314
Hugh Jackman as The Wolverine 2000 vs 2024
(files.catbox.moe)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
314 points (98.2% liked)
movies
1800 readers
170 users here now
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not really and Jackman didn't think so too. He was cast at the last minute and couldn't bulk up sufficiently in time. His form from X2 onwards is the form he aimed for.
Yes, really. Current Wolverine looks ripped in comics too, I see now, but he used to look more strong and compact than ripped in the 80s and 90s, even in the 2000s, depending on the artist. What was clear was Wolverine's anatomy wasn't tall-slim-ripped kind of Captain America. Also, we can't know what Jackman had in mind as in how many more pounds of muscle he would have aimed for, it's useless to discuss based on that, in the end, I don't think that's a decision made by actors.
Finally, if this was Jackman in X-Men 2, that's fine, in that movie Jackman looked great as Wolverine. I didn't watch this particular movie, in the trailer Jackman looks fine, but he doesn't show more than his arms. My comment was relative to the compared pictures.