I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I disagree with the notion that is a good thing that they never mentioned Dinklage. I think it logical that someone would ask given his own difference why would you be so against others who are different. He is a minority who designs machines to hunt down other minorities. To me this is an interesting factor to make Trask a real character instead of a plot point.
I will agree that no one in the original casts outside of Jackman really throw themselves into the roles.
I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I disagree with the notion that is a good thing that they never mentioned Dinklage. I think it logical that someone would ask given his own difference why would you be so against others who are different. He is a minority who designs machines to hunt down other minorities. To me this is an interesting factor to make Trask a real character instead of a plot point.
I will agree that no one in the original casts outside of Jackman really throw themselves into the roles.
Although I feel like- when we saw the portrait of his office, that seemed to show him inventing a prosthetic for a girl in a wheelchair- we as an audience could think about that bit of motivation on our own, if we wanted to, without there having to be a conversation about it.
EDIT- To be clear, I think you could read that motivation into him. But I like that they didn't make a point of it. Allowing you to also choose that Trask has the same reason to fear, distrust, or want to exploit mutants as Stryker- played by a more 'leading man' looking normative actor. I like that, but not making a point of Dinklage the actor's body, it left things more up to our interpretation as an audience vs. 'We cast him to make it about THIS'.
As for the Singer stuff, I didn't even know about it until today. Wow.
My views on it won't affect my viewing the film. I'm likely not going to spend the money to see this one in theatres, anyway. I'll wait for Blu-Ray or On-Demand.
So I was wrong. Saw it today, albeit through a family connection for free.
I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I disagree with the notion that is a good thing that they never mentioned Dinklage. I think it logical that someone would ask given his own difference why would you be so against others who are different. He is a minority who designs machines to hunt down other minorities. To me this is an interesting factor to make Trask a real character instead of a plot point.
I will agree that no one in the original casts outside of Jackman really throw themselves into the roles.
Although I feel like- when we saw the portrait of his office, that seemed to show him inventing a prosthetic for a girl in a wheelchair- we as an audience could think about that bit of motivation on our own, if we wanted to, without there having to be a conversation about it.
EDIT- To be clear, I think you could read that motivation into him. But I like that they didn't make a point of it. Allowing you to also choose that Trask has the same reason to fear, distrust, or want to exploit mutants as Stryker- played by a more 'leading man' looking normative actor. I like that, but not making a point of Dinklage the actor's body, it left things more up to our interpretation as an audience vs. 'We cast him to make it about THIS'.
I did not think Stryker worked that well as a villain for the same reason. There is no depth to I hate mutants just because they are mutants. They took the time to explain why Magneto hate humans it would be nice if they did the same for the human villains.
They had so little faith in the character that they made Magneto the main bad guy by the end of the film.
I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I disagree with the notion that is a good thing that they never mentioned Dinklage. I think it logical that someone would ask given his own difference why would you be so against others who are different. He is a minority who designs machines to hunt down other minorities. To me this is an interesting factor to make Trask a real character instead of a plot point.
I will agree that no one in the original casts outside of Jackman really throw themselves into the roles.
Although I feel like- when we saw the portrait of his office, that seemed to show him inventing a prosthetic for a girl in a wheelchair- we as an audience could think about that bit of motivation on our own, if we wanted to, without there having to be a conversation about it.
EDIT- To be clear, I think you could read that motivation into him. But I like that they didn't make a point of it. Allowing you to also choose that Trask has the same reason to fear, distrust, or want to exploit mutants as Stryker- played by a more 'leading man' looking normative actor. I like that, but not making a point of Dinklage the actor's body, it left things more up to our interpretation as an audience vs. 'We cast him to make it about THIS'.
I did not think Stryker worked that well as a villain for the same reason. There is no depth to I hate mutants just because they are mutants. They took the time to explain why Magneto hate humans it would be nice if they did the same for the human villains.
They had so little faith in the character that they made Magneto the main bad guy by the end of the film.
Why did Caucasians discriminate from minorities in the history of the US? Wasn't it mostly because minorities 'looked different'?
I found this on the wiki for those thinking about Trask's motives:
Peter Dinklage as Bolivar Trask: A military scientist and the head of Trask Industries who created a range of robots called Sentinels whose purpose is to hunt and destroy mutants.[39] Dinklage stated that Trask "sees what he’s doing as a good thing — [his ambition is] definitely blind and he’s quite arrogant. He’s strove all his life for a certain respect and attention." He also stated that Trask is up against Richard Nixon.[40]
I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I disagree with the notion that is a good thing that they never mentioned Dinklage. I think it logical that someone would ask given his own difference why would you be so against others who are different. He is a minority who designs machines to hunt down other minorities. To me this is an interesting factor to make Trask a real character instead of a plot point.
I will agree that no one in the original casts outside of Jackman really throw themselves into the roles.
Although I feel like- when we saw the portrait of his office, that seemed to show him inventing a prosthetic for a girl in a wheelchair- we as an audience could think about that bit of motivation on our own, if we wanted to, without there having to be a conversation about it.
EDIT- To be clear, I think you could read that motivation into him. But I like that they didn't make a point of it. Allowing you to also choose that Trask has the same reason to fear, distrust, or want to exploit mutants as Stryker- played by a more 'leading man' looking normative actor. I like that, but not making a point of Dinklage the actor's body, it left things more up to our interpretation as an audience vs. 'We cast him to make it about THIS'.
I did not think Stryker worked that well as a villain for the same reason. There is no depth to I hate mutants just because they are mutants. They took the time to explain why Magneto hate humans it would be nice if they did the same for the human villains.
They had so little faith in the character that they made Magneto the main bad guy by the end of the film.
To me, the focus on Magneto at the end does not speak to a lack in Trask and Stryker, but rather that the ongoing relationship and ideological differences between Eric and Charles is more interesting, and the arc that will surely continue into the next film.
And I don't think it was even as simple a Magneto being the big bad at the end because the other villains weren't interesting enough.
Remember- the real antagonist, the main threat, throughout was whether or not the dystopian future we see will come to pass. Will Mystique and Magneto be able to restrain themselves, or be stopped, before they play a part in convincing the public that those Sentinels are needed? Given that the plot was about avoiding the future, and was sure to be played out as a conflict within the mutants (which is to say, the ongoing conflict of Charles Way vs. Eric's Way). The humans are always going to be on the sidelines in those stories. And that's fine. I feel like- character wise and performance wise- we got as much Trask and Stryker as the story needed.
I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I disagree with the notion that is a good thing that they never mentioned Dinklage. I think it logical that someone would ask given his own difference why would you be so against others who are different. He is a minority who designs machines to hunt down other minorities. To me this is an interesting factor to make Trask a real character instead of a plot point.
I will agree that no one in the original casts outside of Jackman really throw themselves into the roles.
Although I feel like- when we saw the portrait of his office, that seemed to show him inventing a prosthetic for a girl in a wheelchair- we as an audience could think about that bit of motivation on our own, if we wanted to, without there having to be a conversation about it.
EDIT- To be clear, I think you could read that motivation into him. But I like that they didn't make a point of it. Allowing you to also choose that Trask has the same reason to fear, distrust, or want to exploit mutants as Stryker- played by a more 'leading man' looking normative actor. I like that, but not making a point of Dinklage the actor's body, it left things more up to our interpretation as an audience vs. 'We cast him to make it about THIS'.
I did not think Stryker worked that well as a villain for the same reason. There is no depth to I hate mutants just because they are mutants. They took the time to explain why Magneto hate humans it would be nice if they did the same for the human villains.
They had so little faith in the character that they made Magneto the main bad guy by the end of the film.
I KIND of agree with this. I was waiting for the finale to be mutants vs. sentinals. Instead it was "Lets stop Magneto from being a douche."
Saw it today. I liked it even though it forgot to explain somethings. Half of the crowd split as credits started. An explanation on Prof X being alive in the future would have been good because I just kept thinking about it. I thought young X was going to read Logan's mind linking with future X and say something about dying and coming back. No dice. Also, if the Sentinels just kill why do they keep non mutants alive? Work force?. If all humans potentially have x genes would they not all be considered for termination? What about telling them to fly into the sun? Sentinels of the future were pretty cool.
He came back at the end of X-Men 3 & explained to Logan "you're not the only one with special gifts" at the end of a The Wolverine.
I thought that they were only killing mutants, people with mutant genes to pass on, & people helping mutants. There could still be people who have none of the 3.
I'm sure at some point, probably after they began targeting people with dormant mutant genes, that the Sentinels evolved past taking commands from humans.
He came back at the end of X-Men 3 & explained to Logan "you're not the only one with special gifts" at the end of a The Wolverine. M
I dismiss the idea that some ambiguous wry comment "you're not the only one with special gifts" qualifies as an explanation. He may has well have said "it is what it is" or "this cat'a got 9 lives".
And if nitpicking geeks like us didn't like how it was handled, how confusing could it be for the 90% odd percent of people that don't wait around to watch both movies' after credits scenes? How many people seeig DoFP didn't wait until the end of The Wolverine and X3?
I submit that it could've been handled in a much more adept and satisfying way, especially for those that may not have seen both after credits scenes including one really odd one from a movie that came out 8 years ago.
When did Stark meet Fury before Iron Man 2? When did SHIELD find Thor's hammer? When did SHIELD hire Selvig? What happened to Scott that Logan looked surprised to see him?
When Thor mentioned Selvig was 'a friend' in Avengers, what did he mean?! What about Stark stating he wasn't qualified for the Avengers?
At what point does there need to be filler dialogue to explain for those who 'came in late' or left early?
Even without the line, seeing the ending scene in X3 is enough to realize what happened. In all these years if the people who really care didn't know, that's on them. I will argue to the day of my death the majority of people complaining are a handful of fanboys. I have yet to hear or read anywhere the average moviegoer cared how he returned. Wouldn't that be a point made in a movie review?
You don't have to like it, BUT its all there for those who care enough; which I heavily doubt is "90 odd percent".
The 90 odd percent I referred to are those not sitting through the credits. Of course I merely made up that number, but it seems reasonable to suggest that's a close number of how many folks get up and leave before the end credits scenes of these Marvel movies.
And I am confused how in one post you say he explained it and in the response you say he doesn't need to explain it. He may as well have said, "I'm a mutant" to Logan. Seems as good an explanation as anything else he offered, nevermind that whatever his explanation is I can't for the life of me understand why he's still in a wheelchair...
And how many people could be blamed for skipping the Wolverine after the abysmal xMen Origins Wolverine, thus missing the reunion scene with Logan and Xavier?
When did Stark meet Fury before Iron Man 2? When did SHIELD find Thor's hammer? When did SHIELD hire Selvig? What happened to Scott that Logan looked surprised to see him?
When Thor mentioned Selvig was 'a friend' in Avengers, what did he mean?! What about Stark stating he wasn't qualified for the Avengers?
At what point does there need to be filler dialogue to explain for those who 'came in late' or left early?
Even without the line, seeing the ending scene in X3 is enough to realize what happened. In all these years if the people who really care didn't know, that's on them. I will argue to the day of my death the majority of people complaining are a handful of fanboys. I have yet to hear or read anywhere the average moviegoer cared how he returned. Wouldn't that be a point made in a movie review?
You don't have to like it, BUT its all there for those who care enough; which I heavily doubt is "90 odd percent".
M
I agree. My wife, not a comic book reader at all, saw X3 back when it came out and said "oh so somehow he's gonna be his old self again." We saw The Wolverine last August. I asked her if she was surprised to see xavier and she just said "No of course not."
Sometimes the less that's said is better. They could have gone into a much deeper explanation about how Xavier made it back, or how Wolverine got Adamantium put back on his claws, or how Kitty Pryde's new powers work.
But for some, these explanations themselves would need to be parsed and examined. Better to keep it simple. Yes Xavier is back, yes, somehow in the intervening years between The Wolverine and DOFP, Logan got more adamantium put on his claws and Kitty Pryde's mutation has added a new wrinkle. No big deal.
I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I disagree with the notion that is a good thing that they never mentioned Dinklage. I think it logical that someone would ask given his own difference why would you be so against others who are different. He is a minority who designs machines to hunt down other minorities. To me this is an interesting factor to make Trask a real character instead of a plot point.
I will agree that no one in the original casts outside of Jackman really throw themselves into the roles.
Although I feel like- when we saw the portrait of his office, that seemed to show him inventing a prosthetic for a girl in a wheelchair- we as an audience could think about that bit of motivation on our own, if we wanted to, without there having to be a conversation about it.
EDIT- To be clear, I think you could read that motivation into him. But I like that they didn't make a point of it. Allowing you to also choose that Trask has the same reason to fear, distrust, or want to exploit mutants as Stryker- played by a more 'leading man' looking normative actor. I like that, but not making a point of Dinklage the actor's body, it left things more up to our interpretation as an audience vs. 'We cast him to make it about THIS'.
I did not think Stryker worked that well as a villain for the same reason. There is no depth to I hate mutants just because they are mutants. They took the time to explain why Magneto hate humans it would be nice if they did the same for the human villains.
They had so little faith in the character that they made Magneto the main bad guy by the end of the film.
Why did Caucasians discriminate from minorities in the history of the US? Wasn't it mostly because minorities 'looked different'?
M
If I was doing a film about discrimination in America I would explain why one individual person chooses to discriminate. The Irish did not look different when they faced discriminated against when they first came over to America. Italians did not look that different when they came over and faced adversity. When you have an obvious physical limitation as Trask does in the movie I don't think it is wrong to spend a few minutes to get into his motivation.
I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I disagree with the notion that is a good thing that they never mentioned Dinklage. I think it logical that someone would ask given his own difference why would you be so against others who are different. He is a minority who designs machines to hunt down other minorities. To me this is an interesting factor to make Trask a real character instead of a plot point.
I will agree that no one in the original casts outside of Jackman really throw themselves into the roles.
Although I feel like- when we saw the portrait of his office, that seemed to show him inventing a prosthetic for a girl in a wheelchair- we as an audience could think about that bit of motivation on our own, if we wanted to, without there having to be a conversation about it.
EDIT- To be clear, I think you could read that motivation into him. But I like that they didn't make a point of it. Allowing you to also choose that Trask has the same reason to fear, distrust, or want to exploit mutants as Stryker- played by a more 'leading man' looking normative actor. I like that, but not making a point of Dinklage the actor's body, it left things more up to our interpretation as an audience vs. 'We cast him to make it about THIS'.
I did not think Stryker worked that well as a villain for the same reason. There is no depth to I hate mutants just because they are mutants. They took the time to explain why Magneto hate humans it would be nice if they did the same for the human villains.
They had so little faith in the character that they made Magneto the main bad guy by the end of the film.
To me, the focus on Magneto at the end does not speak to a lack in Trask and Stryker, but rather that the ongoing relationship and ideological differences between Eric and Charles is more interesting, and the arc that will surely continue into the next film.
And I don't think it was even as simple a Magneto being the big bad at the end because the other villains weren't interesting enough.
Remember- the real antagonist, the main threat, throughout was whether or not the dystopian future we see will come to pass. Will Mystique and Magneto be able to restrain themselves, or be stopped, before they play a part in convincing the public that those Sentinels are needed? Given that the plot was about avoiding the future, and was sure to be played out as a conflict within the mutants (which is to say, the ongoing conflict of Charles Way vs. Eric's Way). The humans are always going to be on the sidelines in those stories. And that's fine. I feel like- character wise and performance wise- we got as much Trask and Stryker as the story needed.
And I would say the turned the story to Mystique and Magneto restraining themselves because they did not want to put the time into making Trask/Stryker into a real threat.
The 90 odd percent I referred to are those not sitting through the credits. Of course I merely made up that number, but it seems reasonable to suggest that's a close number of how many folks get up and leave before the end credits scenes of these Marvel movies.
And I am confused how in one post you say he explained it and in the response you say he doesn't need to explain it. He may as well have said, "I'm a mutant" to Logan. Seems as good an explanation as anything else he offered, nevermind that whatever his explanation is I can't for the life of me understand why he's still in a wheelchair...
And how many people could be blamed for skipping the Wolverine after the abysmal xMen Origins Wolverine, thus missing the reunion scene with Logan and Xavier?
Again, there is a really high probability the people who didn't stay for the last scene, don't care enough about why Charles is alive. Using that group of people to support your complaint is foolish. Its like using Rotten Tomatoes to support a claim a movie wasn't good. You'd be better off arguing that 30% of the fanboys don't watch post-credits & don't YouTube those scenes after they hear about them.
Yes, it was explained, but didn't need to be. Spoon feeding with each movie what lead to this moment is insulting. Again, I come back to if you cared enough for answers, then you cared enough to watch post-credits & the movies. And if you skipped The Wolverine, then you wouldn't know about the bone claws, either. Should there have been exposition about how the revived Charles met up with each of the X-Men & a now-fully powered Magneto? What about Rogue getting her powers back? Bobby growing a beard?
Why would the studio not want to entice those who haven't seen their movies to see those movies?
Didn't Avengers make the same assumption that viewers watched ech of the movies & post-credit scenes beforehand? Where were your complaints then?
Saw it yesterday. While I enjoyed it, I thought it was just ok. Both X2 and first class were much better IMO. Found myself getting bored periodically and it felt really long. Which is odd with so many characters and so much going on.
Quicksilver was fun but looked goofy and was odd he was just used as a device for one scene.
Half think this should've been two movies. We would've been able to learn and care about everyone coming and going. And better answer all the questions and give the actors opportunities to shine.
I was surprised and a little disappointed by how much mystique and beast there was. Though I quite like the girl playing her, im not into the character and am tired of her (and hate her effects and her fighting). I don't much care for beasts look on film to date and the actor is really meh IMO.
Some pretty great effects and costuming and attention to period detail. The effects have really caught up to these properties.
I don't believe for a second macavoy? and Patrick Stewart are the same person.
I've seen all of the end credit scenes and I still feel it was not properly explained. While I was excited to see Logan meet Magneto and Xavier at the airport, the takeaway I got from that end credit scene was "how is Charles alive?" And that question has not been answered.
Perhaps for you, Xavier could've said anything or nothing, you don't appear to care as you seem prepared to accept and/or defend whatever bone they throw at the fans. I expect you'll mention he had a twin brother or something offered by the director, but that caveat was certainly NEVER defined in the theatrical releases of any of the X-Men movies, to my knowledge. That'd be like taking George Lucas's word that Greedo shot first - which is not the way I saw it.
Perhaps Singer didn't feel it was worth addressing due to it not being his picture or plan for Xavier to die, but it's canon now and I think it's lazy writing to blow it off, whatever you think of it. A quick perusal of the web shows I'm not alone in this complaint either. If you still insist that an explanation was given, do tell what that explanation was in clear terms and provide the source upon which you base your answer: What gift allowed Charles to live again, how was it accomplished and why would he be in a new duplicate body that is also crippled? I'd love to see you or anyone else awarded a "no prize" for a well thought out and workable answer, but my point is this reveals a flaw in the writing of this movie.
Otherwise, a fun popcorn flick, no doubt. Don't get me started on Kitty Pryde's magic gloves though...
You don't like it, and I understand that, but its there's. The dots are provided. Whether others need someone to hold their hands with a pen to connect the dots is on them.
If you provide the links to the other people, I'll get them the information also. Again, you don't have to like the execution, but its all in the movies.
Sorry Matt - no "No Prize". Was the comatose body his twin? Where was that revealed? Was he also a cripple? When were we told that?
Justify all you like, it's a major continuity error that was never explained.
Thank you screenrant.com for some logical observations...
How do we know he wasn't crippled? Charles stated he was brain damaged from a car accident? His face is wrapped? Whose to say he wasn't close enough to resemble Charles.
You'll never convince me thinks we're not laid out in the movies. There was not one time I questioned it as I watched all the movies. I didn't need a site to explain any logic.
Somehow we can accept a lot of thinks with a world of superpowered beings...not connecting dots with what's presented apparently is not one of them!
Honestly, I didn't go in to the movie thinking Jean or Xavier was dead last time we saw them. Because a) those movies came out forever ago, and b) who can keep track of who is alive and who isn't? Bringing people back to life for the sake of a plot point is a huge cheat in comics, and it makes you never care about someone dying. Xavier's movie death never made me sad because you pretty much know it isn't going to last. And if other things didn't follow continuity from those previous films, I didn't care about that, either. I hate when directors are handcuffed by what an inferior director did six years earlier. Let the story play out.
I never saw The Wolverine, and honestly it didn't bother me at all that a movie that came out years ago had someone dying and was back now. I just said "Oh there's Professor X!" and moved on. I doubt most people cared, I didn't even know Professor X died in X3 until reading this thread. Yes the movie left that much of a mark on me!
Honestly, I didn't go in to the movie thinking Jean or Xavier was dead last time we saw them. Because a) those movies came out forever ago, and b) who can keep track of who is alive and who isn't? Bringing people back to life for the sake of a plot point is a huge cheat in comics, and it makes you never care about someone dying.
I never saw The Wolverine, and honestly it didn't bother me at all that a movie that came out years ago had someone dying and was back now. I just said "Oh there's Professor X!" and moved on. I doubt most people cared, I didn't even know Professor X died in X3 until reading this thread. Yes the movie left that much of a mark on me!
I never said I didn't enjoy the movie, but these responses seem to be overwhelming proof that watching the X-films in the order they came out (X-Men 1.5, X2: X-Men United, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men:Last Stand, X-Men: First Class, The Wolverine...) on home video just prior to seeing DoFP is probably not a good idea for continuity nitpickers such as myself... I hereby relinquish my monopoly of this thread so that those that do not wish to point out the blatant continuity errors can discuss the finer points of the film.
Honestly, I didn't go in to the movie thinking Jean or Xavier was dead last time we saw them. Because a) those movies came out forever ago, and b) who can keep track of who is alive and who isn't? Bringing people back to life for the sake of a plot point is a huge cheat in comics, and it makes you never care about someone dying.
I never saw The Wolverine, and honestly it didn't bother me at all that a movie that came out years ago had someone dying and was back now. I just said "Oh there's Professor X!" and moved on. I doubt most people cared, I didn't even know Professor X died in X3 until reading this thread. Yes the movie left that much of a mark on me!
I never said I didn't enjoy the movie, but these responses seem to be overwhelming proof that watching the X-films in the order they came out (X-Men 1.5, X2: X-Men United, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men:Last Stand, X-Men: First Class, The Wolverine...) on home video just prior to seeing DoFP is probably not a good idea for continuity nitpickers such as myself... I hereby relinquish my monopoly of this thread so that those that do not wish to point out the blatant continuity errors can discuss the finer points of the film.
I don't know. I'm not insane about continuity, but it does matter to me. When First Class came out and it had glaring continuity problems with the others, it made me wildly unhappy. But, for me, DOFP kinda smoothed them over.
I don't know. I'm not insane about continuity, but it does matter to me. When First Class came out and it had glaring continuity problems with the others, it made me wildly unhappy. But, for me, DOFP kinda smoothed them over.
The prof x issue bugs me too but there was enough foundation laid that I didn't neeeed more. Be nice, but...
Can someone elaborate for me the argument over Logan's claws? Why are people complaining his claws are metal here? Obviously I'm forgetting something... Were they not still metal at the end of wolverine? I only saw it once.
Comments
I have been a fan of Peter Dinklage since I saw him in The Station Agent. I got to see him onstage at the Public as Richard III (the production was a mess, but he was excellent). And, of course, he has been kicking ass in Game of Thrones for years.
I loved not only that he was a solid baddie in this, but also that at no point was his stature referenced (that I can remember). It wasn't like he hated mutants because he was, himself, born with some sort of congenital condition that DIDN'T let him shoot laser beams or fly or anything like that. No one had some throwaway insult about his height or shape of his body (that I can remember). He was simply the actor for the role because of the ACTOR he is, know what I mean? I really appreciated that.
Also, speaking of acting, watching the 'First Class' cast juxtaposed with (and, in the case of McAvoy and Stewart, face to face with) the X1-3 cast, I have to admit that the First Class generation are more my kinds of actors. I won't say "better", because acting is not so easily quantitative. But, as much as I love Sir Ian and Sir Patrick, there is something about actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence that just feel, to me, like they are more grounded and going for it. They just feel more 'in it' to me, whereas some of the actors from the early films (Stewart, and particularly Berry, to a lesser extent McKellan) seem a little more aloof. A little more grand and outside of what is going on. Might just be me.
I will agree that no one in the original casts outside of Jackman really throw themselves into the roles.
EDIT- To be clear, I think you could read that motivation into him. But I like that they didn't make a point of it. Allowing you to also choose that Trask has the same reason to fear, distrust, or want to exploit mutants as Stryker- played by a more 'leading man' looking normative actor. I like that, but not making a point of Dinklage the actor's body, it left things more up to our interpretation as an audience vs. 'We cast him to make it about THIS'.
It was awesome.
They had so little faith in the character that they made Magneto the main bad guy by the end of the film.
M
Peter Dinklage as Bolivar Trask:
A military scientist and the head of Trask Industries who created a range of robots called Sentinels whose purpose is to hunt and destroy mutants.[39] Dinklage stated that Trask "sees what he’s doing as a good thing — [his ambition is] definitely blind and he’s quite arrogant. He’s strove all his life for a certain respect and attention." He also stated that Trask is up against Richard Nixon.[40]
M
And I don't think it was even as simple a Magneto being the big bad at the end because the other villains weren't interesting enough.
Remember- the real antagonist, the main threat, throughout was whether or not the dystopian future we see will come to pass. Will Mystique and Magneto be able to restrain themselves, or be stopped, before they play a part in convincing the public that those Sentinels are needed? Given that the plot was about avoiding the future, and was sure to be played out as a conflict within the mutants (which is to say, the ongoing conflict of Charles Way vs. Eric's Way). The humans are always going to be on the sidelines in those stories. And that's fine. I feel like- character wise and performance wise- we got as much Trask and Stryker as the story needed.
Edit: DOFP literally exploding overseas at the box office $500 million worldwide, only $70 million more needed in US to overtake the (overly) hated The Last Stand
I thought that they were only killing mutants, people with mutant genes to pass on, & people helping mutants. There could still be people who have none of the 3.
I'm sure at some point, probably after they began targeting people with dormant mutant genes, that the Sentinels evolved past taking commands from humans.
M
And if nitpicking geeks like us didn't like how it was handled, how confusing could it be for the 90% odd percent of people that don't wait around to watch both movies' after credits scenes? How many people seeig DoFP didn't wait until the end of The Wolverine and X3?
I submit that it could've been handled in a much more adept and satisfying way, especially for those that may not have seen both after credits scenes including one really odd one from a movie that came out 8 years ago.
When Thor mentioned Selvig was 'a friend' in Avengers, what did he mean?!
What about Stark stating he wasn't qualified for the Avengers?
At what point does there need to be filler dialogue to explain for those who 'came in late' or left early?
Even without the line, seeing the ending scene in X3 is enough to realize what happened. In all these years if the people who really care didn't know, that's on them. I will argue to the day of my death the majority of people complaining are a handful of fanboys. I have yet to hear or read anywhere the average moviegoer cared how he returned. Wouldn't that be a point made in a movie review?
You don't have to like it, BUT its all there for those who care enough; which I heavily doubt is "90 odd percent".
M
And I am confused how in one post you say he explained it and in the response you say he doesn't need to explain it. He may as well have said, "I'm a mutant" to Logan. Seems as good an explanation as anything else he offered, nevermind that whatever his explanation is I can't for the life of me understand why he's still in a wheelchair...
And how many people could be blamed for skipping the Wolverine after the abysmal xMen Origins Wolverine, thus missing the reunion scene with Logan and Xavier?
Sometimes the less that's said is better. They could have gone into a much deeper explanation about how Xavier made it back, or how Wolverine got Adamantium put back on his claws, or how Kitty Pryde's new powers work.
But for some, these explanations themselves would need to be parsed and examined. Better to keep it simple. Yes Xavier is back, yes, somehow in the intervening years between The Wolverine and DOFP, Logan got more adamantium put on his claws and Kitty Pryde's mutation has added a new wrinkle. No big deal.
Yes, it was explained, but didn't need to be. Spoon feeding with each movie what lead to this moment is insulting. Again, I come back to if you cared enough for answers, then you cared enough to watch post-credits & the movies. And if you skipped The Wolverine, then you wouldn't know about the bone claws, either. Should there have been exposition about how the revived Charles met up with each of the X-Men & a now-fully powered Magneto? What about Rogue getting her powers back? Bobby growing a beard?
Why would the studio not want to entice those who haven't seen their movies to see those movies?
Didn't Avengers make the same assumption that viewers watched ech of the movies & post-credit scenes beforehand? Where were your complaints then?
M
Quicksilver was fun but looked goofy and was odd he was just used as a device for one scene.
Half think this should've been two movies. We would've been able to learn and care about everyone coming and going. And better answer all the questions and give the actors opportunities to shine.
I was surprised and a little disappointed by how much mystique and beast there was. Though I quite like the girl playing her, im not into the character and am tired of her (and hate her effects and her fighting). I don't much care for beasts look on film to date and the actor is really meh IMO.
Some pretty great effects and costuming and attention to period detail. The effects have really caught up to these properties.
I don't believe for a second macavoy? and Patrick Stewart are the same person.
Really it just felt like I'd seen it before.
Perhaps for you, Xavier could've said anything or nothing, you don't appear to care as you seem prepared to accept and/or defend whatever bone they throw at the fans. I expect you'll mention he had a twin brother or something offered by the director, but that caveat was certainly NEVER defined in the theatrical releases of any of the X-Men movies, to my knowledge. That'd be like taking George Lucas's word that Greedo shot first - which is not the way I saw it.
Perhaps Singer didn't feel it was worth addressing due to it not being his picture or plan for Xavier to die, but it's canon now and I think it's lazy writing to blow it off, whatever you think of it. A quick perusal of the web shows I'm not alone in this complaint either. If you still insist that an explanation was given, do tell what that explanation was in clear terms and provide the source upon which you base your answer: What gift allowed Charles to live again, how was it accomplished and why would he be in a new duplicate body that is also crippled? I'd love to see you or anyone else awarded a "no prize" for a well thought out and workable answer, but my point is this reveals a flaw in the writing of this movie.
Otherwise, a fun popcorn flick, no doubt. Don't get me started on Kitty Pryde's magic gloves though...
My source: X3.
You don't like it, and I understand that, but its there's. The dots are provided. Whether others need someone to hold their hands with a pen to connect the dots is on them.
If you provide the links to the other people, I'll get them the information also. Again, you don't have to like the execution, but its all in the movies.
M
Justify all you like, it's a major continuity error that was never explained.
Thank you screenrant.com for some logical observations...
You'll never convince me thinks we're not laid out in the movies. There was not one time I questioned it as I watched all the movies. I didn't need a site to explain any logic.
Somehow we can accept a lot of thinks with a world of superpowered beings...not connecting dots with what's presented apparently is not one of them!
M
The "No Prize" never meant anything for me.
Can someone elaborate for me the argument over Logan's claws? Why are people complaining his claws are metal here? Obviously I'm forgetting something... Were they not still metal at the end of wolverine? I only saw it once.