

Fuuuuck. 

  Hide contents

I mean...In theory I wanted them to have him have done that thing he did that I won't even say even in spoiler tags. But damn now that I think they're really going to do it I dunno if I'm ready to actually see it happen.

Also the boobs thing seems so dumb. That is not the reason people wanted this to be a "hard R" movie. 

Comic Spoilers for OML (and therefore potentially the film)

Spoiler

You mean killing the other X-Men?

 

On another topic it bothers me that Laura appears to have been coated in adamantium already, she's still a tiny girl, if her skeleton is coated in an indestructible metal she can't grow anymore. Even if they only did it to her claws, they can't grow either.

[RumHam]

1 hour ago, The BlackBear said:

 

Comic Spoilers for OML (and therefore potentially the film)

  Reveal hidden contents

You mean killing the other X-Men?

 

On another topic it bothers me that Laura appears to have been coated in adamantium already, she's still a tiny girl, if her skeleton is coated in an indestructible metal she can't grow anymore. Even if they only did it to her claws, they can't grow either.

Yeah. and that's a good point too. 

[Gronzag]

It looks like we are getting yet another empty, tepid, "I'm old and tired of all this shit" superhero sequel. Oh, but this one has a violent, aggressive, murderous little girl, with the exact same powers (even if it doesn't make any sense) as popular established male superhero whom she will replace. That automatically makes the movie "good".

[red snow]

I took the comics as being creations that were based on the X-men but not about their actual adventures. A bit like war comics or even those ones based on wrestlers and the like? Joe Quesada apparently designed the comics which probably accounts for most of the film's production time

I wouldn't worry too much about continuity it's the X-men film franchise. Since the third film continuity has been out of the window and whatever course-correcting DOFP was meant to bring has been left hanging. They still haven't explained why Xavier was in the post credits scene of "The Wolverine". I'm inclined to think this "logan" may explain the Xavier scene given he's present.

As the next film seems to be a "dark Phoenix" film I'm sure they'll just say "phoenix meddled with reality".

If the film's good, I'm not fussed though. Deadpool was great and that's partly because it didn't worry itself about continuity (they even made fun of it).

My concern is that "the wolverine" looked like it could have been good and for a while it was decent but then it descended into a farce. I still have trouble reconciling how it's the same director. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in that he maybe had a great vision for "the Wolverine" and others screwed it up.

The only thing i dislike about the trailer is the shitty "we've at best got wires attached/at worst lying on a green trolley" jumps. They look awful and I don't see how that can be improved post-production. The iffy claws can be fixed - although they never bothered in "origins"

19 minutes ago, Gronzag said:

It looks like we are getting yet another empty, tepid, "I'm old and tired of all this shit" superhero sequel. Oh, but this one has a violent, aggressive, murderous little girl, with the exact same powers (even if it doesn't make any sense) as popular established male superhero whom she will replace. That automatically makes the movie "good".

I think you'll have to take that statement back. Many of us have good reason to believe it will make perfect sense.

[The BlackBear]

7 minutes ago, red snow said:

I wouldn't worry too much about continuity it's the X-men film franchise. Since the third film continuity has been out of the window and whatever course-correcting DOFP was meant to bring has been left hanging. They still haven't explained why Xavier was in the post credits scene of "The Wolverine". I'm inclined to think this "logan" may explain the Xavier scene given he's present.

Well they did, he was in the post credits scene of Last Stand. Earlier in the film he mentions a hypothetical situation of transplanting a mind into a braindead body. He does it to himself. It is of course total nonsense, relies on an identical twin, and doesn't explain why this body can't walk, but is an explanation.

Quote

This case study was sent to me by a colleague, Dr. Moira McTaggert. Jones. The man you see here was born with no higher-level brain functions. His organs and nervous system work, but he has no consciousness to speak of. What if we were to transfer the consciousness of one person, say a father of four with terminal cancer, into the body of this man? How are we to decide what falls within the range of ethical behavior and what...

And now that I've defended even the slightest part of Last Stand I need to go bathe in Clorox.