TFARCHIVE FORUMS

David Benioff, best known for writing the screenplay for this year's Homeric adaptation Troy, has been hired to write the script for an upcoming film focusing on the X-Men character Wolverine, Variety reported. Hugh Jackman is likely to reprise the role of the adamantium-clawed hero, which he played in the two previous X-Men films, though he hasn't signed a deal yet.

Well if he does write it, I hope it's better than Troy was.

David Benioff, best known for writing the screenplay for this year's Homeric adaptation Troy, has been hired to write the script for an upcoming film focusing on the X-Men character Wolverine

Isn't that what the first two films were about!?

Originally posted by Ultimate Weapon
Isn't that what the first two films were about!?

Damn, beat me to it.

Seriously, though. That's one thing that's really bugged me about the X-movies. X-men is an ensemble book, and it's always at it's worst when it focuses too heavily on one character (usually Wolverine, oddly enough). I had hoped that they would manage to translate that to the big screen a little better, but, so far, it's been Wolverine!!!...and those other X-people...

Originally posted by Ultimate Weapon
Isn't that what the first two films were about!?

David Benioff writing a script? Sounds like a dull concept for a movie.

Wolverine has a decent back-catalogue of villains, and it'd be interesting to have the characer taking some time out to deal with, say, the Hand, before turning back up in the next X-Men film as if nothing had happened. Would mirror the comics well, if nothing else.

Originally posted by Ultimate Weapon
Isn't that what the first two films were about!?

My thought exactly, espcially the first one.

I don't see a problem with X-Men's history of focusing upon Wolverine. Wolverine is their deepest, most complex, and most interesting character...why not focus on him? X-Men is unique in that it is the only comic series (with the possible exception of some Justice League stuff) that boasts a wide variety of characters, many of which have significant devoted followings. That said, every series (and every movie series, for that matter) needs a central character, no matter how interesting the surrounding characters may be. Is it a problem, for example, that Colossus (a very cool character in his own right) only got 20 seconds of screentime in X-Men 2 because half the film was dedicated to Wolverine? Is it a problem that Cyclops is left out of the middle 55 minutes of the film? Is it a problem that incredibly cool but secondary characters like Bishop or Gambit haven't made it into the movies at all? I don't think so. X-Men always has been and always will be Wolverine's story, and there's no practical reason why the movies should depart from that principle.

Originally posted by Vin Ghostal
X-Men always has been and always will be Wolverine's story, and there's no practical reason why the movies should depart from that principle.

I hope you are talking about the movie and not the comic or else Brendocon might come out of hiding and you two'll go again...and we don't want him crawling out of the woodwork again, it's bad enough that you did.

Originally posted by Vin Ghostal
Wolverine is their deepest, most complex, and most interesting character...

Only when done correctly.

why not focus on him?

Because it's X-men. If they'd wanted to do a Wolverine movie, they could have, and I would not have had a problem with it. As it stands, however, they made a movie focusing on one character, with everyone else doing the occassional cameo.

X-Men is unique in that it is the only comic series (with the possible exception of some Justice League stuff) that boasts a wide variety of characters, many of which have significant devoted followings.

Exactly. Which is why I have so much of a problem with them giving so much screen time to Wolverine.

The fact is, I like Wolverine. But there are other characters that have a whole lot more to them, that would benefit from having more than a ten second cameo.

Is it a problem, for example, that Colossus (a very cool character in his own right) only got 20 seconds of screentime in X-Men 2 because half the film was dedicated to Wolverine? Is it a problem that Cyclops is left out of the middle 55 minutes of the film? Is it a problem that incredibly cool but secondary characters like Bishop or Gambit haven't made it into the movies at all?

Yes. Yes it is.

I don't think so. X-Men always has been and always will be Wolverine's story

...except for the twelve years the book existed before he was even brought in.

Originally posted by Vin Ghostal
I don't see a problem with X-Men's history of focusing upon Wolverine. Wolverine is their deepest, most complex, and most interesting character...why not focus on him?

Principally because over-exposure kills interest. If they're going to milk it, they need to at least serve up one hell of a story.

There's only one Wolverine story I haven't read I can think of I'd be curious to: Not Dead Yet. As far as a Wolvie solo flick goes, if they could work in shorts such as Madripoor Knights I'd love it. Unfortunately, I suspect they'd lose the Captain America crossover angle in the process.

And as I've just remembered we have a comics forum... *move*

im upset that iceman is a child(and a goodi goodi at that!)
im upset colossus got 20-30 second of on screen action.
and like most of you, im upset theres too much wolverine and so less of the others.the creators has exused the small casting so it would be easier to develop each charecter.and yet its all been wolverine.