• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Fox Studios' WOLVERINE 3 - LOGAN starring Hugh Jackman (2017)
8 8

1,131 posts in this topic

Mangold confirmed the Yukio connection from The Wolverine leading to Logan.

James Mangold Revealed the Ending of ‘Logan’ in ‘The Wolverine’

h8SaBoA.png

tD3e4Et.png

Mangold was able to squeeze in his vision for Wolverine’s ending into The Wolverine, and Twitter user “MauriceTheChosenOne” was able to spot it. You may recall that Yukio is a mutant who has the ability to see into the future. At one point, she tells Wolverine that “I see you on your back, there’s blood everywhere. You’re holding your own heart in your hand.” There’s payoff on this within The Wolverine itself. There’s a parasite that has latched onto Logan’s heart and it’s preventing his healing factor from working. He has to carve it out, and he briefly dies, thus fulfilling Yukio’s prophecy.

That is fantastic vision!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logan: why everyone liked it is a mystery. Standard running from bad guys they keep catching us no matter how many we kill they are absolutely unafraid and kinda bored and there's always the same number of them. Throw in whining main characters and you have a dud. I don't get it. Add the standard nice family that takes em in and the bad guys get em for the suck trifecta. Screenwriters would have profited from reading any book on screenwriting, where it is explained that the passive protagonist is boring. Always reacting to threats instead of actively seeking to stop bad guys is dull. bad guys pop up-you kill a bunch and run off. Later more bad guys pop up you kill a bunch and run off. Repeating this about 5 times does not equal a movie.

Edited by kav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Kav, what you and many other have failed to see is this movie

had "heart."  Throughout  most of the movie he had no direction,

no purpose, no connection, no family. Basically a broken man,

literally breaking down in front of our eyes. In the end, he believed

in more than self, he found his heart by carrying for another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Brain said:

 

Kav, what you and many other have failed to see is this movie

had "heart."  Throughout  most of the movie he had no direction,

no purpose, no connection, no family. Basically a broken man,

literally breaking down in front of our eyes. In the end, he believed

in more than self, he found his heart by carrying for another.

I mean there seems to be a trend in hollywood to depict someone whining and claim the movie has heart.  Like manchester by the sea.  You can have heart without the whining, plenty of movies accomplish that.  No direction is a bad recipe for a protagonist according to every single book on screenwriting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, kav said:

Logan: why everyone liked it is a mystery. Standard running from bad guys they keep catching us no matter how many we kill they are absolutely unafraid and kinda bored and there's always the same number of them. Throw in whining main characters and you have a dud. I don't get it. Add the standard nice family that takes em in and the bad guys get em for the suck trifecta. Screenwriters would have profited from reading any book on screenwriting, where it is explained that the passive protagonist is boring. Always reacting to threats instead of actively seeking to stop bad guys is dull. bad guys pop up-you kill a bunch and run off. Later more bad guys pop up you kill a bunch and run off. Repeating this about 5 times does not equal a movie.

Logan was the complete opposite of a dud, so.....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Darkowl said:

Logan was the complete opposite of a dud, so.....?

Not to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you like movies about guys running from bad guys who keep catching them may I recommend 'Paycheck'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Darkowl said:

Was there anything about Logan that you did like?

That is a great question.  I'm trying to think.  The fight scenes?  They had no stakes because logan couldnt be hurt and the bad guys didn't seem to care no matter how many he killed-there was always the same number of them after all.  I did like the girl.  I liked her a lot actually.  If she had had something better to play off like the kid in Paper Moon it could have been good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Brain said:

 

Kav, what you and many other have failed to see is this movie

had "heart."  Throughout  most of the movie he had no direction,

no purpose, no connection, no family. Basically a broken man,

literally breaking down in front of our eyes. In the end, he believed

in more than self, he found his heart by carrying for another.


+1 

A great summary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2017 at 8:21 PM, Bosco685 said:

Just got back, and that movie was OUTSTANDING!

Heck...

  Hide contents

When X-23 turned the cross on Logan's grave into an 'X' some guy busted out crying.

Wait a minute. I think that was behind me.

 

hm

:blush:

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

 

:banana:Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, kav said:

I mean there seems to be a trend in hollywood to depict someone whining and claim the movie has heart.  Like manchester by the sea.  You can have heart without the whining, plenty of movies accomplish that.  No direction is a bad recipe for a protagonist according to every single book on screenwriting.

Wait, so you didn't like Manchester by the Sea for the same reason? I think the "defeated protagonist with no direction" worked in both films.

Esp. in Manchester by the Sea. For me, the apex of that film was when his ex-wife runs into him in the street and has a meltdown, saying she wants him back. And he just looks at her, essentially shrugs, says "there's nothing there" and walks off. Affleck absolutely deserved his Oscar, because so much of his performance was wordless - encoded in his facial expressions alone.

Also, the "aimless and relunctant hero thrown once again into action and redeemed by a woman" trope is basically every western ever -- or at least most of the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns. So I think it fits here, esp. with folks who say Logan's more a western than a superhero flick.

 

BTW, I'm a _huge_ Wolverine fan.

And I thought Logan was amazing, but not the *best* comic film ever.

Probably top 5, somewhere among The Dark Knight, Winter Soldier, Men in Black, Spider-Man 2, Ghost in the Shell, and History of Violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also - kudos to James Mangold - who was credited not only as director, but primary screenwriter and producer on this. I've loved him going all the way back to Heavy & Girl, Interrupted, and have seen all of his films except Cop Land.

Two questions:

1) Having not read the comics story, are we to believe this different enoough that it wasn't based on Old Man Logan after all?

Notably, I saw Mark Millar wasn't credited as one of the three writers on this film, the way he was for Civil War.

2) To the extent a mutant extinction event was alluded to (the "Westchester" thing), it was Professor X, not Logan responsible. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, kav said:

I mean there seems to be a trend in hollywood to depict someone whining and claim the movie has heart.

Logan is far from any trendy movies in Hollywood. It's not the "whining" that gives this film heart. The heart of the movie has already been discussed in this thread, but you're choosing to focus on only side of the coin. No matter though. To each their own. I am sorry that you didn't enjoy Logan as much as the general public did.

Edited by Darkowl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I used to enjoy more movies until I read all those screenwriting books.  Now stuff just pops out at me that I didn't notice before.  I often find myself watching a movie like a film teacher grading a project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gatsby771 said:

Also - kudos to James Mangold - who was credited not only as director, but primary screenwriter and producer on this. I've loved him going all the way back to Heavy & Girl, Interrupted, and have seen all of his films except Cop Land.

Two questions:

1) Having not read the comics story, are we to believe this different enoough that it wasn't based on Old Man Logan after all?

Notably, I saw Mark Millar wasn't credited as one of the three writers on this film, the way he was for Civil War.

2) To the extent a mutant extinction event was alluded to (the "Westchester" thing), it was Professor X, not Logan responsible. Right?

Spoiler

To answer question #2 first, Professor X says late in the film "...Logan I know what I did

at Westchester ..."  On #1 I believe that answer is that 'elements' were used, but not as

written in the comic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kav said:

I think I used to enjoy more movies until I read all those screenwriting books.  Now stuff just pops out at me that I didn't notice before.  I often find myself watching a movie like a film teacher grading a project.

I think you should be able to dislike or like whatever you want. I doubt anybody is going to change your mind otherwise from what I am reading of your posts.

But it goes the other way as well. There are quite a few people loving this movie. Fanatical over it. Trying to explain to them how a proper -script should be structured to make it 'movie-perfect' is most probably not going to swing their view to the negative. They go and enjoy the film, without structuring their experience the way you have done to validate this was done in the most professional filming style. Nothing is wrong with the thoughts either way.

For me, I thought it was great. And now that Mangold spilled the beans he had given an indicator of what was to come in 'The Wolverine' I appreciate this film even more. How he kept Fox from messing that short roadmap up was a gift to the fans that otherwise would have been a missed opportunity. And Fox definitely interferes like any studio second-guessing themselves. That Viper character rammed into 'The Wolverine' and the third act threw off what was otherwise a great Wolverine movie. Still good. Just not fantastic because of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kav said:

I think I used to enjoy more movies until I read all those screenwriting books.  Now stuff just pops out at me that I didn't notice before.  I often find myself watching a movie like a film teacher grading a project.

In that case, be sure to never read any books on music theory, because you'll probably end up hating your favorite bands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious - what screenplay books would you recommend?

I've read Straczynski's -- but it was published more than 15 years ago and focused primarily on his work for Murder, She Wrote and Babylon 5.

And William Goldman's two books, although the second one (Which Lie Did I Tell?) was better, if only for the hilarious chapter on Ghost and the Darkness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
8 8