# Just saw Logan (spoilers)



## Morrus (Mar 1, 2017)

And man, that movie is *dark*. I wasn't expecting puppies and rainbows, but even so. Gritty as hell. 

The little girl was excellent. No hint of annoying kid actor there. Not that she said much until the final quarter of the film.

I kinda expected Xavier to die, but not that soon. I didn't expect Wolverine to die. 

So those kids? Are they all going to be a new X Men franchise with the girl as the new Wolverine?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 2, 2017)

Nobody seen this?


----------



## Joker (Mar 2, 2017)

I saw it today. Absolutely fantastic. I enjoyed every bit of it. We are finally seeing a comic book movie with a good script.

Well done, Logan team.


----------



## ccs (Mar 3, 2017)

Excellent movie.
Actually I think it's better than the comic (Old Man Logan) that inspired it....


----------



## megamania (Mar 3, 2017)

I'll see it in a week or two.  Money and opportunity.


----------



## wicked cool (Mar 3, 2017)

do they tie the story at all to the comic? what happeneed at mansion/kid hulk & old hulk. I'm glad its his last xman movie.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 3, 2017)

I haven't read the comic. Xavier got dementia and accidentally killed the X-Men. No mention of the Avengers franchise/characters.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 3, 2017)

wicked cool said:


> do they tie the story at all to the comic? what happeneed at mansion/kid hulk & old hulk. I'm glad its his last xman movie.




Ummm....Fox doesn't own the rights to the Hulk,nor to the numerous other characters who made up the story. So,it's a loose adaptation


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 3, 2017)

I saw it last night.  I haven't assembled my thoughts well enough to express myself coherently to present an overall opinion on the movie.

I did wonder about the movie background.  I didn't catch an explanation for why no mutants in the last 25 years.  Also, it seemed that Xavier had an incedent that killed a lot of people, not necessarily mutants.  If that is what the comics say then no quibbles, except the event was a year ago in the movie, which makes an odd fit in the longer timeline.

What happens at the farmhouse is deplorable, and maybe partially attributable to Xavier and Logan.  Still thinking about that.

More after I've had more time to think.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Morrus (Mar 3, 2017)

tomBitonti said:


> I didn't catch an explanation for why no mutants in the last 25 years.




The bad guy explained that at the end in his conversation with Logan, right before Logan shot him in the face. He's been head of a program to genetically wipe out the mutant gene from the population.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 3, 2017)

Morrus said:


> The bad guy explained that at the end in his conversation with Logan, right before Logan shot him in the face. He's been head of a program to genetically wipe out the mutant gene from the population.




Ah, ok.  I caught that but didn't tie it to the timeline.

Would seem to cast Magneto in a different light.  Strange that the X-Men wouldn't notice and react.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Morrus (Mar 3, 2017)

tomBitonti said:


> Would seem to cast Magneto in a different light.  Strange that the X-Men wouldn't notice and react.




Well he wasn't killing them. Just ensuring no new ones would be born in the general population. It was Xavier who killed 'em off accidentally.


----------



## ccs (Mar 3, 2017)

tomBitonti said:


> Ah, ok.  I caught that but didn't tie it to the timeline.
> 
> Would seem to cast Magneto in a different light.  Strange that the X-Men wouldn't notice and react.
> 
> ...




I'm sure that the Xmen DID notice.  Eventually.  Logan & Charles mention the fact that there'd been no new mutants born in a long time.  It's why Charles is so excited by Laura.

But there's no "bad guy" to punch concerning a gradually declining birth rate....
The xmen don't know what causes mutant births, so why would they realize what's causing the decline?

But the eventually revealed bad guy explains how he did it.  He/they put the anti-mutant surpresant in food, water, etc.  GMO crops....  Very Monsanto conspiracy inspired.
It was a good plan!
But they had to get greedy & try to manufacture thier own version of mutants.  If they'd just stuck to the original plan & waited a few more years....


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 3, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Well he wasn't killing them. Just ensuring no new ones would be born in the general population. It was Xavier who killed 'em off accidentally.




It is effectively genocide.  A little indirect, but the result is the same.

A nit about the suppression explanation: Affecting all conceptions or development seems impossibly hard.

Also, for the X-Men to fail to figure it out seems a stretch.  They have at least two high intelligence supers.  And if it were environmental there should be correlations to look for.

Not to take away too much.  There is a lot of good stuff in the interactions between Xavier, Logan, and Laura.

One confusion: Did the name on Laura's chart match Logan?

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Morrus (Mar 3, 2017)

tomBitonti said:


> A nit about the suppression explanation: Affecting all conceptions or development seems impossibly hard.




Doesn't bother me. It's a superhero flick. It's all magic anyway! He has supervillain science.


----------



## ccs (Mar 4, 2017)

tomBitonti said:


> A nit about the suppression explanation: Affecting all conceptions or development seems impossibly hard.




Have you read a comic book?  Seen a superhero movie?  That's one of the more plausible things that might occur.... 




tomBitonti said:


> Also, for the X-Men to fail to figure it out seems a stretch.  They have at least two high intelligence supers.  And if it were environmental there should be correlations to look for.




Well, they haven't figured out what causes the mutations in the first place....





tomBitonti said:


> One confusion: Did the name on Laura's chart match Logan?




Yes, it said James Howlet in the upper right corner.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 4, 2017)

Well,just got back from seeing it myself...it was brutal..I don't think it would have worked as well as a pg-13 movie.


----------



## Janx (Mar 4, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Nobody seen this?




it wasn't released until yesterday here in the US.

I saw it last night.

They should have made X-24 be Victor Creed not a Logan-Clone.  My wife and I both almost thought it was Creed during the initial appearance until we could get a better look at him.  We'd just watched X-Men Origins and Creed had said he was going to be the one to kill Logan.

I think they could have subbed Creed in and not dramatically changed the film.  Creed's hitting the green sauce to keep up, give Creed adamantium finger claws.  Since Creed got adamantium later in life, it hasn't hit him as hard.  And like usual Creed is always siding with the bad guys.

The other change I would make is to have a cut scene at the end during the credits, of Magneto meeting the kids at the meeting point.  Very brief, but clearly a signal that he's taken on saving the Mutants.


While I would have loved to see Magneto appear and rip the adamantium out of Logan, that just wasn't in the cards.


----------



## Janx (Mar 4, 2017)

tomBitonti said:


> I saw it last night.  I haven't assembled my thoughts well enough to express myself coherently to present an overall opinion on the movie.
> 
> I did wonder about the movie background.  I didn't catch an explanation for why no mutants in the last 25 years.  Also, it seemed that Xavier had an incedent that killed a lot of people, not necessarily mutants.  If that is what the comics say then no quibbles, except the event was a year ago in the movie, which makes an odd fit in the longer timeline.




I agree, I would have set the event farther back.  5 years?  Just something to show that things declined a while back



tomBitonti said:


> What happens at the farmhouse is deplorable, and maybe partially attributable to Xavier and Logan.  Still thinking about that.




Never blame people who didn't do anything wrong for what bad men do.  That's what bad guys want.  it's not your fault the villain shot your girlfriend, no matter how hard the villain tries to put that on you.

Next part of that: Logan learned from the first solo movie that people die around him.  He wanted to leave because he had concerns.  Xavier was too naive.  Are we going to blame a 90 year old geezer with old-timers for wanting to stay with the nice family?  Or the evil murder guys, considering there's 2 different parties of bad guys showing up to do harm at the house.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Mar 4, 2017)

The movie was perfect as it was.  I wouldn't change anything about it.  There's a lot here, from aging and passing the torch to a new generation, about regret and despair, about failing to move on, an inability to connect with society, a mood of hopelessness when it comes to the poor dealing with the machinations of the powerful.  So many layers here and surprisingly deep and emotional for an action film.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 5, 2017)

Saw it today and it was grim and wonderfully done, a hard R, Wolverine at his best.  Have to say Marvel is doing a great job with these lower budget R-rated super movies.  

Got a kick from the Deadpool skit at the beginning.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 5, 2017)

wicked cool said:


> do they tie the story at all to the comic? what happeneed at mansion/kid hulk & old hulk. I'm glad its his last xman movie.




Having done some research, other than the fact that they both have the word "Logan" in the title, this has nothing to do with the comic.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 5, 2017)

Hand of Evil said:


> Got a kick from the Deadpool skit at the beginning.




Bizarrely, we didn't get that. Goodness knows why not, but I've seen it online now. Mildly funny, but it's just a comedy sketch which has been done by comedians a thousand times since the late 1970s. Pretty worn joke.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2017)

I liked it a lot. It was pretty devestating for everyone involved. I think the end of Xavier hit me hardest (as it hit Wolverine, giving his reaction at the grave.) Indeed, quite emotional story.


----------



## EmberGod (Mar 15, 2017)

I have not seen it yet but I have heard that everyone likes this film


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 17, 2017)

I've seen it twice now.

- There are no (known) plans to do anything with the mutant kids & X-23. The X-Men movies timeline is all kinds of crazy, and Logan seems to have dealt with it by ignoring it and telling the story they wanted to tell. Which I absolutely think was the right call, except for the moment when they actually put a year on things. That was unnecessary.

- Anyways, if Fox did do more with those kids, it'd be "in the future", and that'd be weird. Or they'd have to bring them back to the past, and that'd be weird. James Mangold has basically said (IMO) that they ought to just tell stories and not stress about it.

- It's unclear exactly what happened in Westchester, except that over 600 people were affected and 7 mutants died, and it involved Xavier's seizures. It seems likely that the Westchester incident was his first seizure, and he provoked complete paralysis for so long that the X-Men essentially suffocated. It's not clear why other people didn't die, unless the effect diminishes with range. It seems obvious to me, based on Logan & Xavier's reactions, that Logan didn't kill the X-Men. Charles takes all the blame for that.

- movie Logan and comic Old Man Logan both involve an old, tired Wolverine and a bunch of dead X-Men in the past. Similarities end there.

- Major props for the inclusion of the Reavers. I could actually name a few of them just from their appearance, which was pretty cool. Would've liked to have seen more tech on Pierce.

- The "no more mutants" thing was weird. We can't even get fluoride in all the water in the US, but we can eliminate mutants world-wide with food additives? Weird.

- I too thought it was (briefly) Creed towards the end. I'm not sure if that would've made for a stronger story than clone-Logan, but my hunch is it would have. Sabretooth selling out would be completely in character, and without adamantium, he'd be faster, stronger, and functionally younger. I think there would've been more emotional resonance too - but maybe it was one too many villains to introduce?Too bad. Sabretooth vs X-23 would've been beyond sweet.

- Xander Rice didn't carry much impact. Meh.

- The ending worked for me. I don't need to see the kids over the border. It's Logan's story, not theirs.


----------



## Garamal (Mar 19, 2017)

Actually I was disappointed with the last few Marvel's movies but when I saw the film Logan I thought it was the best movie in Marvel universe, for now) Hope they'll continue in the same manner and their films will be only better


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 19, 2017)

Garamal said:


> Actually I was disappointed with the last few Marvel's movies but when I saw the film Logan I thought it was the best movie in Marvel universe, for now) Hope they'll continue in the same manner and their films will be only better




Logan isn't part of the MCU, it's part of the X-Men movies put out by Fox.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 19, 2017)

trappedslider said:


> Logan isn't part of the MCU, it's part of the X-Men movies put out by Fox.




So?


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 20, 2017)

Morrus said:


> So?




So it's not in the "Marvel universe" as referred to by Garamal immediately previous. It might be the best recent movie from a Marvel property, but it's not part of the defined Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's possible the people in charge of the MCU will look at *Logan* and make a few adjustments, but their movies have been doing alright as is.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2017)

Nellisir said:


> So it's not in the "Marvel universe" as referred to by Garamal immediately previous. It might be the best recent movie from a Marvel property, but it's not part of the defined Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's possible the people in charge of the MCU will look at *Logan* and make a few adjustments, but their movies have been doing alright as is.




I _understood _it. I didn't see why it mattered to Garamal's opinion. He didn't like several recent Marvel movies. That might have been X-Men Apocalypse, it might have been Amazing Spider-Man 2, it might have been Dr Strange. Who made each film doesn't affect whether he liked it or not.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 20, 2017)

Because as a nerd/geek it's natural to be nit picky about such things....


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2017)

trappedslider said:


> Because as a nerd/geek it's natural to be nit picky about such things....




"No True Scotsman" shouldn't be used as a weapon to dismiss how somebody felt about a movie.


----------



## trappedslider (Mar 20, 2017)

Morrus said:


> "No True Scotsman" shouldn't be used as a weapon to dismiss how somebody felt about a movie.




I think you misunderstood, I wasn't invalidating his feelings about the movie. I read his statement to say that Logan was part of the MCU which it isn't. At no point did I say he was wrong for liking it above other movies. I simply said it wasn't part of the MCU as currently defined.

In fact if you would be so kind as to point where in this statement 







trappedslider said:


> Logan isn't part of the MCU, it's part of the X-Men movies put out by Fox.



 I dismissed his opinion.


Now if he meant all of the movies that are done with Marvel Properties IE characters and such by Marvel Universe than I clearly misunderstood.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 20, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I _understood _it. I didn't see why it mattered to Garamal's opinion. He didn't like several recent Marvel movies. That might have been X-Men Apocalypse, it might have been Amazing Spider-Man 2, it might have been Dr Strange. Who made each film doesn't affect whether he liked it or not.




I'll echo what trappedslider says above. I in no way am questioning or dismissing his opinion of the film in and of itself. Whether or not _Logan_ is part of the MCU is not, however, an opinion. It's not even an "alternative fact".

If someone had made this statement: _Actually I was disappointed with the last few D&D adventures but when I read the adventure *Strange Aeons*  I thought it was the best adventure in D&D universe, for now) Hope they'll continue in the same manner and their adventures will be only better._, would you consider making any clarifications?

Edit: I was tempted to use _War of the Burning Sky_ as the example but thought it might bias your response. 
Edit-Edit: Damnit man, hurry up and answer our what-if, yes-but questions!!  I'm pretty sure the fate of the internet really does depend on it...this time! For realz!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2017)

Nellisir said:


> I'll echo what trappedslider says above. I in no way am questioning or dismissing his opinion of the film in and of itself. Whether or not _Logan_ is part of the MCU is not, however, an opinion. It's not even an "alternative fact".
> 
> If someone had made this statement: _Actually I was disappointed with the last few D&D adventures but when I read the adventure *Strange Aeons*  I thought it was the best adventure in D&D universe, for now) Hope they'll continue in the same manner and their adventures will be only better._, would you consider making any clarifications?




Strange Aeons is not a D&D adventure. Logan *is* a Marvel movie. Whether it's your preferred brand of Marvel movie is not relevant to his point. "Clarifications" don't add to his point in any way - whatever studio, director, actor, or boom operator was involved - that he didn't much like some recent Marvel movies.  There's no way in hell one can argue that a Spider-Man flick is not a Marvel movie.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 20, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Strange Aeons is not a D&D adventure. Logan *is* a Marvel movie. Whether it's your preferred brand of Marvel movie is not relevant to his point. "Clarifications" don't add to his point in any way - whatever studio, director, actor, or boom operator was involved - that he didn't much like some recent Marvel movies.  There's no way in hell one can argue that a Spider-Man flick is not a Marvel movie.




The Marvel (Cinematic) Universe is a very clearly defined thing, like D&D. Logan, and all the X-Men and Deadpool movies, (and Fantastic Four), are Marvel properties but they are not "in" the Marvel universe of films and tv shows.  And I certainly can argue that all Spider-Man films released so far are not part of the Marvel universe. Again, Spider-Man is a Marvel property, but no Spider-Man film released so far has been part of the Marvel universe.

Edit: Beyond the fact that Woverine and the X-Men are Marvel properties, there's no standing to argue that Logan *is* a Marvel movie. Marvel Studios had no control over the film, and it's not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's a movie by Fox, based on a property owned by Marvel, but made without their input. Kinda like how Strange Aeons is an adventure based on a system derived from D&D and licensed from WotC, but made without their input....


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2017)

Nellisir said:


> The Marvel (Cinematic) Universe is a very clearly defined thing, like D&D. Logan, and all the X-Men and Deadpool movies, (and Fantastic Four), are Marvel properties but they are not "in" the Marvel universe of films and tv shows.  And I certainly can argue that all Spider-Man films released so far are not part of the Marvel universe. Again, Spider-Man is a Marvel property, but no Spider-Man film released so far has been part of the Marvel universe.




Spider-Man is part of *a* Marvel universe. Just not the one you've decided to talk about, for some reason. To what end are you making this distinction? He was was clearly talking about Marvel movies as a whole. Like people talk about, say, British movies, or gangster movies, or Bond movies, or Spielberg movies. All of which involve multiple studios or directors or actors or caterers. 

If I say I didn't like many recent Spielberg movies, is it really necessary to jump up and point out that some of them had a different boom operator? So Fox provides the money for some of them, and some other studio provides the money for some others. How does that affect his point in the slightest? He didn't like some recent Marvel movies, whoever did the catering.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 20, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Spider-Man is part of *a* Marvel universe. Just not the one you've decided to talk about, for some reason.



Yeah, it's a mystery why anyone would talk about the Marvel Cinematic Universe after a reference to a film in the "Marvel universe".  



> To what end are you making this distinction? He was was clearly talking about Marvel movies as a whole.



So far 2/3rds of the respondents have assumed he was talking about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is a not at all arbitrary distinction and logically related to both his topic and word choice, and 1/3rd have not. So, maybe his intent wasn't so clear as you make it out to be...or it was, but not how you took it.



> Like people talk about, say, British movies, or gangster movies, or Bond movies, or Spielberg movies.



Or superhero movies, or comic book movies. Unfortunately, he didn't say any of that. He said "best film in Marvel universe".



> All of which involve multiple studios or directors or actors or caterers. If I say I didn't like many recent Spielberg movies, is it really necessary to jump up and point out that some of them had a different boom operator? So Fox provides the money for some of them, and some other studio provides the money for some others. How does that affect his point in the slightest? He didn't like some recent Marvel movies, whoever did the catering.




Neither the caterer nor the boom operator are analogous to the studio, which provides direction and focus to the film line as a whole. There are at least three "guiding" factions in superhero movies today - Marvel, Fox, and WB. If OP wanted to conflate them under the umbrella of superhero movies that's one thing, but his phrasing and word choice suggest otherwise.

Edit: And just to be clear on my intent, I thought he should address his feedback to the appropriate parties. If he wasn't clear on the distinction, we'd briefly clarify the situation. It's exactly the same circumstance clarifying the OGL, GSL, or d20 License.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 20, 2017)

Wow, a lot of nitpicking over whether Marvel Universe or Marvel Cinematic Unvierse are the same thing and whether pointing out one or the other invalidates an opinion or not. I think it's reasonable to clarify what was meant, but it doesn't change the essence of what was said much, does it?


I took from the post he really liked the movie. I liked it, too. 

Since this a spoiler thread: 

I didn't like the Logan clone so much, but I am not sure I would have liked any other Mutant, he would have needed more time to be introduced, and that would have taken from the character stuff that actually mattered in the movie. At least the Logan clone didn't need more backstory than it got.

The scene with Wolverine at Charles "funeral" was heart-breaking. Overall the movie managed to be very emotional on top of some brutal action. 

The kid was fantastic and worked amazingly well in this trio. If they pick her up for a Kids-X-Men type movie in a similar style, I'd be fine with that, but it's also not neccessary. The movie works well on its own.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 20, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Strange Aeons is not a D&D adventure.



Pathfinder is 3.75. Folks at Paizo even wrote it on the drafts of what would become PF. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...tifacts-From-PATHFINDER-S-Development-History!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 21, 2017)

I could have sworn I clicked on the Logan movie thread, where did I end up?


----------



## cmad1977 (Mar 21, 2017)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I could have sworn I clicked on the Logan movie thread, where did I end up?




As usual nerds are the worst fans. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Istbor (Mar 22, 2017)

I liked the movie.

I feel like there was something missing from it, however, I cannot discern what exactly? 

Had a bad feeling for that family the whole time.  Thought perhaps the movie would surprise me and do the unexpected, but I was wrong.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 22, 2017)

I really liked the movie. Some major plot issues, bit I just decided not to be bothered by them

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 22, 2017)

Istbor said:


> I liked the movie.
> 
> I feel like there was something missing from it, however, I cannot discern what exactly?
> 
> Had a bad feeling for that family the whole time.  Thought perhaps the movie would surprise me and do the unexpected, but I was wrong.




I thought it was pretty good.  With that said, and putting on a critical eye :

I thought that it was a little off center.  There are compelling stories about all three of Logan, Charles and Laura, and to a lesser extent, about Pierce and Caliban.  Centering the narrative on Logan shifts the movie off of the other two important stories.

The plot has very little surprise.  The reveal of Charles actions a year previous could have been made more dramatic.

---

While thinking about the move: Does Charles find redemption? Or is his fate ultimately tragic? He remembers what he did, but it wasn't really his fault, and the cost is the lives of the family at the farmhouse. And at his moment of clarity, he is struck down by X-23.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Janx (Mar 22, 2017)

I had watched X-Men Origins the night before, so the lesson of "any farmhouse family who helps logan is gonna die" was impressed early.

it's part of why x-23 should have been Sabretooth.

It was a good wolverine movie.

I just feel a few things could have been tweaked.

Even Chuck getting shanked felt off.  So now we'll never know what the big event was, really.


Also, new thought.  What's to stop somebody from hunting down Wolvie's grave and making a sweet set of ginsu knives?


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 22, 2017)

Janx said:


> Also, new thought.  What's to stop somebody from hunting down Wolvie's grave and making a sweet set of ginsu knives?




Heh, there's an idea!  How about digging up the whole body and clearing out the organic bits?  Add in some electronics and motors (easy in Comics) and presto you could have an Adamantium Terminator ... (ahem cough Necron).

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2017)

All of the stand alone Wolverine films tried to be less of a superhero film and more of a personal film and failed. This one was successful. It wasn't the best of films, but for once we actually cared about the characters and the plot that didn't have too may plots holes. Like who build that house? How did the kids get there alone?


----------



## Istbor (Mar 23, 2017)

All the Mexican women died along the way or perhaps split off to misdirect, and these 'kids' as we have found through the movie have all been trained as weapons.  Not your typical helpless child stock.

Works enough for me.


----------



## Nalleile (Mar 23, 2017)

It's very sad that I will not see Hugh Jackman as Wolverine anymore, he played this character for 17 years, it's his favorite role, tears come on, the film turned out to be simply stunning, tough, bloody even I would say very spectacular!!


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 25, 2017)

just saw it and the movie tells a great story, with lots of bloody action and although the 'hunted plot is very by the numbers (right down to the nice folk in the farmhouse) the arcs for the three leads made it interesting, although having more on Charles incident would have been a huge bonus.

has anyone done the easter egg hunt to determined whose DNA was used for each of the mutant kids?


----------

