Posts Tagged ‘Hugh Jackman’

6 items.

COMMENTARY FOR THE EXECUTIVES AT FOX

by Tom on May 4th, 2009
66 votes, average: 8.41 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
COMMENTARY FOR THE EXECUTIVES AT FOX
Vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics

How cheesed off am I about the producers of X-Men Origins: Wolverine giving Cyclops heat vision? It's totally infested my incentive sketch! Vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics and see how distracted I've become by this.

Before I get to far into things, I need you to know up front that this review is spoiler-heavy. "Spoiler-dependent" might be a better term for me to use. It's the only way I can justify breaking the 4th wall the way I did in today's comic.

So, for those of you who haven't seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine yet (and judging by the film's $87 million box office take this weekend, that leaves very few of you), here is my spoiler-FREE review.

As a standard action/revenge flick, X-Men Origins: Wolverine does quite well. It establishes Wolverine's past as compelling and easy to follow. Hugh Jackman continues to earn his paycheck by infusing Logan with the kind of grit usually reserved for characters played by Clint Eastwood. Liev Schreiber is also effective as Wolverine's brother Sabretooth. In fact, all the performances are pretty good. Save for Danny Huston as William Stryker, spitting lines like "What's your plan, Captain?! You can't beat him, Logan! You know you can't!" with the kind of forced emphasis that made me think more of a user car salesman than an evil scientific genius. Brian Cox did much more with much less in X2 from a few years back.

Where the movie falls down is in the details. And yesssss these are fanboy gripes. BUT! I have some very good reasons for making these complaints worth more than the average poly-bagging comic nerd. So stick with me and I'll make my case.

To whit... SPOILERS AHEAD!

As I was saying, where X-Men Origins: Wolverine is in the execution of the details. None more egregious than replacing Cyclops's signature optic blasts with heat vision of some sort.

In a scene where Sabretooth is hunting down Cyclops inside his school, the clawed mutant catches up with the mono-ocular one who performs some kind of spin move, unleashes his power and slices his school nearly in half.

After being subdued, one can see in the aftermath that where the blast cut through the walls, there is fire and burning embers.

Later, in Wolverine's confrontation with Deadpool/Weapon XI - who has been given a combination of different powers, including Cyclops's optic blasts - gives Logan an eyeful which he blocks with his adamantium claws. After Sabretooth flanks him and breaks Deadpool's deadly gaze, we see Wolverine's claws are glowing white hot.

Here's the thing. Any nerd worth his salt can tell you that Cyclops's optic blasts are not heat-based. They're not lasers. They produce concussive force.

Now, if the movies want to define Cyclops's powers differently than they do in the comics, that's fine. Certainly not everything that is cannon in print needs to be translated on screen. Nearly EVERY comic book movie takes liberties in this regard. I'm fine with there being changes if it makes sense in context and serves the overall plot.

HOWEVER! There are THREE. PREVIOUS. MOVIES. that have established Cyclops's power as intended - a concussive blast. Not heat vision. Think about Cyclops blowing the roof off the train station in the original X-Men, the showdown between him and Jean Grey in X2 or when he fired a blast into the lake in X-Men: The Last Stand. To me, it demonstrates willful ignorance on behalf of 20th Century Fox to change his powers in this way. Did they forget the audience they were dealing with?

It's very possible that I am focusing too much on this. Cyclops's appearance in the movie is a cameo. His contribution to the plot is minimal. I'm sure there are those of you who are probably more upset with what they did to Deadpool. And while I agree that it's unfortunate they chose to make Deadpool the mutant equivalent to DC's Amazo, at least those changes made sense within the context of the movie. This business with Cyclops is just plain insulting.

I mean, you'd think at some point someone would ask "Hey, did Cyclops's blast heat things up in the other movies?" Like, maybe someone working in the special effects shop. Anyone!

They probably got shut down. "We need the blasts to catch things on fire because, later in the movie, we'll use 'em to heat up Wolverine's claws and that looks really cool."

Beyond that, there were other aspects of the script that I thought were just plain lazy. Gambit felt tacked on because he's a fan-favorite, Silver Fox and Emma Frost being sisters feels about as authentic as me and Wil.I.Am being brothers and adamantium bullets to "put Wolverine down?" C'mon, guys. He's not the Wolfman.

I know there are some of you that will say that I should judge the film on its own merits. As I admitted to earlier, as an action/revenge film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine delivers.

The problem is, X-Men Origins: Wolverine isn't a standard action/revenge movie. It's not like Dirty Harry where we're meeting the character for the first time. I didn't watch a trailer for John McStabbyhands and say "Hmm! That's new! I might have to check that out!" The movie is based on characters that have existed for more than 30 years. And even if I was only a fan of the movies and not the comics, it's my affinity for and prior knowledge of these characters that is bringing me to the theater in the first place.

Like it or not, this movie is a part of a series and should abide by the "rules" established in that universe. You can't take a character who has been on screen for the last 10 years, prop up a film that says "Here is his secret origin!" and not have it line up with the other movies. To say the film should be judged on it's own merit is wrong.

I wanted to like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It certainly has its moments and was, at times, genuinely thrilling. But the film pisses away most of it's credibility over small, easily managed details. Things they should have paid attention to, but didn't. Either 20th Century Fox cares about catering to the fanboys, or they don't.

I'm not saying ANY studio should bend over backwards to meet the demands of this notoriously fickle audience. But the inclusion of so many cameos makes me think that they were trying to score points here. If that was their goal, then they should have made absolutely certain that what they were doing made sense. Otherwise, it's completely distracting if not a little insulting.

I know most of you who have seen the movie left your thoughts in the comments section of Friday's blog, but if you have anything you'd like to add, feel free.

47 Comments

FREE RABIES SHOT WITH LARGE POPCORN

by Tom on May 1st, 2009
30 votes, average: 7.40 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
FREE RABIES SHOT WITH LARGE POPCORN
Vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics

I had so much fun drawing Deadpool for Wednesday's comic, I decided to toss him in to the incentive image I have posted over at Top Web Comics. And even though I know he doesn't appear with his mask in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, I don't care. It simply looks too cool NOT to draw.

To see the incentive sketch, vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics. In case you missed the announcement from the other day, I'm including a teaser in the blog post that links to the site. So you can kind of see some of the incentive sketch peeking through.

If your planning on voting at all, today is the day to do it. Since it's May 1, the Top Web Comic counters have reset and everyone now has an equal shot of landing in the Top 10. Well, for the next few days, at least. Vote now and maybe we can take an early lead!

Now onto more serious matters...

As I am sure you are well aware, X-Men Origins: Wolverine opens in theaters today officially launching the summer blockbuster season. Reviews are starting to filter in and it's averaging pretty low scores - 37% positive at Rotten Tomatoes as of this morning. I imagine that number will move more toward the middle once everything is said and done. Most of the reviews I've read seem to agree that the performances are very good and Hugh Jackman proves why people love him so much in this role.

Interesting side note, Hugh Jackman is the first actor to play a comic book hero in four consecutive films since Christopher Reeve as Superman. Thanks, IMDB!

It appears that the downside to the film appears to be that it's overdone. Everything from the epic, century-long storyline, overabundance of mutants and lip service cameos. Jeffery Wells from Hollywood Elsewhere shared on April 28 that a " credible Australian critic... 'caught a screening... and the bad buzz is spot-on. Clunky script, unfocused plotting, cheesy special effects and terrible production values. Nearly everything looks like a set and what doesn't look like a set looks like CG'."

Personally, I think Fox always knew that it had a clunker on it's hands. How else can you explain the marketing surrounding this thing? Everything from the awkward, snicker-inducing teaser played at San Diego Comic Con last year, to reports of reshoots, to the over-abundant and hyper-localized advertising, to (probably most damaging) the leek of the nearly-completed film to the internet a few weeks before the film opened in theaters. Fox has bungled this from the word "Go."

Look at the leak in particular. On April 2, Fox head Tom Rothman claimed that the leak was an 'unfinished version,' 'a complete misrepresentation of the film' and months-old. By April 22, blogs figured out that the leaked version was the exact same running time as the final version and called Fox liars. Then, on April 29, Fox issued a statement saying they weren't liars. Rothman was giving statements based on incomplete information.

Gee, how'd they ever manage to lose that work print to the internet in the first place? They seem so organized!

I have a tiny conspiracy theorist who lives in my head. I call him George and I occasionally like to feed him theories to ponder. George is starting to wonder out loud if Fox didn't leak the film on purpose. This is not a new theory. Others have suggested it. But the more you think about it, the more it starts to make sense.

Imagine you are Tom Rothman and you have a $130 million tent-pole movie kicking off the summer blockbuster season. Early buzz is bad and your pouring untold millions into marketing it. How do you turn the tide? Leak the film to the internet. If critical response is bad and people don't come to see the film during the opening weekend, you can cry foul and claim that the leak ate into your profits.

If critical response is good and people come to the theater in droves in opening weekend, you never have to talk about the leak again. Obviously the quality of the film rose above the controversy. It's a win-win.

Steve Mason from Big Hollywood is predicting that the movie will pull in $92 million this weekend, the film is still tracking highly and the leak does not appear to have hurt Fox's bottom line.

I suppose that's why there have been no arrests or named suspects regarding the leak one full month after the crime was committed. Fox once vowed to prosecute to the full extent of the law an claimed the FBI and the MPAA had launched their own investigations. Maybe it's not that big of a priority for them.

Of course, like most conspiracy theories, it doesn't hold up very well against logic. Fox would be taking a HUGE risk by leaking the film themselves and the last thing a movie studio would want to attract is risk (especially in a down economy). Hollywood is all about what is safe and predictable. Find a formula and exploit it. Don't rock the boat.

Still, considering how badly Fox has handled their response to the leak, I wouldn't be surprised if someone ended up confirming the conspiracy theories. Stranger things have happened.

It's just hard to overlook things like alternate endings shipped to different theaters as a way to draw in the audience. It feels like a gimmick. It feels desperate and tacked on. By that logic, handing out live-animals to every tenth customer doesn't feel far off.

At this point, I would have to say my expectations for X-Men Origins: Wolverine are as low as they can possibly be. So maybe I will walk out of the theater pleasantly surprised. But what do you think? Does the conspiracy theater hold water? Has Fox bungled the marketing for this film? How do you feel about the alternate endings? Will you try to see the movie in different theaters in hopes of catching both of them, or will you wait a week for them to show up on the internet?

Leave your comments below!

19 Comments

THEY SOLVE MYSTERIES, I THINK

by Tom on April 29th, 2009
39 votes, average: 7.72 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
THEY SOLVE MYSTERIES, I THINK

Not to start things on a down note, but I have a couple of problems with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and this issue that Cami brings up in today's comic is probably the least radioactive among them.

As someone who firmly believes that too many mutants spoiled the broth on X-Men 3, it doesn't please me to see so many mutants in what is supposed to be a Wolverine origin story.

Granted, Marvel has woven our favorite sawed-off runt into some of the biggest historical events of the last 100 years and he always seems to be running into someone we know from the larger comic universe.

But I think there is potential for overkill when you try to cram all of these relationships into a two hour movie and not over the course of months or years of storytelling like they do in the comics.

Wolverine's history is complicated enough. Why complicated it further by distracting us with characters we don't care about?

I think it makes sense to include Sabretooth in Logan's past and I think it's smart to include Deadpool as well. But Gambit's just in there because they couldn't squeeze him into X-3. And The Blob? Seriously? The Blob? What does he have to do with any of this? Combine this with cameos from younger versions of Cyclops and Emma Frost and it becomes a mutated mess.

Lastly, put whoever cast Will.I.Am in this movie on the phone right now. They're fired.

Now it's very possible that these characters won't be featured prominently and their impact on the overall story will be insignificant.

But if that's the case, why is Fox cutting TV spots for nearly every last one of them?...

Was there anyone on the fence about this movie who said to themselves, "Yeah, I don't know if I want to see X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But know that I know Fred J. Dukes is in it, I HAVE to go!"

To me, it's symbolic of Fox's wasteful, over-saturated marketing strategy. Between those 8 spots, I already feel like I've already seen the whole damn movie! How about leaving something for the theater, Fox?

I could probably go on - and on Friday, it's likely that I will - but I want to leave it at that for now. By the way, if you noticed the series of 10-star graphics in the sidebar on the way down, that's the list of Top 10 comics here on the site as voted by you, the readers. I added a new ranking plugin on Monday and a few of you have been going through the archives ranking your favorite comics. Don't agree with the list? Rank a few comics of your own!

In the meantime, how are you feeling about X-Men Origins: Wolverine? Are you excited for it or do you think it has been over-hyped? Do you think anyone will even remember this movie after the reboot of Star Trek comes out next week? Does it matter so long as you get to see Hugh Jackman without his shirt on in a couple of scenes?

Leave your comments below!

31 Comments

ARRRRGGH!

by Tom on December 1st, 2008
1 votes, average: 9.00 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
ARRRRGGH!

This is not how I wanted to start the week.

Sincere apologies to those of you who have been checking the site since Friday. I didn't post a comic last week due to the fact that I was recovering somewhat from the Thanksgiving holiday but also because Henry was sick and decided to toss his cookies all over me and we were left to manage a sick child over the weekend.

Then, on Sunday night, I sit down at my computer to work on Monday's comic and, well... my scanner crapped out on me.

I guess I'm not totally surprised. I own a HP ScanJet 2200c that worked SWIMMINGLY with Windows XP but was choked to death by Vista's persnickety peripheral acceptance parameters. I was able to patch it with some advice I found online. But in examining this recent failure, learned that it wasn't a fail-safe method. The scanner would still be prone to crashes and I think that's what happened here.

So, tonight after work I will be going to Best Buy or Office Max or someplace that sells cheap scanners so I can get caught up. My friend Brandon J. Carr suggested a WACOM Cintiq as a scanner replacement. That's a tempting offer, but last I checked, I hadn't won the lottery. So it's low-tech for now. Relatively low-tech, I suppose. In the meantime, you'll have to be patient with me. I promise to have a new comic for you on Tuesday!

I suppose since I don't have a comic to blog about, I can tell you about the two movies I saw this weekend.

I went to see Transporter 3 Wednesday night and went with Cami to see Australia on Saturday night. I hadn't seen the first two Transporter movies, but there was something about the trailers for the third one that made me want to check it out. I knew it was going to be cheesy. I didn't know it was going to be so boring!

I fell asleep in this movie. That... shouldn't be happening in an action movie, should it?

I'll give credit to the stunt coordinators and to Jason Statham. I felt like they put together a few interesting sequences. But the plot was impossible to follow and they gave WAY too many lines to the girl played by Natalya Rudakova, who was impossible to understand.

That girl has so many freckles, she looks like she was shot in the face with a freckle gun.

By the way, you're going to hear me drop that zinger a lot. You'll probably hear it again if you listen to The Triple Feature tonight. Why? Because I thought it was clever when I thought of it and I'm clinging to it like a dog to a bone.

Anyway... the plot? Who cares? The action? So-so. It ends okay, but not before you can recover from the TRULY IDIOTIC sequence involving The Transporter crashing his car into a lake and resurfacing it with a bag from inside his trunk that he inflates with THE AIR FROM HIS TIRES! By that logic, shouldn't the car be able to drive across the surface of the water and not sink? Ugh.

Yeah. Don't waste your money on this one. Not even if you're in it for a cheap laugh.

As for Australia, both Cami and I had high hopes for this coming in, but we left disappointed. I guess we had hoped that Baz Luhrman had gotten things out of his system with Moulin Rouge. But the fact is, there are enough farcical elements and screwball antics in the first act, you don't trust the picture when it tries to deliver an emotional blow.
I appreciate the scope of the film. It truly is epic and serves as a great calling card for the Australia Board of Tourism. But there's no shape to the thing. It can't make up it's mind if the main story is about Nicole Kidman's character fighting evil cattle barons, her romance with Hugh Jackman's Drover or her growing affection for a half-breed Aboriginal boy played by Brandon Walter. Toss in the Japanese bombing of Darwin at the onset of World War II and you've got more than you can deal with.

Luhrman's tale is bookended with information about Australia's practice of taking half-white/half-Aboriginal children away from their families to be led into a life of servitude. The called them The Lost Generations. So, in some respect, you expect the film to be about their struggle. But their story is a fractional element of the tale, you wonder why he bothered?

I was also turned off by the main villain of the piece, Fletcher, played by David Wenham. Why is it that all of Luhrman's villains are the sniveling, mustache-twirling sort? I don't hate them because they're evil. I hate them because they are annoying and cliched.

I was also particularly annoyed by everyone's insistence on calling Hugh Jackman's character "The Drover." A drover is the Australian equivalent of a cowboy. Someone who herds animals across long distances. Jackman's character is meant to be so adept at the practice, he's simply known as "THE" Drover. That's kind of bad-ass, until Nicole Kidman's character calls him Mr. Drover and everyone else in the film shouts his name over and over again - DROVER! DROVER!

That would be like shooting an American Western and naming your lead "Cowboy." It's generic and silly.

Let's not even go into Luhrman's repeated parallels in the story to The Wizard of Oz. He keeps ramming it down our throats when then connection is tenuous at best.

Ultimately Australia did a good job of displaying the magic and enormity of the Northern Territory, but I cared very little for the stories of the people in the midst of it. It felt bloated and sloppy. I thought the movie could have ended at any number of points and I would have been satisfied. But at 2 hours and 45 minutes, it drags on and on and on. A true epic shouldn't feel like a chore. It should feel like it's presenting you a world you never want to leave. A place you want to know more about. Luhrman's vision gets you only half way there.

That does it for my blogging. Hopefully that's enough to tide you over in the absence of an actual comic. Again, apologies for the technical snafu. Let's just blame Microsoft and call it a day, huh?

Be sure to tune into The Triple Feature tonight at 9:00 PM CST over at TalkShoe.com and expect a new comic here tomorrow.

Thanks again!

  Comment

IT’S NOT A DOLL! IT’S AN ACTION FIGURE!

by Tom on May 5th, 2004
10 votes, average: 8.30 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
IT’S NOT A DOLL! IT’S AN ACTION FIGURE!

Today's comic springs from truth, to a degree. It was actually ME who was in Toys R' Us this weekend when I spotted this handsome fellow - a 12" Deluxe Van Helsing figure. Not sure what's going on with that expression. He looks a little more constipated rather than ready to vanquish evil.

Anyway, I saw this figure and I was trying to imagine who is buying them? The idea of Cami buying one for herself to swoon over was too funny to pass up. Combing its hair like a Barbie? C'mon!

If I recall correctly, Cami's not much of a Hugh Jackman fan in real life. It's understandable since her only context of the thespian is as Wolverine in the X-Men movies, which she doesn't much care for. Getting her to see Van Helsing this weekend could be tricky, but I think the lure of an "event" movie will be enough to circumnavigate any hesitation.

Is it just me, or do these "summer" blockbusters seem to be coming earlier each year? If you went by Hollywood's clock, summer starts sometime at the end of April. They must share the same timetable as the shopping malls that start celebrating Christmas in October.

That's all for now. I'm tired. Like "dark-circles-under-my-eyes-since-5:00-P.M." tired.

Later, cats.

  Comment

FLIP FLOP

by Tom on May 3rd, 2004
8 votes, average: 7.63 out of 10
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars
FLIP FLOP

I guess the problems going on over at buzzComix has yet to be resolved, but with the help of forumite JClark, we were able to work around the issue. That means you get a BRAND NEW incentive sketch when you vote for Theater Hopper at buzzComix!

The top list was reset on Saturday, so Theater Hopper is no longer in the Top 10. To help motivate you a little bit, I've added this handy dynamic graphic that tells you EXACTLY where we stand.

Since you guys went all of last week without an incentive sketch, I wanted to make today's offering extra special. So I drew a picture of a dog with my head on it. I figure it's just surreal enough to believe. Check it out!

I plan on talking about Van Helsing all this week, so buckle up. I find the film very polarizing (as illustrated in today's comic) and rich for mining comic-wise.

I think the premise is good. Take Dracula's resident monster-killer Van Helsing and put him on the tails of other Universal Studio owned creepy crawlies like Frankenstein and The Wolf Man. If it's a hit, he can go off to kill The Mummy or The Creature From The Black Lagoon! Really, the possibilities are endless.

But I cringe when I'm reminded that Stephan Sommers is the director. I know a lot of people liked The Mummy and The Mummy Returns (the first one at the VERY least), but as good as some of his shots look effect-wise, his movies lack any real creative soul. I look at all his spectacle splashed across the screen and think "HACK!" I hope Van Helsing proves me wrong. Hugh Jackman is too interesting an action hero to do him wrong.

For those of you who ordered t-shirts, I placed my order with Brunetto over the weekend. No E.T.A. on when they'll be shipped, but I would like to think by the end of the month.

For those of you who missed the first round of pre-orders, the shirt is still available for those who would like to pre-order by May 31st. At that time, I'll send out for another batch. I'm sorry that there isn't a better system for me to utilize, but I can't afford to sit on a bunch of product that may or may not sell. Pre-orders are the best way for me to produce shirts that I KNOW I'll get paid for!

More later if I think of it. Sleepy now.

  Comment