Least surprise of all, but loved the soundtrack. And LOL at the acknowledgement at the end. Always one of my favorite aspects of any Deadpool movie

TCTTS said:

---

Honestly, not a bad idea…

The absolute best option Marvel has for a "new" Wolverine is to not recast Hugh Jackman... Just go forward with Dafne Keen.

X-23 is Wolverine in the comics, everyone loves Keen in the role already, and she's young enough to keep the whole thing rolling for decades to come.

— Alex Zalben (@azalben) July 27, 2024

---

Nah, she is fine but Logan is needed. 200 years old. Fought in dozens of wars. Weapon X. Various villains. Battle with Hulk. X23 is fine but just doesn't have the same iconic backstory or rogues gallery (Sabertooth, Deathstrike, Omega Red, Daken).

TCTTS said:

---

I don't know, it's more that I just have zero desire to go through the whole Logan story all over again. Yeah, it'll be fun to see who they cast in the new iteration and all that, but man, we've been there done that for damn near 25 YEARS now with Jackman. Weapon X... his history... having his memory erased... Striker... Sabertooth... etc, etc, etc. Y'all really want to run all that back come 2027/2028 or whenever?

---

then you focus on cyclops or someone else as the primary, and not wolverine.

X-23 has practically nothing unique or exciting about her that is relevant in the comics other than she is a clone of Wolverine.

Yes she has her own adventures, but everything about her is always a callback to something already done with Logan.

they really should start at the beginning - the OG 5 or go straight to the Claremont Run .

and it is very simple to do.

Earth got bombarded twice in a 5 year period by the most powerful burst of gamma radiation ever seen.

have that be the catalyst for awakening X genes in select teenagers.

explain the X gene as a thing that has always been there in human DNA but can be awakened in some with big bursts of radiation. Like Hiroshima, or some of the super aurora blasts in the past, or from an alien weapon millennia ago (for Apocalypse).
That way the POTENTIAL for mutants was always there through history and a few here and there get woken up (to explain some of the older mutants). But mostly focus on a young team that has only been triggered since Infinity War/Endgame.

while still allowing a Prof X and Magneto, a Wolverine etc.

C@LAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, I think this is the key. Just... don't make Wolverine the focus. He's Han Solo, not Luke Skywalker. Like you're saying, let the primary focus be on Cyclops or whoever else, and go from there.

I also love the idea of the dormant gene being awakened by some giant gamma radiation burst or whatever. The snap was the perfect opportunity, but Feige & co simply weren't ready to go there yet, so make it something else now, during/post Secret Wars.

---

snap activates the gene. does not mean the powers manifest immediately. they typically manifest during puberty, so the kids during IW/EG were zapped and are mutant power ticking time bombs.

also provides a reason to hate mutants if scared what can happen to their kids if/when powers manifest.

---

and it takes 7-10 years for all cells in the body to be replaced.

so exposure to 2018/2023 blasts would not start kicking in until 2027 or later (if you want to use an explanation like that to allow for the gene changes to develop and manifest)

But then you lose the magneto storyline (nazi) as well as the Xavier and Logan story's. It's going to be a fine balance but I don't think they can just all of a sudden have the mutant gene start activating.

Thinking about it I doubt the magneto story line would work especially with age. He would be 100 or so years old…

Yeah, it's going to have to be something else regardless. There's also talk that the new iteration of the X-Men could come from a different universe, not Earth 616. In that case, they could have a whole other alternate history. I'm not necessarily for that, as I can't stand the multiverse, but it's at least an option.

Dro07 said:

---

But then you lose the magneto storyline (nazi) as well as the Xavier and Logan story's. It's going to be a fine balance but I don't think they can just all of a sudden have the mutant gene start activating.

Thinking about it I doubt the magneto story line would work especially with age. He would be 100 or so years old…

---

i see you did not read what I wrote

explain the X gene as a thing that has always been there in human DNA but can be awakened in some with big bursts of radiation. Like Hiroshima, or some of the super aurora blasts in the past, or from an alien weapon millennia ago (for Apocalypse).

That way the POTENTIAL for mutants was always there through history and a few here and there get woken up (to explain some of the older mutants). But mostly focus on a young team that has only been triggered since Infinity War/Endgame.

while still allowing a Prof X and Magneto, a Wolverine etc.

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, it's going to have to be something else regardless. There's also talk that the new iteration of the X-Men could come from a different universe, not Earth 616. In that case, they could have a whole other alternate history. I'm not necessarily for that, as I can't stand the multiverse, but it's at least an option.

---

in the Ultimate Universe which the MCU is based on, mutants were an offshoot of the super soldier program.

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, I think this is the key. Just... don't make Wolverine the focus. He's Han Solo, not Luke Skywalker. Like you're saying, let the primary focus be on Cyclops or whoever else, and go from there.

I also love the idea of the dormant gene being awakened by some giant gamma radiation burst or whatever. The snap was the perfect opportunity, but Feige & co simply weren't ready to go there yet, so make it something else now, during/post Secret Wars.

---

Have no fear, the mutant origin will be much worse if their recent track record is any indication of the future.

Sea Speed said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I don't know, it's more that I just have zero desire to go through the whole Logan story all over again. Yeah, it'll be fun to see who they cast in the new iteration and all that, but man, we've been there done that for damn near 25 YEARS now with Jackman. Weapon X... his history... having his memory erased... Striker... Sabertooth... etc, etc, etc. Y'all really want to run all that back come 2027/2028 or whenever?

---

How many Superman's have we had and we are still getting new ones every few years. Same with spider man and Batman. I mean, you get hyped all over this board for the latest Batman and Superman. There has been ONE Wolverine. There is plenty of room to recast the character.

---

Again.... one character/actor, 25 YEARS.

There's a difference.

We've gone about as deep as we possibly can with this iteration of Logan, well into our third decade now. To then run the character back again so soon after, and tread roughly all of the same origin waters again, would be a snooze fest.

No single Batman/Superman/Spider-Man actor held the mantle for this long, we never went THIS deep on any single iteration (eight movies now), they switched up the vibes/stories pretty drastically each time, etc.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I don't know, it's more that I just have zero desire to go through the whole Logan story all over again. Yeah, it'll be fun to see who they cast in the new iteration and all that, but man, we've been there done that for damn near 25 YEARS now with Jackman. Weapon X... his history... having his memory erased... Striker... Sabertooth... etc, etc, etc. Y'all really want to run all that back come 2027/2028 or whenever?

---

I hear you on most of this. Wolverine is like Batman, Superman and Spiderman. Everybody knows and has seen the backstory. That being said, if you replaced Batman with Batgirl, you'd have people disappointed. The backstories and lore just isn't as rich.

As others have mentioned, they just need to go the X-Men 97 route. Cyclops as the lead. More development to characters like Storm, Beast, Crawler. Put Gambit in it. Have some great Logan moments but have him in the background.

---

TCTTS said:

---

No single Batman/Superman/Spider-Man actor held the mantle for this long, we never went THIS deep on any single iteration (eight movies now), they switched up the vibes/stories pretty drastically each time, etc.

---

and yet batman is as a stagnant as he has ever been. you can put lipstick on a new pig but it is still the same boring basic batman that has existed since Frank Miller rebooted him. yes you can change the vibe, but the character itself has not developed in any way.

That's going to be a hard disagree from me on that one, seeing as The Batman is genuinely one of my favorite blockbusters of all time, is finally the Fincher-esque detective iteration many of us have always wanted, and the way they're weaving the story through film and TV is fresh and new and unlike anything we've seen before. So, yeah... I don't know what you're talking about there.

C@LAg said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

That's going to be a hard disagree from me on that one, seeing as The Batman is genuinely one of my favorite blockbusters of all time, is finally the Fincher-esque detective iteration many of us have always wanted, and they way they're weaving the story through film and TV is fresh and new and unlike anything we've seen before. So, yeah... I don't know what you're talking about there.

---

the character is absolutely no different than any other iteration of batman over the last 30 years.

The character (bruce wayne or batman) has shown no development as a character or as a person, in any of the films.

Yes, the movies themselves are better. But the character, which i specifically called out, has not.

Wolverine had more development in the first X-men movie, DoFP, and :Logan than Batman has in all iterations (comic and movies) since his Frank Miller revamp.

---

Are you and I watching the same movies?

To name just one "development," Pattinson's Bruce Wayne is WAY different than Bale's Bruce Wayne. Bale's Bruce Wayne was an instantly realized playboy whom Bruce could turn on and off in a heartbeat. It was a character who came extremely easy to him. While Pattinson's Bruce Wayne is more of a hermit, Kurt Cobain-esque rock star iteration, who's clearly going to have to learn to play the playboy Bruce Wayne character, which doesn't come naturally to him at all. That's new! That's interesting! That's a distinct deviation on what has come before, and I could point to dozen other things just like it that also separate The Batman from its predecessors.

Broadly speaking, though, my only point is that each new stint from each new actor in the Batman/Superman/Spider-Man franchises A) wasn't anywhere close to as long as Jackman's, and B) was different enough from the last as to feel fresh enough in the way they explored new angles of the characters. And because of those lengths/differences, the turnover between them didn't feel like such a gargantuan efforts/tedious retreads.

Conversely, Jackman's iteration has outlasted any single Batman/Superman/Spider-Man iteration by at least twice, if not three times in some instances. And during that time - again, damn near 25 YEARS - we've explored every last facet of that character's psyche, history, etc.

So all I'm saying is that's going to make this change a lot different from all the others, in how much more ingrained and set-in-stone Jackman's iteration is, and because of that, audiences might not be as open to exploring the new iteration's psyche, history, etc, so soon after Jackman's.

That's not at all a controversial statement, and it sounds like most of us are already in agreement that the MCU X-Men should focus primary on other characters this go around, so I don't even know what it is you're arguing at this point.

The story was meh but I don't what people are expecting out of it on that end. It was fantastic and hilarious though.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The story was both flimsy and convoluted as hell at the same time. (I honestly forgot what they were even trying to accomplish for most of the second half.)

But the plot is really not what this movie was about, so I didn't worry about it much. It's basically irrelevant.

I had fun throughout, though one general complaint I have is that most of the needle-drop slo-mo killing scenes went on a little too long.

Another small complaint is this is really an MCU movie "in name only". Other than the one scene with Happy and jokes about being in the Avengers, it played zero part in the movie really. It felt kind of tacked-on. I think a lot of people assumed the portal was leading to Endgame or some other moment in the MCU. Missed opportunity IMO.

But in general, what made the movie is the meta jokes and the cameos. For me the best was Blade by far, because I love that movie and honestly didn't expect to see him. "There's only gonna be one Blade" and the iconic "ice skate uphill" line were awesome. I chuckled at the second one, and I feel like most of my theater either didn't catch it or had never seen Blade. Big cheers when he appeared on screen though.

The biggest single laugh in my theater was probably "flame on!". Somehow it didn't cross my mind it would be Johnny Storm.

Overall it's not one I'll probably rewatch a whole lot, unlike No Way Home. And there wouldn't really be much to it without the reactions of a packed theater. It's 2 hours of fan service, but if that's what you're going for, you'll have a great time.

---

Just saw it last night and I agree with all your points. I also think it needed a better villian(s) and the two they had didn't really do it for (even though I love Macfadyen). The problem with Nova is because she basically was invincible it lessens the stakes a bit.

Anyway, I still really enjoyed it and Jackman is such a force and screen presence as Wolverine I'm just thrilled I got to see him do it again and it sounds like he will be doing it until 90 lol which is great news.