Leaked Wolverine Origin Trailer Makes the Rounds

Uriah noted that the Comic Con wolverine origins trailer has been circulating in high quality camcorder form, very conveniently broken into a first and second part. Despite the terrible camera angle, the movie looks pretty good ... at least, while we wait for the Avengers.

Comments

ahhh

[nomadic]

Wolverine...the character who ruined comics in the early 90s...

Re:ahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you figure that?

Re:ahhh

[nomadic]

How do you figure that?

Because he was "cool." And Marvel figured out that all they had to do was put him on the cover of a comic book it would sell. And if you made 3 different versions of the cover, people would buy all three. So then they figured they needed more Wolverine-like characters to sell more comics, so they started making them, and they tended to suck. Then they started letting the comics artists become celebrities, at which point they started to demand their own series. And most of them couldn't write. It was kind of a chain reaction thing.

Re:ahhh

[Gizzmonic]

What about Cable? He's just as responsible. At least we won't ever see him in the movies.

Re:ahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Wolverine did not make Rob Liefield popular, that being said, how the fuck did Rob Liefield get popular?

Re:ahhh

[Chris Burke]

Eh... Wolvie had been doing his thing since the 70s. It's not like he was forgotten about until the 90s, he was already an extremely popular Marvel character.

No. Wolverine didn't ruin comics in the 90s. Comics in the 90s ruined themselves.

Re:ahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Wolverine did not make Rob Liefield popular, that being said, how the fuck did Rob Liefield get popular?

Because he made Wolverine-like characters. Characters with no tension or nuance, but they looked good posing, so that's all they did.

Re:ahhh

[somersault]

Characters with no tension or nuance, but they looked good posing, so that's all they did.

Rob Liefield created the Ginyu Force?

Re:ahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

No idea about how he got popular, but his main draw seems to be his terrible understanding of human anatomy.

Re:ahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

People were into small heads and huge calves back then.

Re:ahhh

[urbanriot]

There were some excellent comics that were out in the 90's. The problem wasn't 'comics' in general, but Marvel milking their fans with multiple #0's and #1's, metallic covers, lousy plots, awful dialogue and poor pencilling. I assume that contributed to their near bankruptcy.

Re:ahhh

[urbanriot]

If this and the tr2n link were together, it would have been news and certainly news that I'd be interested in. "Leaked trailers from Comic-Con uploaded onto the web". This is news for nerds, and comic book movies are the stuff of nerds.

Re:ahhh

[nomadic]

What about Cable? He's just as responsible. At least we won't ever see him in the movies.

You're completely right, he epitomized the problem, but I always considered him as a sort of spiritual successor to the more uninteresting aspects of wolverine's character.

Re:ahhh

[joeytmann]

Looks like Captain America is a steriod abuser to me....

Re:ahhh

[KGIII]

I have to say that I agree with you entirely. I still have boxes of the old comics from years ago, I will have to dig them out sometime and see if they're worth anything. How odd is it that your last post was +5 and the one it answers (also your post) was -1? Go figure.

Re:ahhh

[hagardtroll]

That picture is slashdotted, here is a mirror. http://i2.iofferphoto.com/img/1137657600/_i/10228270/1.jpg

Re:ahhh

[philspear]

So then it was really the comic companies, marketing types, and greed that ruined comics.

Re:ahhh

[jslater25]

I also had issue with comic's in the 90's. Seems like I would finally get into a good storyline with decent penciling and color, and then 3/4 of the way through the story one/all of the team would leave and the project would be turned over to complete imbeciles. In my opinion, that's what ruined comic's in the 90's.

Re:ahhh

[Mercano]

Isn't that his whole origin story? WWII experimental "super soldier serum" turned a gangly wimp into well-toned Nazi killing machine? (If I'm off, that

Re:ahhh

[Mercano]

Hmm. Itersting bug in /.. Hit the preview button, type some more into the textbox while the preview loads. The text won't show up in the preview, but it will in the post.dsafsdaf

Re:ahhh

[story645]

In my opinion, that's what ruined comic's in the 90's.

Can I nominate all those "issue" and soap storylines? If I wanted to read about secret love children forced into the child sex trade by getting abducted and being doped up with heroine, well I'd read bad teen lit. I want my superheros to occasionally fight bad guys, not be so caught up in their love triangles it's like "bad guy who?"

Re:ahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to you, bub, but it was the fans and the speculative market that broke comics in the 90's. Marvel, etc. were only giving the fans more of what they were buying.

The fans are the ones who put Liefield, McFarland, and all the other single-talent artists on a pedestal.

There was a lot of great work being done even during those dark times. I'm sorry that the hologram and foil covers blinded you to that.

The only thing that bothers me about that time is that adult comic book nerds who can't let go of spandex have pretty much ruined those characters for future children. I can't imagine letting a six year old read Batman or X-Men unsupervised anymore.

Re:ahhh

[shokk]

Every comics publisher was doing the foil covers with Issue 0 and deeply dark heroes.

Leaked trailers

[192939495969798999]

Gee, I wonder how all these trailers are being "leaked" all of a sudden... are management types finally clued into the power of internet buzz?

Re:Leaked trailers

[Enderandrew]

I remember in the web's infancy that if you had a fan page, you got a cease and desist, even though you clearly weren't breaking any laws. Companies attacked their fans, rather than rewarding them for adding to the hype machine and giving them free PR.

Oh, and the trailer (what I could make out of it) looks pretty damned good.

Re:Leaked trailers

[Exanon]

It would be great if it was an intentional leak and the press found out about it. When an indie artist does it I don't mind, but when a big movie studio and supporter of MPAA does it... well. You see the juicy scoop right there.

Re:Leaked trailers

[moz25]

Doubtful, or the camera angle would have been better.

Re:Leaked trailers

[gnick]

Actually, I recall watching a "leaked" copy of The Devil's Rejects (it may have been House of 1000 Corpses, but I'm 75% sure it was Rejects). It was obviously a well-placed tripod at a private screening (nice theater, small screen relative to multiplexes) - Crystal clear audio. The interesting thing was that, at the very start, there was some ass-hole with a cowboy hat blocking part of the screen. He stood up during the opening credits and walked out of the theater. I don't know for certain that it was Rob Zombie, but it sure as hell looked like him when you caught his profile.

Re:Leaked trailers

[oahazmatt]

I remember in the web's infancy that if you had a fan page, you got a cease and desist, even though you clearly weren't breaking any laws. Companies attacked their fans, rather than rewarding them for adding to the hype machine and giving them free PR.

Oh, and the trailer (what I could make out of it) looks pretty damned good.

Not all companies did that. In fact, several years ago, Marvel had a program designed to support fanfiction. There were certain qualifications regarding story content, but they decided to embrace it. (Not sure if they still do.)

Re:Leaked trailers

[somersault]

You have fallen right into their trap!

I know that they know that they will make you think you know that they didn't know about this. But you should know that they could have known and were double bluffing for know-it-alls just like you. Know what I mean? No? Meh.

Re:Leaked trailers

[moderatorrater]

Oh, and the trailer (what I could make out of it) looks pretty damned good.

From what I could see, it looks decent. There are a lot of characters from the comics making an appearance, including gambit and what looks like juggernaut. Wolverine's origin is one of the better comics that I've read, and they got Hugh Jackman back.

The things that worry me are Gavin Hood directing and how badly they messed up the last movie. From his imdb page, it looks like he's extremely inexperienced.

Re:Leaked trailers

[Enderandrew]

Tsotsi is a very good film, and that is why he got this job.

And I believe that is The Blob, not Juggernaut. I could be wrong.

Re:Leaked trailers

[joeytmann]

I really doubt that they would have gotten someone else being that the movie is produced by Hugh Jackman's two person production company.

Re:Leaked trailers

[phulegart]

Precedent proves that just because his production company is involved, it does not automatically follow that he would be onscreen. I present you with Richard Dean Anderson, Executive producer of Stargate SG1... noticeably absent but was still producing the show.

Re:Leaked trailers

[RazzleDazzle]

H: If the buzz is any indicator, that movie's gonna make some huge bank.
J: What buzz?
H: The Internet buzz.
J: What the fuck is the internet?

Re:Leaked trailers

[Jahf]

Who really cares? I'd have watched it either way. Happily.

Re:Leaked trailers

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you're confused.

Rob Zombie produced those movies.

It was obviously his private theater and he was making sport of the fact that he was allowing it to be filmed.

Dumb ass.

Re:Leaked trailers

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? If they leaked it on purpose as a marketing strategy don't you think they'd be smart enough to introduce deliberate imperfections so it looks like a genuine leak?

Re:Leaked trailers

[Cylix]

Comic Con just happened and that is where these horrible cam trailers are coming from. tr2n was probably the worst cam shot I've seen to date.

There was a Bruce Campbell q&a cam that was really bad, but the audio was at least decent. Surprisingly, he still manages to be funny even though you can tell he is really tired of hearing the same questions.

Kevin smith also has a q&a interview from I think this years comic con.

From what I read, the wolverine trailer was also at comic con. There are probably similar ones out there as well.

All good stuff, but I was surprised at the actual amount of comic related stuff I didn't hear about from comic con. (Though I admit I actually didn't look for any of it. )

Seems like it was an OK event all in all.

Re:Leaked trailers

[jjk3]

This is from Comic-Con last weekend and while I don't think it's intentionally leaked, I do think Comic-Con turns a blind eye to these things and maybe by extension the studio.

While I didn't go to the Wolverine session, I saw plenty of people with camcorders at other sessions. I found it really ironic that some guy behind me was setting up a big tripod mounted camcorder while Eddie Ibrahim (Director of Programming) was stating that filming of the content was strictly prohibited. He was sitting in the last row before an isle and was really easy to spot. He was sitting with everyone else and had a normal badge, so as far as I can tell he was just another attendee.

Con security had to have seen it, since it was even setup between talks when the house lights were on, and nothing was ever said to the guy.

Low

[clang_jangle]

Much as I dislike the whole heavy handed **AA nonsense, people who sneak camcorders into theatres are just low.

Re:Low

[Anonymous Coward]

Much as I dislike the whole heavy handed **AA nonsense,
people who sneak camcorders into theatres are just low.

They're not low. They usually sit back a bit to get a better angle.

Re:Low

[Kythe]

Yeah, because, you know, leaking this trailer onto the Internet will only hurt Fox :)

As with all things, perhaps this isn't black-and-white.

Hell, if I worked for Fox's PR department, I would have done this myself, if no one in the audience had done so.

Re:Low

[clang_jangle]

Yeah, because, you know, leaking this trailer onto the Internet will only hurt Fox :)

And of course the person who takes a camcorder to a theatre only uses it to record the trailers and help the studios, right?

Re:Low

[jellomizer]

It is more about respecting others copyrights and property rights. You many not agree with it but you should respect it, having it leaked out before hand may be a positive or negative thing but if they didn't want it out people should respect their rights to do so. By not doing so has created things like DRM etc. and attempts to fix the problems that tend to tread towards getting into our own privacy. If you don't respect others privacy and they will not respect yours. and you shouldn't hold people/and companies at a higher standard if you are not willing to follow it yourself.
I don't think Civil Disobedience would fall under this case as well IANAL but it doesn't seem to show by trying to keep the information private is against on anyone's rights, and it seems the offender is breaking the rights of the company.

There is the right to free speech but there is also the right of privacy. If you respect both then they normally don't conflict with each other.

Re:Low

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a panel at comicon, I don't see why so many people think this was a bootleging.

Re:Low

[Daryen]

If you don't respect others privacy and they will not respect yours. and you shouldn't hold people/and companies at a higher standard if you are not willing to follow it yourself.

The problem with that is that I have DRM encrusted songs because I respected their privacy and bought them online, and the pirates have DRM free songs because they didn't respect their privacy.

So it is more like: if you respect their rights than you will not have any privacy or rights, but if you do not respect their rights than you get to have your privacy, because there is no DRM spying on you, and your rights, because you can play stuff wherever you want.

Re:Low

[jellomizer]

Your logic is flawed. It is like saying I if you don't shoplift then you loose because you need to pay for the product, and if you do shop lift then you get it for free, so it is better to shop lift. Because if you do get caught shop lifting or piracy, you end up with less rights then you did before, in jail, or at best with a felon on your record, which may prevent you for getting particular jobs. Just as the honest citizen pays higher prices because of the amount of shoplifting so does legal media holders. Do you really think a company will invest millions to try to curb piracy if they figure that people will use their media legally. The problem is they got onto the market late and they are already competing with the black market, so they are trying to protect their privacy. I don't like it. But continue breaking DRM and pirating stuff doesn't make it better. It only straighten their cause.

Re:Low

[Tweenk]

So axxo-style groups who put ripped DVDs on BT trackers are morally supreme to them, even though their content is high quality and eliminates any incentive a person might have to actually go to a cinema / buy a DVD of a movie they watched as a bootleg camcorder copy?

The end result of what they're doing is largely the same, the only difference is that the DVD rippers usually at least obtain the content in a legal way (DVD purchase).

Re:Low

[melstav]

I agree.

HOWEVER: Neither this trailer nor the trailer for Tron 2 (from a day or two ago) were videotaped as part of a commercial film presentation.

Both were recorded at Comic Con -- essentially a media event. The fact that there were individuals in the audience with cameras and camcorders should have been well known and accepted.

Re:Low

[Kythe]

If you're going to accuse someone of doing something "low", you might want to have a rationale for it.

When I buy something from the local supermarket, I'm not doing it to help the supermarket. But that doesn't mean what I'm doing is "low".

You don't have to have altruistic motives in order to not be scum. In this case, I think you'd have to make the case that recording the trailer and putting it on the Internet in any way hurt Fox.

Are you going to try to do that?

Re:Low

[Kythe]

This would be about copyright, not privacy nor property ("intellectual property" is a PR phrase).

And the basis (indeed, the entire rationale) of copyright is promoting the creation of useful works.

Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.

Re:Low

[jellomizer]

However it is stolen from a Private showing, thus goes into privacy.

Re:Low

[svtdragon]

If the parent's logic is flawed, so is yours. The problem with your shoplifting analogy is that when you go to buy an item, they don't stick a GPS tracker on it in order to verify the "proper" usage of the product. In order to match your analogy with the parent's, this would have to happen. The point is that pirates get DRM-free music (shoplifters walk out with the product, sans tracker), and law-abiding customers are the ones that get saddled with the proverbial GPS tracker that invades their privacy.

Let's not even get into the support-the-artists schtick, wherein I can tell you that I go to the concerts put on by people whose music I may or may not have pirated, and that said people make FAR more money from those concerts than they would if I'd bought a number of their CDs equivalent in price to the single concert ticket. Let's support the people who make the music, and not the outdated distribution model. If not for the social protest represented by piracy (while maintaining concert sales so as to not hurt the artists) how would you propose going about altering said flawed model?

The problem with your logic about pirates strengthening the MAFIAA cause is that, well, they don't. For example, when I buy MP3s, I buy from Amazon because they sell DRM-free music. I can get DRM-free music legally or illegally, but for those companies that refuse to allow people to legally obtain music that they have purchased, and do with it what they please, the only way is piracy. And until they adopt DRM-free music downloads as their distribution mechanism of choice, the pirates will continue to eat their profits in favor of supporting the artists. Pirates weaken the infrastructure of DRMed media by making DRM-free music available when it wasn't before, and providing an alternative mechanism by which to obtain it. Until the MAFIAA recognizes said mechanism and makes music available DRM-free, pirates will continue to thrive.

Bottom line: people want DRM-free music, and it's taking a world full of pirates to show them the light.

Re:Low

[epee1221]

A shoplifter is far more likely to get caught and punished.

Re:Low

[Bent Mind]

It is like saying I if you don't shoplift then you loose because you need to pay for the product, and if you do shop lift then you get it for free, so it is better to shop lift.

Not quite like shoplifting. If it was a matter of free vs. paying for a product, I'd agree. However, with DRM, it is a question of being able to use a product you paid for.

I remember back when the phone company wanted to charge people business rates if they owned a modem. It didn't matter that the modem wasn't being used for business purposes. Very few individuals paid the business rate for phone service. Not just to be able to talk to their friends via modem. Most simply didn't report owning a modem.

I see DRM the same way. I have no problem paying for media. However, I'm not going to pay for restricted media. Luckily, media companies are starting to offer DRM-free media. Just like the phone company eventually gave up on requiring a business line for personal modem use.

Re:Low

[clang_jangle]

No, your argument is a straw man and so doesn't need refuting. Were camcorders permitted at the screening? If so, then my statement was misapplied to the situation. Otherwise, not. I thought it was obvious that my point was simply that sneaking a camcorder into a theatre is a low thing to do. That is my opinion. You've said nothing to refute that point, nor AFAICT have you even voiced an intelligible opinion on the matter (no offense). AFAICS, you're just trying to rationalize the idea of sneaking camcorders into theatres, and spewing nonsense at me for saying what I did.

Re:Low

[jellomizer]

No but a lot of products are now being implanted with RFID so it will go BEEP BEEP BEEP when you leave the building... Or if you are caught they can read the RFID tag and prove that it was you who stole it.

I was never supporting DRM or their actions I was just stating that piracy isn't the solution and because of piracy it makes it worse for the rest of us. Now with a strong effective media outlet for digital media. DRM free is more possible as there is less black market use for them. And tracking if they catch your computer they just need to check your amazon history and they know who baught what and when. There is a paper trail. And if the DRM Free stuff may still have digital watermarks in it. Thus making you the target if they find it on a P2P site.

It is not the pirates showing them the light. It is lack luster sales of products of DRM vs. non DRM that shows them the light.

Re:Low

[jellomizer]

Did you work for Enron? Morality isn't what you can getaway with it is about doing the right thing. So it is OK for cooks to spit in your food, as they can get away with it. Or not wash their hands after going to the bathroom.

Re:Low

[jellomizer]

Well for one. Most people didn't know about that regulation from the phone company, so they broke the regulation out of ignorance. Post Napster most people know what their doing isn't legal. Secondly depending on the time you were using a modem. If it was MaBell there was some government oversight going on, so if you pissed off enough citizens they will complain to congress and if it during the election year they may budge. If it was After they broke up, there was too much competition to successfully enforce the rules. Next the difference it that you are already paying for service, music piracy is more like if you tapped the line to use your modem. In general when using a modem over home voice is more of a we will not guarantee that it will work policy, if you do then you will need business class. I remember getting a bunch of disconnects from my old 2400 bps modem, because of line noise, and there was nothing I could do, if I wanted to pay the home line as the home line sounded clear. The digial media doesn't really offer a service just a product.

No morally not paying the business rates were wrong however it really wasn't like stealing services it was more like misusing the service.

Re:Low

[Anonymous Coward]

MAFIAA? really? Please, are you 12? You're no better than the idiots who use M$. Just stop.

Re:Low

[epee1221]

So it is OK for cooks to spit in your food, as they can get away with it.

No, it's wrong whether they get caught or not. Unfortunately, there's more to what happens to people than what they deserve. The guy getting the music illegally is better off than the legal buyer. The rewards and punishments that come from this situation encourage people to do things that are both illegal and immoral.

Re:Low

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this wasn't filmed in a theater, it was filmed at Comic Con in a gigantic hall full of 6,500 people, many of whom brought camcorders to record the panels, which is totally allowed. When studios show this kind of footage to that huge a crowd with that many camcorders, they KNOW it's going to leak. They'd be insane to assume it wouldn't. Yeah, you're not supposed to film the clips, but they've got to realize it's going to happen.

Re:Low

[howlingmadhowie]

we're not talking about other people here but about some really strange, politically extremely powerful companies. i do not see how i am not respecting their privacy by downloading films from bittorrent.

Re:Low

[mgblst]

It is more about respecting others copyrights and property rights.

If you really disagree with something, and think it is ruining society and letting big business control even more of our lives, should you really respect it? Should I respect people who believe in imaginary people in the sky who will listen and answer their prayers? No to both of those.

Re:Low

[jellomizer]

But companies are controlled by people. And thy are only powerful is because everyone thinks they are powerful. If you guys get off you asses and vote for all political levels not just the president. Then you will have more say then a company and their money. But the sad fact more people voted for American Idol then in the elections gives the company more power. If you (the readers) vote say just people on slashdot all vote (who are legal to do so) even if it gets an additional 10,000 - 100,000 votes that would add power to yourselfs.

Re:Low

[jellomizer]

The reason big business controls your life because you think it is trying to control you. Oh poor me. there is a company that want me to pay them to watch a movie that has cost them millions of dollars to make, and if people don't watch it they loose money from it, as well the theaters. If you want to fight the "man" then just don't buy his products, it is an option. For heavens sake it is only a Movie you can choose not to watch it. I can live quite well going off of non-DRM legal music, or free legal music, running Linux, drinking water, eating local foods, etc... without having to pander to the big companies, there is competition if you know where to look. Is it the same... No it isn't but it is a replacement. You don't like it it is fully legal to do something else.

Re:Low

[lilomar]

How would adding more votes help?

49.5% would vote for the Republicrat, 49.5% would vote for the Democan, and the other 1% would 'throw away' their vote on an Independent.

SSDD

So...

[geogob]

I guess they didn't manage to delay the cam release 38 hours. Expect box office failure... unless the movie is any good (but that doesn't count).

I wonder....

[martin_henry]

Does anyone else wonder why they chose Hugh Jackman again? Personally, I thought he was good, but not phenomenal.
Can /. think of anyone who would be better suited to the role?

Re:I wonder....

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else wonder why they chose Hugh Jackman again?

Because he's got a huge ackman...

Re:I wonder....

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else wonder why they chose Hugh Jackman again? Personally, I thought he was good, but not phenomenal.

Can /. think of anyone who would be better suited to the role?

Well the fact that he is producing it, kind makes it a shoe in.

Re:I wonder....

[betterunixthanunix]

You know, I've been meaning to try out the superhero thing for a while. I have these things growing out of my hands, and it makes my current job as a programmer exceedingly difficult...

I nominate myself!

Re:I wonder....

[Chris Burke]

If they had been working on this movie say around 15-20 years ago, I think Clint Eastwood would have been perfect.

On the other hand, the odds of a comic adaptation not sucking at that time was around 1%. Now it's up at a lofty 10-20%. So it's a trade-off. :)

Oh and they're picking Hugh for the tie-in to the X-Men trilogy. That's a no-brainer.

Re:I wonder....

[Nadaka]

Glen Danzig would make a far better wolverine physically. He is very short, and very muscular. I am not so sure about his acting talent. though.

Re:I wonder....

[Sechr Nibw]

Now starring...Cuticle Man!

Re:I wonder....

[INeededALogin]

Does anyone else wonder why they chose Hugh Jackman again?

because he is a producer of the film?

Re:I wonder....

[fireheadca]

Definitely Bob Hoskins (well with more hair).

Re:I wonder....

[The Dancing Panda]

Well no one's sure about Hugh's acting talent, either, but that didn't seem to stop him.

Re:I wonder....

[Gilmoure]

Ian Holm?

Re:I wonder....

[ShieldW0lf]

Can /. think of anyone who would be better suited to the role?

Me. My sideburns are at least 4 inches longer than Hugh Jackmans.

Funny, found out recently, when I interviewed for this position, my manager emailed the whole office to tell them that Wolverine was in the office applying for a job. I remember wondering at the time why everyone was looking my way...

Re:I wonder....

[AdamThor]

I always wanted to see The Dark Knight Returns w/ Clint Eastwood as Batman, Mick Jagger as the joker. As old as they are in that comic, however, that window is pretty much closed.

Oh well.

Re:I wonder....

[Nerdposeur]

I have these things growing out of my hands, and it makes my current job as a programmer exceedingly difficult...

Those are called "fingers." Can you wiggle them? Yes? Good. Keep practicing and they will help you enter your code via the "keyboard." Then you won't have to tap that foot pedal in Morse code to type anymore.

Re:I wonder....

[ContractualObligatio]

Not really, I thought he did extremely well in the role, and the fact it took him from relative obscurity to star overnight around the world suggests a lot of others thought so too.

Why wonder? Does it have to be any more complicated than you have a different opinion?

Re:I wonder....

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, I would love to see Glenn Danzig as Wolverine. He was actually considered for the part in the X-Men movies but had to turn it down because his band was on tour when they would have been filming the movie. Glenn is a huge Wolverine fan too, so I'm sure his heart was broken when he had to turn down the offer. :(

Here's Glenn reading a Wolverine comic! ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B28AYzD75E4

Re:I wonder....

[ZeroFactorial]

Yeah, but, if you're a slashdot reader, chances are good Hugh Jackman would kick your ass in a real fight, so I'd say he's more suited to the role.

Re:I wonder....

[ShieldW0lf]

Yeah, but, if you're a slashdot reader, chances are good Hugh Jackman would kick your ass in a real fight, so I'd say he's more suited to the role.

Whatever... his qualifications are "plays pretend well" and "takes direction well". Hardly indicative of an alpha male. I'd kick his ass.

Re:I wonder....

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the photographic proof of these extraordinary sideburns ?

Re:I wonder....

[CAIMLAS]

Probably because he was good, and because he's a known quantity, in parts.

Also, who would have been better, now that Jackman has had is face associated with Wolverine? Seriously: what actor out there even looks remotely like Wolverine?

Re:I wonder....

[Anonymous Coward]

Twenty-five years ago: Jack Nicholson. Fifteen years ago: Mel Gibson.

Re:I wonder....

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

i think i'm more qualified for the role...
my dick has sideburns.

Camcorder jammer?

[tjstork]

I know it may not sound all that "nice", but, if you could make some kind of a gismo that could detect camcorders and then jam them, and have it in a movie theater, I bet you could get stinking rich.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[wild_quinine]

I know it may not sound all that "nice", but, if you could make some kind of a gismo that could detect camcorders and then jam them, and have it in a movie theater, I bet you could get stinking rich.

The way the entertainment world works at the moment, the way to do that would be to lobby for a law that forces manufacturers to put a proprietary protection chip in every camcorder, and pass the cost onto the consumers.

It sounds like a stupid idea, because it is. But that's basically how all DRM works: force something costly and inconvenient into an otherwise working product, in a way that makes little to no sense from any practical standpoint.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[brainiac256]

IR signature detector + red laser light about 3 cm wide aimed at the lens? I shudder to think what would happen if the MPAA hooked up with the Army.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

small scale EMP that wont reach the projector? A warning about it, say it goes off every 5 mins during a showing, turn off all electronics or they are toast.

btw, that's a joke, if nobody realized from the absurd nature.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[wild_quinine]

I shudder to think what would happen if the MPAA hooked up with the Army.

Major public works would get busted down to private.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[alta]

I don't think the chip would be necessary. I'd bet you could really distort the quality of what it records by putting some light that blasts out a wavelength just outside of what's visible to us, but the camcorder is flooded by it.

This seems too easy, probably would have been done already.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[brainiac256]

Nope, camcorders are designed to record exactly what we would see if we were there--minus depth perception of course.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[betterunixthanunix]

You could, and the military has a large body of research on this (related to jamming security cameras). Part of the problem is that you need to use a laser, and people might get upset when (not if) your laser hits their eyes. An IR laser might do it, but that will still be detrimental to a person's movie viewing experience (and I don't know what a class IIIa IR laser would do to a retina anyway).

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Lobster Quadrille]

That was awesome

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[UserChrisCanter4]

It's been done, or at least proposed in several places. The CCDs in video cameras pick up IR light and display it. (That's a security camera, but video cameras work on the same principle; imagine a ring of those surrounding the screen.)

Of course, a simple filter over the lens would fix that problem instantly, which is probably why no one has bothered with IR lights in theaters as far as I know.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[RabidMoose]

This seems too easy, probably would have been done already.

Not necessarially. You know all of those "Why didn't I think of that?" moments? You just may be ahead of the curve on this one.
Infrared light should work pretty well. Point an IR remote at a camcorder sometime and press a button. I wouldn't be surprised if you could make the entire movie screen appear as a bright light to the camcorder, just by shining a nice, bright IR light at it during the movie.

Unfortunately, this "copyright protection" scheme is as easily broken as any other: Buy a cheap IR filter lense for your camera.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[internerdj]

And in two weeks it will be in all HDTV sets to plug the analog hole...

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[dargon]

Because an EMP would be so good for someone in the audience with a pacemaker

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just hire somebody to play Cyclops and pretend they're optic blasts!

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't they try this with the matrix a few years back? They put something on the screen to try and distort a cam rip.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[timbck2]

From what I know, this is exactly what they do at film festivals and such. I went to Telluride last year and they *told* us they were using technology to detect camcorders.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[MrTester]

My brother was in the military and was on some post (forget which) a few years ago. On their way out for field exercises they would drive by a heavily secure compound (multiple runs of fencing with concertina wire, a solid wall further in, guard dogs, the whole bit) and they were told it was some sort of special forces facility.
My brother took two pictures of the compound with a disposable camera. He saved the camera and got the pictures developed when he was back home on leave. Those two pictures were completely whited out, the rest of the pictures came out fine.

I dont know what or how, but they have something.
Who knows, maybe it only works on film cameras for some reason and wouldnt work on digital?

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Nullav]

Odd. I remember entertaining myself with IR LEDs just a few years ago. I couldn't see them, but they lit up quite nicely in the viewfinder.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Sethumme]

From Wikipedia:

Sufficiently powerful visible to near infrared laser radiation (400-1400 nm) will penetrate the eyeball and may cause heating of the retina, whereas exposure to laser radiation with wavelengths less than 400 nm and greater than 1400 nm are largely absorbed by the cornea and lens, leading to the development of cataracts or burn injuries.

Just because you can't see the laser doesn't mean it isn't permanently destroying parts of your body. If fact, IR lasers can be more dangerous than visible lasers, because IR lasers don't cause any blink response, so it has more time to do it's damage.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Tweenk]

For a more MAFIAA-compliant solution, legislate that every camcorder sold in the US must have a remote kill switch that is triggered in the cinema. The problem is that this system can either be hard to circumvent or hard to abuse, but not both.

If the CamKiller® system works one-way, then anyone can capture the kill signal and broadcast it elsewhere.

If it works both ways, i.e. the camera has a transmitter and requests a digitally signed confirmation after the first kill signal, and turns off only when a correct reply is received, then you can circumvent the system by wrapping the camera in tinfoil.

If the camera also turns off when it doesn't receive a reply at all (= something is blocking the communication), then we're back to the first case, as someone can still capture the first signal and fail to send any confirmations, and the cameras will still turn off.

However, the most plausible outcome is that abuse potential will not be taken into account at all, or the blocking devices will even be sold commercially to everyone - e.g. tourist attractions (so you have to buy their overpriced postcards instead of making photos / videos), privacy-hungry celebrities, government sites, bars retransmitting sports events, etc.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[m.ducharme]

In my former life selling electronics, we used the camcorders to see if the infrared on a defective tv remote was working.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[penguin_dance]

I know it may not sound all that "nice", but, if you could make some kind of a gismo that could detect camcorders and then jam them, and have it in a movie theater, I bet you could get stinking rich.

Meh! I'd rather have remotes to turn off annoyingly loud music coming from some asshole's car. And another one to jam those annoying cell calls of the person who insists on talking through any event, in the retaurant, etc. They could be given fun names like "Turn that shit off" and "Call your pimp/ho later."

You'd make serious $$$. And after awhile people might even learn to be more considerate with their music and phone calls.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Lisandro]

Of course, a simple filter over the lens would fix that problem instantly, which is probably why no one has bothered with IR lights in theaters as far as I know.

Even with IR filters, the problem is that CCDs are ridiculously sensitive to infrared light. Most devices using CCDs use some form of filtering, and even then they have problems with IR light - try pointing a remote control to a digital camera.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw chaff grenades into the theater every minute or two.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[alta]

Yup, I can confirm that one, that's where my idea came from. I thought it was cool that my camcorder could pick up light from the remotes.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[mrdoogee]

or if you are in the tinfoil crowd, perhaps they intercepted the film during the development process.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[GleeBot]

Maybe the photo lab blanked out those pictures. It's not inconceivable; there are laws and such to report child pornography and things. Maybe there's a similar arrangement for national security sites.

If there really was some gizmo, though, it sounds like they figured out a way to get the camera to overexpose the film. Easiest way to do that would be to trick the camera into thinking that it was really dark somehow. There's no reason why you couldn't work around that, though, at least with a semi-professional camera.

Alternately, maybe they beamed a ton of X-rays at you. ;)

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[ne0n]

even better: make a gizmo to FRY cell phones if/when they ring during the movie.

The successor to the phone fryer might be yet another gizmo that could detect and ZAP those turds that talk during the really good parts.

While we're wishing I'd like a pony.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[RJBeery]

Actually, wouldn't flooding the audience with infrared do it? Why don't theaters just have a few small holes in the screen emitting IR?

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I shudder to think what would happen if the MPAA hooked up with the Army.

Major public works would get busted down to private.

You can't bust an officer.

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[Nirvelli]

It could very well make you blind.
Actually, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a Class IIIa IR laser.
Because IIRC, Class IIIa means that the human blink reflex can react fast enough to the light that it won't cause serious accidental damage.
But with an IR laser, the eye won't know that it is being hit, and so it would just sit there wide open while you wonder why the movie is slowly getting dimmer.
Imagine that ad campaign: "The Last Movie You Will Ever See!"

Re:Camcorder jammer?

[betterunixthanunix]

AFAIK, the classifications of lasers refer to the power output. I believe IIIa means under 5mW...

Gambit!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time!

Re:Gambit!

[martin_henry]

Gambit was my favourite X-man!
threw those cards with kinetic energy and carried a long staff!

Re:Gambit!

[Hordeking]

Gambit was my favourite X-man! threw those cards with kinetic energy and carried a long staff!

Personally, I think a large rock would be more effective than thrown cards, as the rock has more kinetic energy than a whole deck of cards.

Hey, look at me! I'm more powerful than Gambit!

Re:Gambit!

[Tetsujin]

Gambit was my favourite X-man!
threw those cards with kinetic energy and carried a long staff!

Personally, I think a large rock would be more effective than thrown cards, as the rock has more kinetic energy than a whole deck of cards.

Hey, look at me! I'm more powerful than Gambit!

Originally he threw metal spikes - more sensible than cards for the reasons you described, and more versatile than rocks...

Seriously?

[gazbo]

A story about a leaked fucking trailer?

Re:Seriously?

[spyrochaete]

I come to Slashdot for tech news, not for a sneak peak at the TV commercials of tomorrow.

Re:Seriously?

[PlatyPaul]

Don't like it? Vote it down.

Re:Seriously?

[Daimanta]

I believe the correct wording is: bury it.

Re:Seriously?

[jgtg32a]

It can't be the commercial of tomorrow if you see it today, if it was a commercial of tomorrow and you saw it today it would be a commercial of today.

Re:Seriously?

[kaizendojo]

Just be glad it wasn't a story about a FEMA trailer.

Re:Seriously?

[camperdave]

Exactly! I'll bet there are thousands upon thousands of people with leaking trailers. Next time you're in town to get smokes and beer, get some duct tape as well, and fix the leak.

Re:Seriously?

[kestasjk]

Only if you're Ballmer

Re:Seriously?

[_Sprocket_]

A story about a leaked fucking trailer?

As the meme goes... you must be new here. Slashdot has always had some aspect of pop culture fanboyism. Anime, comics, movies... all fodder for the occasional Slashdot "article". Granted - Anime doesn't show up much anymore. And I suppose there's still some burn from the whole Star Wars thing. But I hardly find it surprising when a trailer for something as fan-frenzy-feeding as a wolverine-centric movie gains Slashdot attention. Even if it's just a leaked movie (from Comicon - as a certain Clever Nickname'd reader refered to as "geek prom").

Re:Seriously?

[oogoliegoogolie]

Dude, it's not just any trailer, it's a trailer with Wolverine!

Re:Seriously?

[Rary]

I come to Slashdot for tech news, not for a sneak peak at the TV commercials of tomorrow.

Ah, you must be looking for the second part of the Slashdor slogan: "stuff that matters".

Unfortunately, this falls under the first part, "news for nerds", which, due to the nature of what interests nerds, usually fails the second part.

Re:Seriously?

[spyrochaete]

I always thought there was an AND operator, not OR, between those two subheadings.

Re:Seriously?

[Emperor Zombie]

I'm pretty sure it's actually an XOR.

It's all about the camera angle!!!

[The Assistant]

How do the producers expect to beat out Dark Knight if they can create a good enough buzz off of leaked trailers???

You think they'd know better by now!

Not to be confused...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

This should not be confused with the Origin mini-series that explores Wolverine's childhood and reveals his real name.

Re:Not to be confused...

[moderatorrater]

There's a shot near the end of a boy that's about the age of Wolverine in the origin story.

Re:Not to be confused...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

What I meant was, despite the name, this is not that story.

Re:Not to be confused...

[phreakhead]

WTF? How is this Origin comic make sense? I thought Wolverine's claws were an experiment by the government, but the Wiki article says that the claws are part of his innate powers. That's stupid IMHO.

Re:Not to be confused...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

No. He's a mutant. He had the claws, and the regenerative ability. The experimental part was the adamantium infused into his skeleton. Everyone knows that.....

Re:Not to be confused...

[lilomar]

Dude.
Card, Now.

"leaked" tailers?

[neokushan]

I really don't understand the purpose of holding back a trailer and only showing it to a select few people. If it was unfinished or something, It'd be understandable, but these are finished already.
It's for promotional use, it's to promote the film, SURELY you want as many people as possible to see it?
Or maybe I missed something?

Re:"leaked" tailers?

[hansraj]

forbidden fruit probably?

1. Create $x
2. Make everyone think that $x is the best thing since sliced bread. (by making it secret)
3. ???
4. Profit

Redo the do

[gx5000]

I'm confused..... What happened to Alpha Flight ? Are they rewiring the storyline again ?

Re:Redo the do

[oahazmatt]

I'm confused..... What happened to Alpha Flight ? Are they rewiring the storyline again ?

Preliminary surveys indicate that Puck != Revenue.

Re:Redo the do

[mrdoogee]

Although Puck = Awesome

Re:Redo the do

[Tragedy4u]

Rewiring or rewriting? :P I believe the term is actually retcon. Regardless, Alpha Flight was kind of a B-list comic...not many people know about it. I mean they had to kill off the team leader Vindicator in like issue 12 to help bolster interest and sales so I don't blame them for not bothering with them. Also Wolvie had his first official appearance in an issue of The Incredible Hulk.

Doesn't look too great...

[biased_estimator]

I'm all into X-Men and whatnot, but so far this just looks like a bunch of violence. I hope that is not the case.

Re:Doesn't look too great...

[Grey_14]

So you want a wolverine movie... that isn't just a bunch of violence?

Do you know who wolverine is? Have you ever seen any media with the character before?

"I'm the best there is at what I do, and what I do ain't very nice."

Re:Doesn't look too great...

[abigor]

Er...I take it you've never read any Wolverine comics? Even the seminal Claremont/Miller limited series back in the '80s was ultra-violent.

Re:Doesn't look too great...

[Chris Burke]

"I'm the best there is at what I do, and what I do ain't very nice."

Uh... prank phone calls?

Insurance fraud?

Throw me a bone here...

Re:Doesn't look too great...

[Emperor Zombie]

It's a movie about a man with blades attached to his hands, and you're surprised that it's violent?

What were you expecting, topiary and hairstyling?

Re:Doesn't look too great...

[strange dynamics]

I would love to see a superhero movie that was 90% composed of the superhero using his/her powers in cool fight scenes. So many of these movies (cf. Hulk) which could have been awesome are filled with lame scenes about characters longing to be loved / whatever with a few min of cool fight scenes at the end. Based on most of the movies I have seen though, I appear to be in the minority and people like you who like romantic subplots, hero's staring at pictures of lost loves, etc., seem to be what drives the movie plots.

Re:Doesn't look too great...

[TriggerFin]

That deserves insightfully funny modding, but I've no points today.

Leaked?... yeah.. OK

[JustASlashDotGuy]

I believe this was leaked about as much as I believe that Blair Witch was a true documentary.

Having the audience clap and cheer during a freak'en trailer was just ridiculous. But hell, I'll give the marketing people props. It pulled the Slashdot crowd into it in record time.

Looks Lame

[morari]

Didn't we already have three films about Wolverine?

Re:Looks Lame

[CaptSaltyJack]

Yeah, so? We had how many films about Batman? Then, "Batman Begins" dives into Wayne's past, similarly as this movie is diving into Logan's, and is a huge hit.

Re:Looks Lame

[morari]

Except that Batman Begins was lame too. A secret society of ninjas trying to take over the world? Yeah, right. Maybe it would have fared better had they played up the psychological terror of the Scarecrow instead. It's pretty amazing that The Dark Knight came out as well as it did after what was a ridiculous restart for the film series.

Re:Looks Lame

[CaptSaltyJack]

They didn't want to take over the world, from what I remember. They basically put themselves in charge of cleansing Gotham from time to time. A noble intention, just carried out the wrong way. Seriously, did you even watch the movie?

Re:Looks Lame

[Chris Burke]

Except that Batman Begins was lame too.

Then on that basis I'm probably going to love the Wolverine movie.

Re:Looks Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Batman Begins was lame too. A secret society of ninjas trying to take over the world? Yeah, right.

They weren't trying to take over the world. Maybe you should watch the movie.

Re:Looks Lame

[morari]

Three years has apparently made the "finer" plot points murky in my mind. Really though, does it matter? That doesn't change my claim at all, given that the entire concept was hard to believe. Batman will always work better on a more personal level. Had they gone with focusing on the Scarecrow instead, I think they very well could have had a film as good as The Dark Knight.

It is kind of sad however, that Christopher Nolan will probably never be able to do anything outside of Batman now. If anything, Memento showed that he's capable of so very much.

Re:Leaked?... yeah.. OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, its not like Slashdot readers are out there having sex or something like that. So what else can they do?

Re:Leaked?... yeah.. OK

[Marc_Hawke]

It was Comic-Con, the crowd would have cheered at just about anything.

Unless they have another convention to go to, I'm not really sure they care that this was leaked...they got their 'release' already.

Infact I'm surprised it's not up already...unless they are just letting the 'grass-roots' hype spread for a while.

Meh..

[l0cust]

Intentional leak, movie trailer news on the frontpage, whatever.. I liked the trailer. Specially the second part which kicked ass. As for the other debates surrounding this "news", I don't really care frankly.

Re:Meh..

[Anonymous Coward]

I also heard there was a trailer for Tron 2, Jeff Bridges was in it. But they've put the clamp on all the sites that had the bootleged trailer

Re:Leaked?... yeah.. OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Having the audience clap and cheer during a freak'en trailer was just ridiculous. But hell, I'll give the marketing people props. It pulled the Slashdot crowd into it in record time.

Yeah, how fake. Because people at COMIC CON aren't going to be genuinely excited about a COMIC BOOK movie. Especially one about one of the most popular comic book characters ever.

Re:Leaked?... yeah.. OK

[abigor]

Yeah, that audience cheering drove me nuts - and it was so high-pitched! It sounded like an Oprah audience, except presumably it was all young men...

Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[Daswolfen]

This is what I hate generally hate about comic book movies (and this applies to all movies made from print media sources). I understand that you have to make some changes because you are dealing with years of back story and have squeeze it into 2 hours.

But that said, would it kill them to at least keep the story straight rather than add characters who had nothing to do with the Weapon X program? Blob and Gambit had NOTHING to do with the weapon x program (not even in any sort of retcon'ed timeline). Where is Maverick, Mastadon and Kestrel? They are not listed on IMDB on the cast list (but Blob, Gambit, Deadpool and gent Zero (the latter two were involved in later incarnations of the Weapon X program, not Wolverine's origin).

So maybe I am being a picky fan boy, and the movie does look awesome, but would it kill them to get it right for once?

Re:Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? I want a movie about deadpool and wolverine. Gambit rocks, so fitting him in here is good for me...

Re:Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[oahazmatt]

but would it kill them to get it right for once?

That depends on your definition of "get it right". Does that mean adhere strictly to the established origin in the comic book universe (and if so are we dealing with the 616 or Ultimate origin, here?) or creating a story that will translate to film well and appeal to a large audience who may only know of Wolverine from the preceding X-Men movies?

Re:Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wanted to read up the original story of Weapon X, I'd go buy the graphic novels. As a fan of comics and cartoons, I have no problem with re-writing the story for fan-service (and not the T&A kind) purposes just as long as it's a good take on the matter.

Re:Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, fuck the Ultimate timeline. Fury ain't no nigger.

Re:Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Movie Universe != Comic Book Universe. You dig?

It's pretty much been that way since, oh, forever. Movies based on comics is like a brand new re-telling of the story and is set in an entirely different existence from the original comic books. Kind of like how Superman and Batman had all kinds of re-creations of their stories since they first came out way-back-when.

I was never into DC comics that much, but I believe they called it "Earth 1" and "Earth 2" or something, to understand that events in one series are not connected to the other. Same goes for the movie versions. They should, however, be connected between movies.

Except Batman of course. The old series is a different universe from the new series. After all, Michael Keaton's Batman killed Jack Nicholson's Joke in the fist film.

Follow? Sometimes the movies tend to launch a new comic book universe. I think Ultimate X-Men might have had some inspiration based off the movie. But I didn't really follow that either.

Re:Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[thesandtiger]

Some stories are GREAT in comics, but would suck horribly if faithfully adapted as movies. Some characters are fantastic in comics, but likewise would suck horribly if faithfully adapted to film.

Comics are not movies; movies are not comics. "Getting it right" when adapting a comic to a film doesn't mean following the comic as gospel; it means making a film that will appeal to a very broad audience in the hopes of making big bucks while hopefully keeping true to the spirit of the books (See: Batman, Spider-Man, Iron Man) So, my suspicion is that the powers that be felt that Gambit and Blob would be more appropriate than Maverick, Mastadon and Kestrel for the purposes of making a film.

Personally, I prefer that the filmmakers not try to duplicate the comic - I've read the comics, and if I want to see them all I have to do is root around in a couple of long boxes until I find them. I want the movies to be new, different and good in their own way rather than simple retellings of old stories.

I *loved* the way that Batman and Spider-Man have been handled in their respective movies. Neither of them are entirely faithful to the comics: Batman isn't shown to be some kind of freakishly brilliant detective/inventor - he offloads that stuff to Lucius Fox; Peter Parker is smart, but he doesn't single-handedly invent technology that he could certainly patent and sell for billions of dollars - he's got organic webs. In both cases, there were plenty of people who were pissing and moaning about these issues, and yet the movies were very, very successful in both the financial and critical senses (I am pretending Spider-Man 3 didn't happen, though there were some aspects of that film that were brilliantly done that many people despise).

Re:Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Batman killed [...] Joke in the fist film.

Hay. Would like to see 'fist' film. K, thx, bye.

Re:Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[Chris Burke]

Where is Maverick, Mastadon and Kestrel?

In the dustbin of fairly lame characters where they belong?

I mean, not that The Blob is the greatest character ever, or for that matter the inexplicable inclusion of Toad in X-Men, but really I can't blame them for changing the canon. Would I rather see any of those 3 characters, or would I rather see Deadpool and Gambit? Deadpool and Gambit, please! Though you never know, maybe they'll play some bit parts.

The only character that I would be sorely saddened to see stripped from the storyline of Wolvie's origin would be Sabertooth. He's a great character in his own right, essential to Logan's psychology, and the perfect foil for his "berserker trying to maintain control and do the right thing" mentality. But apparently I don't have to worry in this regard.

Re:Why is The Blob and Gambit in this?

[joystickgenie]

I have to agree with you on the gambit part. he really doesn't belong there at all. His entire personality is at odds with being on this team. though I have no problem with deadpool being here.

Oblig

[Sechr Nibw]

Man, AC, that's such a stupid idea. Imagine the economics of that - instead of having $9 movie tickets, we'd have to foot the bill for the extra cost on that. No one would go to the theater any more, we'd save money by buying it on Blu-ray.

Gawsh.

Also, theaters could no longer have parking lots around them, because they'd be EMPing your cars!

Mixed Feelings

[sadichu]

I'm excited that a movie is coming out about Wolvie finally! BUT i wish they did the origins that goes all the way back to his childhood and him becomeing wolverine.. so full of angst and trauma.. the developement of logan as we know him. (course there would be comparisions then TDK but itd be totally worth it) This is still cool but yet they had to change the story line as Daswolfen mentioned above.. I think the problem is Marvel is getting more lax with every movie they release about sticking to the original story.. case in point, x-men 1 to 3.. they go from cool with some timeline desprepancies and wardrobe changes to complete and utter bull.. I think Hugh Jackman makes a good Wolverine and the movie does look cool, so heh i will totally go watch _in_ the theatre opening night.

Re:Public Library, check out DVDs for FREE!!

[gnick]

I'm not paying to see a movie in public, not with the assholes. I'm not paying to rent it, either.

Too many assholes at home?

Leaked, copied, or viral marketing?

[phorm]

I've been hearing a fair bit about leaked trailers, etc. I wonder if these are really "leaked" or if they're intentionally let out as a form of viral marketing...

Re:Leaked, copied, or viral marketing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw the 'leaked'trailer for tr2n. And boy have I cought the virus! woohoo!

Civil Disobedience

[bussdriver]

Just about anything can be civil disobedience; you just have to intentionally disobey and be civil (subjective.)

There is NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY, look it up. 4th and 5th are about all you get and even those are heavily undermined every so called "war on" PR stunt. The few laws you get are in regards to medical records and student grades. In addition, most those laws/amendments apply to either government or people or corporations and not all 3.

Re:Civil Disobedience

[jellomizer]

Elastic Clause on Unlawful search and seizures which was enforced by the illegal wiretapping.

Where is Jubilee?

[mitgib]

Looking at the cast I'm disappointed there is no Jubilee. She was always one of my favourites in the solo Wolverine comic.

Another goddamn comic book movie

[bonch]

Isn't anyone else sick and tired of comic book movie after comic book movie after comic book movie? If it's not a comic book movie, it's a sequel to some other film or a rare original from a studio like Pixar. This trend is going to burn itself out fast.

It's like Hollywood just shrugged its shoulders and said "fuck it" when it comes to producing original films anymore.

Re:Another goddamn comic book movie

[The End Of Days]

Or it's like you're not paying attention to the entire field and simply selecting to reinforce your biases.

It's not like the presence of one type of movie complete obliterates the other movies available to watch. The fact that something doesn't suit your taste in no way means it shouldn't exist.

Re:Another goddamn comic book movie

[Ugot2BkidNme]

Hollywood always goes through a series of certain types of movies coming out in bunches. If one can produce a hit movie in one genre then everyone wants a piece of that fan base and they start producing films in the same genre. They did it with Westerns, Cop Dramas, Gang Films, Mob Films, etc... Now they seem to be doing comic book based films.

Being a huge fan of comic books myself I find this great. I don't particularly like the adaptations they seem to be doing, but that in no way means they shouldn't be making these films.

You might as well say your tired of Porn films I mean come on are you not tired of these films? There is only so many times I can see the pool-man, delivery driver, professor, and neighbour etc... get it on with some porn starlet. I mean seriously how are you supposed to believe Randy spears is a delivery driver?

Yet I digress Hollywood sees a market for somethign so they make it. Currently it happens to be comic book movies and successful children's book series. Who knows what it will be in 2-3 years. And if you do know, you could make a lot of money.

Re:Another goddamn comic book movie

[bonch]

In the last two years, we had another Spider-man movie, another Hulk movie, another Hellboy movie, an Iron Man movie, a Batman movie, and soon a Wolverine movie. I am not selectively reinforcing my biases. Hollywood is squeezing out superhero movies like an infinite turd, and a mindless public swallows it up.

Origin Trailer

[Anonymous Coward]

Who else read that as "Leaked Wolverine Oregon Trailer" ?

Re:Origin Trailer

[Anonymous Coward]

Date: July 28, 1848

Weather: hot
Health: poor
Food: 0 pounds
Next landmark: 144 miles
Miles traveled: 202 miles

Leaked Wolverine has typhoid.

Re:Camcorder jammer? my eyes!

[irving47]

I agree it sounds like a good idea on the tech. side, but I *really* don't like the idea of staring into that much IR light for 2 hours at a time. Can you imagine if that caused damage?

Re:Camcorder jammer? my eyes!

[turtledawn]

IR is between heat and red light. You're not going to physically toast your eyes looking at few dozen IR LEDs, unless you've got them stuck up under your eyelids..

Good old blood and guts or flower power?

[sxmjmae]

Could be good. They have always tending to 'soften' wolverine down with each new incarnation of his character. At the starting comics he was a whirl wind of claws that would literally spew blood and guts of 50 ninjas all over the pages. Everything a young impressionable adolescent was eager to treat his eyes to. Imagine wolverine power of regeneration what a real person would do... wolverine did it... smoked, fought, got shot, had a good time with out a concern for his personnel safety, and to top it off he killed nasty ninjas and bad guys (all things any kid would imagine doing if he had his power). Then they 'soften' him and started to add dialogue, taking valuable blood soaked page space for a text bubble. As long the movie does not have him picking daisies with Sabretooth and calming talking things out it might actually be OK.

Comics can't keep their stories straight...

[Animaether]

Comics can't keep their stories straight... so why bother doing so for TV/Film/cartoon*/etc. adaptations - especially given the constraints of the movie format, etc.?

* though the X-Men cartoon was quite nice, I don't think one could actually call it 'canon'.

From alternative universes to timetravel to cross-overs** to introducing new characters that are -exactly- like a previously existing (and sometimes not even dead-yet) character for the sake of furthering along a particular plot.

** I'm sorry, but why would spiderman be fighting superman, exactly - and just how would superman not actually be winning this? Please. Leave each superhero in its own little 'universe' already. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, Stark.)

If you want at least a reasonably solid storyline with a beginning and an end, then comic books are one of the last places you should be looking. With Heroes being popular as it is and having a high 'X-Men'-appeal itself, I can't help but fear that it, too, will end up being dragged on and on and on.

Back on-topic.. Gambit is a hugely popular character from the comics as well as the cartoons... fans have wanted to see Gambit in the first three X-Men movies and were denied it; I'm not saying the movie studios are bending to the will of the fans, but you can't exactly blame them if they did - even if it's just because of dollarsigns in their eyes :)

Re:Comics can't keep their stories straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want at least a reasonably solid storyline with a beginning and an end, then mainstream American comic books are one of the last places you should be looking.

Fixed that for ya.

European and Asian comics tend to be quite good at providing a reasonably solid storyline with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Ditto for indy/alternative/underground comics in the U.S.

Looks incredibly bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Horrible.

I realize you're an idiot...

[D.McGuiggin]

"There is NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY, look it up. "

And just exactly where would I "look it up", seeing as there Constitution doesn't discuss what rights we have, but the restrictions placed on those rights for the purposes of governance.

I looked at the 4th and 5th, and didn't see any statement saying you DO NOT have a right to privacy, thereby making your point wrong.

In the future, if you plan to discuss "rights" make sure you understand what you're talking about.

It is tough to catch all the leaks in a trailer.

[Cur8or]

One rain spell and it is like a colander.

Come in to AMC Cinemas

[blueZ3]

See a movie and get laser eye surgery for one low price!

Huh?

[ZenDragon]

Who is the kid with the Wolverine like claws in the second part of the trailer? I thought he didn't get the claws until he was older.

Re:Huh?

[sadichu]

nah he has claws, they're all bone, he doesn't get adamantium on them until the expirements that they're supposed to cover in this upcoming movie..

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been retconned like 30 times so I can understand your confusion, but the most recent story I heard was thus:

He originally had bone claws. Since his memory was erased and the claws were *replaced* with adamantite instead of coated like the rest of his skeleton, he *thought* the claws were implanted. But when Magneto removed all the adamantite from his skeleton, when he was done healing, real bone claws had regrown in his arms. So in fact he did originally have bone claws from the very beginning, and just didn't know it because his memory had been erased a million times.

Of course, knowing how they write for wolverine, they've probably changed his story again to not have claws since I read comics back in like 2002.

Re:Huh?

[ZenDragon]

All of the comics I have read showed that the claws were implanted. The only mention of the claws ever being bone were when Magnito pulled all the adamantium out of his body. And that was during the aforementioned weird 90s comic era.

Re:Huh?

[sadichu]

hmm, in the wolverine Origin miniseries, it shows him having the bone claws as part of his mutation.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverine_(comics) look under "powers and abilities." I guess they changed their minds about wether the claws were there before or after the weapon x program..

Re:Huh?

[sadichu]

oooh heheh good explanation, they use memory loss a lot to explain all sorts of wolvie paradoxes

Re:Huh?

[TriggerFin]

Of course, knowing how they write for wolverine, they've probably changed his story again to not have claws since I read comics back in like 2002.

No, he has two kids (sort of), and both have claws, though in different configurations.

First was a clone (not of the Spiderman variety) with changes: female, two claws each arm, one claw each foot. X-23 is hanging out with the good guys somewhere.

Second was his actual son, thought (when he remembered) to have died unborn. Two claws overhand where Wolverine has three, and one more under. Daken has been trying to kill James Logan Wolverine Weapon X (maybe "ten") Howlett of late.

Anyway, bone claws. Although when he regained his adamantium, the claws became flat blades again.

looking at the numbers

[pimpimpim]

The excellent website Stupid Comics has a nice article about the sales of crappy comics compared to the sales of current comics. In absolute numbers, the crappiest of comics of those days sold up to 10 times more than any high quality comic now. I guess there was less competition in entertainment for kids. Also note how about half of the amount that was pressed was written off as "lost, not sold, or other reasons". I guess they precalculated dumping most of them into the price of the comic.

I'm gunna cut your goddam head off..... lol

[Latinhypercube]

That is the single worst line of any movie ever.

Re:Public Library, check out DVDs for FREE!!

[RJBeery]

At least one.

Obligatory...

[denzacar]

Razzle-Dazzle.

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=167

he's hot

[story645]

in that moody sort of way, (I guess, that seems to be the consensus) and therefore gets fangirls to buy tickets. I think that's the reasoning behind most of the male casting, really. Just like it is for most of the female casting. Guys are gonna go 'cause it's a comic book flick and has girls wearing barely nothing, so this is the girl's eye candy to get 'em in the seats.

Practically speaking, they stuck with him 'cause of continuity, and picked him in the first place 'cause all the actors better suited didn't want the job.

Wolverine, schmolverine...

[Channard]

.. there's only one live action superhero movie I want to see made. Marvel Zombies! Yeah, I can dream..

Bone claw explanation.

[benjin]

It later came into the timeline that he had bone claws since he was 12 but that the adamantium ones had either encased the original or were in the channels and blocked or stunted the growth of the bone ones. I like to think they were encased and sharpened not just to be pig stickers. In the early Wolverine appearances his claws were more conical and ripped/poked things instead of razor sharp. This all came up when Magneto ripped the metal from Wolverines bones in the mid 90's and for the next couple of years you got to see Wolverine sans invulnerability. I knida thought they should have just left it that way and let him just have an insane healing ability since his body wasn't constantly trying to reject 300 lbs. of metal. As a side note it looks like they are using the Ultimate X-Men timeline of events for a basis and throwing a little original lore in there to keep it dramatic. Gambit and Blob are not really part of Weapon X but it just as easily could have been them instead of Juggernaut and Rogue or Night Crawler. The woman that Wolverine is holding is most likely Silverfox who he is married to in the comics but is a Hydra agent these days. Deadpool however is a Weapon X graduate and isn't really a big stretch for the movie. Deadpool by the way is the reason the Rob Leifield became the cat's meow. Between Deadpool and Cable Leifield started a small set of characters that were bad ass but not super powered into demigods. They fought people with guns and knives because they didn't have lasers that shot out of they're eyes.

Google Video

[Anonymous Coward]

The story's links to the trailer are dead. Check it out on Google here: X Men Origins Wolverine Leaked Trailer.

Already gone....

[femur]

If you didn't see the trailer already, it's been MPAA'd.... As of 1940 Pacific, the site had to pull the vid due to a "request" by the copyright holder.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/xmen-origins-wolverine/leaked-comic-con-footage

Deadpool better talk to me..

[BitwiseX]

I just hope they incorporate Deadpool's "fourth wall" antics in the movie, even in some subtle way. In the comic books it gives his character alot of depth and turns him into a bit of comic relief. As long as they don't take it too far.. but Ryan Renoylds needs to face the camera just once to narrate a bit and i'll be satisfied.

/. worse than ever.

[slydder]

An ask slashdot piece I did regarding integrating an existing remote datacenter into and existing datacenter gets rejected and shit like this actually makes it. bout time someone did a /. nock-off.

Re:Public Library, check out DVDs for FREE!!

[Bigmell]

nice

illegal wiretapping?

[bussdriver]

Was it really illegal wiretapping?? Sure we know it was and is but they got 100% away with it-- so if something is "illegal" but nothing is done about it does is it really matter what we call it?

Plus they are still passing laws to expand it and make all that illegal legal-- changing the labeling of it so we don't even have that anymore.

Sure, the constitution might become more than just a "quaint" document again...somehow...

Despotism is firmly rooted in the USA and will most likely have to run its course.

I like Irony

[bussdriver]

"There is NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY, look it up. 4th and 5th are about all you get"

Somehow from this statement you think I was saying that the 4th and 5th were against privacy? then you call me an idiot?? Is English your 2nd/3rd language? WTF?

You get argumentative on a simple misunderstanding (on your part.) If your trying to make a point using false reasoning, I didn't see any worth noting.

Government limitations let you exercise your rights, duh. 4,5 are about all you get as far as limitations on privacy infringement "RIGHTS." Our "rights" are "self evident" its the exercise of them that is at issue and that is why law doesn't (or shouldn't) give rights that you already have but instead limits the infringement there of.

If you want to argue, then your wrong again on the constitution because it is all about government restrictions and procedures and not about the restrictions of our rights-- the restrictions put upon our rights by government are implied/deduced and not literally in there (well in most of it anyhow.)

If the future, if you plan to call somebody an idiot, make sure you understand what they wrote 1st, then make sure you are not making picky errors yourself.

PS: Your moderator is an idiot too.

I like Irony too, especially from morons like you

[D.McGuiggin]

"Somehow from this statement you think I was saying that the 4th and 5th were against privacy? "

No asshole, I was looking where YOU said to. I NEVER said YOU said anything.

"then you call me an idiot??"

And you proved me right with your reply.

"Is English your 2nd/3rd language? WTF?"

"TF", as you put it, is that YOU can't read worth a damn, that's "TF"

"You get argumentative on a simple misunderstanding "

No, actually, YOU just misread my reply (how ironic that you're too stupid to realize it's YOU who misunderstood).

"Government limitations let you exercise your rights, duh. "

NO, IMBECILE, government limitations LIMIT your rights. Is English your 2nd/3rd language, or do you not understand what "limitations" mean?

"If the future, if you plan to call somebody an idiot, make sure you understand what they wrote 1st, then make sure you are not making picky errors yourself."

Ok, You're STILL A RAGING FUCKING IDIOT.

"PS: Your moderator is an idiot too."

So you're related

Re:I like Irony too, especially from morons like y

[bussdriver]

"Government limitations let you exercise your rights, duh. "

limitations on government let you exercise your rights, duh

Perhaps this helps? you read it in the wrong context, again. literally "government limitations" not an implied "government limitations on citizens."

oh, you did quote a line of mine in your previous reply.

Re:I like Irony too, especially from morons like y

[D.McGuiggin]

"limitations on government let you exercise your rights, duh"

Listen imbecile, when you put that "duh" there, but are too stupid to realize the difference between "let you exercise" and "prevents you from exercising" you prove that you're too reatrded to discuss this with.

The "duh" you fucking idiot, is that NO ONE LET'S YOU exercise your rights. YOU ARE ALWAYS EXERCISING THEM AND LIMITATIONS ONLY PREVENT THAT NEVER ALLOW IT.

But that's reading comprehension 102, so you have a ways to go.

"Perhaps this helps? you read it in the wrong context, again. literally "government limitations" not an implied "government limitations on citizens.""

NO, asshole, YOU read my reply in the wrong context, I KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT, it's just stupid and wrong.

Now, get someone who speaks English as their first language (I'm hoping you're just English deficient and not just stupid) and have them explain to you why you're wrong.

Or, if English is your first language, sue your teachers to get your parents tax money back, it didn't do a fuck's worth of good for you.