Waiting for Logan - The X-Men
or Baron Administrator Paige's Insanely Long Homage to Hugh Jackman

July 14th, 2000 never seemed so far away. For DFFQI it is a date that has already achieved a mythical status, ranked close behind May 19th, 1999 on the scale of giddy, unbridled anticipation. It is the day the X-Men feature film premieres in theaters nationwide, and it will be a day long remembered in the annals of Dairy Farmers history. At long last, after years of rumors and false hope, years of rejected scripts and axed production efforts, at last, we stand on the brink of a big budget, silver screen adaptation of the biggest selling comic book in history. And I think I speak for my fellow Dairy Farmers as well as myself when I say I couldn't be more nervous about it. Why, you ask?

Because few people are as painfully aware as the five of us of the God-killingly bad Marvel comic book film adaptations out there; films that were not just box office or audience failures but that were just insatiably bad in every aspect from the benign to the existential (check out my review of "The Trial of the Incredible Hulk" for a brief overview). Suffice to say almost every attempt at putting a Marvel comic on celluloid has resulted in either an embarrassing abortion of a film or a failure to even get production off the ground for lack of interest. It's understandable that Marvel is reluctant to proceed with yet another try at a successful adaptation, let alone of their most popular book of all time. If "The X-Men" fails as a film, it will brand Marvel with an almost unrecoverable black eye, and it will seal the fate of any other prospective super hero film out there, sort of cursing them all with the promise of failure and dooming them to die in the scripting stage. On the other hand, if "The X-Men" succeeds as a film, it will open the door for all those prospective superhero films and give birth to a new golden age of high-standard, high quality comic book adaptations that maybe, just maybe, could turn out pretty damn cool. This X-Men movie is going to determine the future of everything. So you can understand why I and the rest of DFFQI are a little edgy about this topic.

That said, I'd like to express a few of my opinions on this upcoming movie, not just for the benefit of the site, but also because I plan to write an extensive review of "The X-Men" following it's release, and I think it would be illuminating to compare my pre- and post- viewing perspectives. Sometimes when I go back and look at my older, less informed opinions I end up sounding like my own worst enemy, almost like I have an evil Gene Siskel hiding inside me, haunting me with an ignorant statement made in haste. Let's hope it doesn't turn out that way this time, eh?

Let me start off by saying I have a long and textured history with the X- books. I have read reprints of virtually every X-Men comic from the beginning of the so-called "new" X-Men team formed in he mid-seventies to the "death" of Phoenix/Jean Grey in 1980. I have read many of the first X-Men adventures from the swingin' Stan Lee sixties, have sampled scads of the turbulent 1980's Uncanny X-Men days, and have managed to catch up with just about every limited series, trade paperback, and graphic novel written in the last fifteen years. The last time I had any major X-Men exposure was in 1993 or so, shortly after the X-Men re-launch with Jim Lee doing the art. I also had a five-year subscription to the spin-off book Excalibur for reasons I have since forgotten. A few years ago, however, I broke all ties with the X-books when it was clear they were all heading for the toilet. I became extremely critical of Marvel Comics and just stopped reading them. I plan on getting back into the fold soon, probably with the release of X-Men #100 and the return of Chris Claremont, but that's a tale for another section of the site.

When I first heard that Fox and Marvel were going ahead with the movie I thought something along the lines of: "Whoo boy, I guess it's the X-Men's turn to get raped by Hollywood." I was apprehensive to say the least. My biggest worry was the casting, specifically that the vultures at Fox would simply go for the most marketable people to play the central roles and not take a chance with less bankable stars that would play the characters better or at least look more like them. I suppose my next biggest concern was the story, and how much comic book continuity would have to be sacrificed to make the movie viewable by the general, non-comic reading public. I also had fears about the director, dreading yet another superhero adaptation from the truly twisted mind of Joel "I make love to the Batman costume when no one is looking" Schumacher or some other hack who should resign himself to over-budget Will Smith movies or the next Home Alone trilogy. I also feared James Cameron. Few people will remember the very prevalent rumor way back when that he might direct an X-Men movie when the time came. The rumor resurfaced after the movie was finally given the go-ahead, and this was after Cameron turned traitor and unleashed the abomination called "Titanic" on the world. Fortunately this story proved erroneous.

And the rumors and the rumors and the rumors. Literally hundreds of names thrown out from nowhere suggesting who got what part and who was writing and directing and handling the damn boom mike. It's pointless to trace all the rumors, although I could easily check the archives at Coming Attractions and reproduce them all. But it doesn't matter, because, like with all films, 95% of all rumors turned out to false, and in due time the truth revealed itself.

Bryan Singer would direct. This was my first really big piece of good news. Singer directed "The Usual Suspects" in 1995 and did a spectacular job with it. He has an eye for intriguing shots and doesn't transform whatever set he's on into his own little feudal estate with his crew forced to become groveling peons, unlike many directors. His style is subtle, so we won't be seeing a film saturated with trademark visuals like we did in Tim Burton's "Batman" movies. All in all, he's gonna do just fine.

Then there was the cast. Tee hee. Remember Edward Norton as Cyclops? Or Angela Bassett as Storm? Or Russell Crowe or Dougray Scott as Wolverine? The rumor mill was working overtime on the casting angle. But here's who we really have to work with and what I think of 'em:

Cyclops is played by James Marsden. I hadn't particularly heard of this guy before I discovered he was to play the brooding leader of the X-Men, and I didn't particularly care. I didn't even want to know what he looked like. Cyclops is the straight man, the every-guy. There are hundreds of actors out there who could play his role equally as well as this Marsden guy. Marsden just happened to be the six-foot tall white guy they finally decided to go with. He'll do fine.

Jean Grey is played by Famke Janssen. This striking Dutch beauty made quite an impression on me when I first saw her in "GoldenEye". She's a fair actress and seems to do her share in action films, but I really didn't see it when she was cast as the fiery redheaded Jean. I later came to the realization that it would be impossible to cast anyone who looks as good as Jean Grey does, so vivid is the imagination of the average comic book reader. So instead they just cast a beautiful chick that looks good in leather and can carry her weight with the rest of the crew. I have no complaints.

Storm is played by Halle Berry. Sigh. This is another one of those "Jean Grey" cases in which it would be virtually impossible to cast a living, breathing woman who could actually bring across Storm accurately. I mean, she's a six foot-tall black woman with natural, pure white hair and blue eyes. She's the kind of woman that makes people on the street of both sexes just stop and stare, not just because she's so beautiful, but because she's so unusual looking. She is not the kind of character that can be well translated on screen, no matter how blue the contact lenses are or how white the damn wig is. Still, I don't like Halle Berry as the final choice. They can't do the makeup and hair and stuff any less lame than they did, but the least they could have done was cast a woman who at least looked African and didn't sound like she was from the Bronx. Here's hoping her involvement is minimal.

Rogue is played by Anna Paquin. Again, what actress could possibly bring across the tough-as-nails Southern belle with the supermodel body and the white stripe in her hair? No one I can think of, but then Mr. Keegan has often accused me of having impossibly high standards. This was one of those casting decisions that was prettyŠoff-putting for a long time. I'm not sure who I would cast as Rogue, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a seventeen-year-old British waif. She won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar at age twelve, so she obviously has the talent, butŠis she Rogue? Sure, she'll have her mutant absorption power, but will she fly? And have super strength and invulnerability? Probably not. At least, there's no indication that she will. But if she does, will she explain her powers with an off-hand reference to Miss Marvel? Or will they just be dismissed as other mutant abilities she was blessed with? I don't know. What I do know is that I am slowly warming up to the idea of Paquin as Rogue. She is slightly reminiscent of the Freedom Force Rogue from before joining the X-Men, and from what I've seen and heard of the movie, it sounds like they're playing her low key (making her mysterious, dressing her in a long cloak, etc). But you gotta keep the Southern twang. Without it, she is not Rogue.

Mystique is played by Rebecca Romijn-Stamos. Alright, lookŠyes, Ms. Stamos is quite beautiful and she has a very nice body. Yes, giving her nothing to wear but a thin layer of body paint and scales will draw an enormous male demographic and probably push the PG-13 rating to the more risqué end of the spectrum. But this is simply not how Mystique should be. She should not be naked, and she should not be covered with scales to cover up her more sensitive areas so that she can be naked but still in a PG-13 movie. Bad idea. I know, I knowŠit only makes sense for a shapeshifter to be naked because when she shapeshifts any clothing she is wearing couldn't shift with her. Bullshit. That is a flawed premise, and let me tell you why. Mystique doesn't wear clothes because they can't shift with her. This would imply that she lacks the ability to "morph" clothing onto her body when she shapeshifts, otherwise she wouldn't go around naked. This would render Mystique's mutant power essentially useless - sure she can assume the appearance of anyone, but they're always naked! So you can see how pointless it is. Besides, we all know that shapeshifting line was just a flimsy pretext for sticking a body-painted chick on screen. The problem with that is that they only went halfway. Obviously Romijn-Stamos couldn't be totally naked; otherwise we'd be looking at NC-17 territory. So how do they cover her up? Scales. Scales? Where the hell did those come from? Mystique never had scales in the comic books. She's as smooth as Jesus on bath day. Romijn-Stamos, on the other hand, resembles an overripe pineapple. But it's not just a few scales to cover up her unmentionables. No, that would be too obvious. The solution? Put scales on her face. CongratulationsŠyou have just made Rebecca Romijn-Stamos ugly. I really don't see why they didn't just do what they do in the comic books and equip Mystique with clothing made of unstable molecules, like virtually ever hero in the Marvel universe wears. The unstable molecules can change and adapt to any environment they are placed in. It is this material that keeps Iceman's clothing from turning brittle, makes Colossus's clothes grow when he transforms, and any energy-projecting mutant from vaporizing his or her clothing whenever they unleash a blast. So too would some unstable Mystique clothing shift when she shifts. That makes senseŠmostly. I'm not even going to comment on the wisdom of casting Romijn-Stamos in the role. I've seen her act. She can't. What it all comes down to is that there will be a naked blue chick on screen for two hours. I can't say I have no complaints about this one, but I will shut the hell up about it and just sit back and indulge my eyes when the time comes.

Sabertooth is played by Tyler Mane. Who? Exactly. I know nothing about this guy except that he's some kind of third string wrestler or something unimportant like that. Well, it's good that they cast somebody that is really tall with a giant build, and I really didn't expect any stellar casting for this role, simply because it isn't necessary. I mean, how challenging can this part be? Growl, roar, hit things, growl some more, say something threatening, jump over here, claw something, show teeth, growlŠYou get the idea. I hear his growls and roars are synthesized so they sound like a lion. Altogether I have no real complaints about this guy, although I still think they should have designed him differently, making him more cat-like. Oh well.

Toad is played by Ray Park. When I first heard of this enticing little fact I thought: "Oh, man, talk about cashing in on the Darth Maul thing." But then I realized that Park is actually the perfect choice for Toad, otherwise known as the creepy English mutant named Mortimer. Toad has the ability to leap really, really high in whatever direction he pleases. That's just about all he's ever done in the comics, although recently they've given him other toad-like qualities like a huge, muscular tongue and claws laced with venom. Ray Park is a tenth-degree blackbelt in Wushu, a dangerous form of Chinese unarmed combat. Put them together and what do you have? You have Ray Park doing super CGI-enhanced martial arts! Just imagine Park doing a fifteen-foot leap off a wall and slamming into Cyclops and Storm simultaneously with a flying scissors kick. Don't tell me that won't be cool. I read an interview with Park recently and he said that he gets to use his own voice in this film, which is perfect, because his real voice is exactly what I've always thought Toad's voice to sound like. He also said he's been studying the other, trained actors in order to pick up some acting skill along the way. Better watch out. His next role might be the lead in HamletŠwith martial arts.

I've saved the best three for last.

Magneto is played by Ian McKellan. Man, I am trying so damn hard to like this guy. He's a supreme actor; that much I'm sure of. He does look like MagnetoŠbut it's Magneto twenty years from now. McKellan is a bitŠold. Yeah, in the comics Magneto has white hair, but it's just premature whitening, not grayness as the result of age. In fact Magneto is a fairly young guy, only about fifty or so in comic book years, and still in extremely good shape - muscular and vigorous and still capable of fighting all of the X-Men to a standstill by himself. The really big problem with Magneto is that his origin, the whole reason why he is so tortured in life, involves abuse and loss at the hands of Nazis during WWII, a time in history that has an extremely specific date. But as the years pass and the Marvel Universe continues to essentially not age at all, the concentration camp story becomes less and less believable. It's 2000, for crying out loudŠare we really to believe that a man as young looking as Magneto was in the concentration camps sixty years ago? In the comics the WWII thing hasn't been mentioned for years, but it figures prominently into the movie. Ironically, this makes McKellan the perfect choice, as his advanced age would just about perfectly match the proper age for Magneto to be, about sixty-five. I'm really hoping there is a final showdown between him and the X-Men where he just bitches them down, one at a time, like he always does in the comics.

Professor Xavier is played by Patrick Stewart. This is a casting choice I had to take a long time to warm up to. Sure, if someone approaches you on the street and asks you to immediately pick an actor to play the mentor of the X-Men, what do you think of? Someone bald of course! And who's bald out there? Patrick Stewart of course! The problem I had with this was that I figured that was just about the thought process of the Fox execs. "HmmŠwe need a bald guy. How 'bout Patrick Stewart?" To me this is an example of effortless casting, very much like Halle Berry. But I must say, now that I have seen him in the wheelchair, now that I have heard his eerily powerful voice, now that I have seen him in character as the most powerful telepath in the world, his frail body belying the awesome energies beneath it, I have seen the light. Stewart will make a superior Professor X, and I can't wait to see him unleash a psi-blast strong enough to make the Master of Magnetism fall to the ground weeping.

Finally, there is Weapon X. Wolverine is played by Hugh Jackman, an Australian TV actor and an absolute unknown here in the States. I knew from the beginning that Wolverine was going to play a huge part in this film. As it turns out almost half the movie is centered on him. Probably a good move on the part of the writers of this feature. Wolverine has long been one of if not the most popular X-Man of all. He's mysterious, powerful, intelligent, wild, and just about the most dangerous man alive. Super-enhanced physical senses that make him an unshakeable tracker. A skeleton bonded with adamantium, a metal harder than diamond, making his bones utterly unbreakable. A mutant healing factor that allows him to recover from virtually any wound or infection, making him just about unkillable. And claws. Foot-long claws housed in his forearms, bonded with adamantium, making them unbreakable, and granting them a razor-keen edge that can never dull, but can slice through almost any substance known to man. He's a 5'3" killing machine; Hell in human form. And for an actor it's a hell of a lot to live up to. I was a big supporter of Russell Crowe, who had that grizzled, furrowed look down perfectly and proved to be a complete badass in his first American movie, "Virtuosity." Rumors were persistent that he would fill the role, and I was happy. This made it all the more disheartening, of course, when it was announced that he had been offered the role and turned it down. That was it, as far as I was concerned. I pretty much resolved myself to the fact that they could never find anyone better than Crowe. Actor Dougray Scott was inches away from sealing the role when delays in filming "Mission Impossible 2" prevented him from taking it. I wasn't crying over that because I didn't like the looks of this guy for Wolverine from day one. So the role was open and for a while and I just stopped following the rumors because I pretty much couldn't trust them. Then one day, word came out. Hugh Jackman, another Australian, would be Weapon X. The first picture I ever saw of Jackman was a press photo of him at an airport. Tall, wiry-haired, grinning broadly for the cameras, looking as far from Logan as he could without being a nine-foot tall black woman. My shoulders drooped. My spirits sank. This was not Logan. It was not even a shade of Logan. If I hadn't been told he was to play Wolverine I would have assumed he was playing that clichéd Cajun Gambit. I went to bed that night and just prayed that the movie bombed quietly without much humiliation.

Months passed. Costumes were made, scenes were filmed, and effects were inserted. The X-Men movie took shape. I logged on to AICN one morning to see a glaring 36-point banner reading "X-Men Exclusive!!! Promotional photos of the entire castŠin full makeup and costume!" There they were, links to all of the cast photos, with Jackman/ Wolverine listed last. So I perused the photos. I had seen sketches of Cyclops and Mystique before, so I was not surprised at what I saw there. They looked good. Famke Janssen looked lovely, as I expected, though without the red hair. Toad looked like a bum, adorned in a tattered jacket and ripped pants. Finally, I braced myself for the embarrassment and clicked the link to the Jackman picture. My computer screen flickered and changed. The image loaded.

And my jaw dropped to floor. Perhaps I tried to say something but it emerged as only a squeak.

Before me stood Wolverine.

The caption beneath the picture assured me that I was indeed seeing actor Hugh Jackman here on AICN, but as far as I was concerned I was staring straight into the eyes of the X-Man they call Wolverine. Hugh Jackman was dead. He'd been killed by Weapon X.

Let me say this: I was wrong about Jackman. Dead dead dead wrong. He stood there, framed in that grainy promo picture, and he looked simply fantastic. The trademark hairstyle had been toned down, as I expected it would be, but it was still there, still distinct. The costume fit him like a glove. He was posed in a battle stance, what Harry Knowles described as the "I'm gonna rip you a new asshole" pose. But what really sold it to me was the expression. Jackman had captured the elusive Wolverine scowl. His eyes were veiled into a deadly glare. His jaw was clenched, and he had his teeth bared ever so slightly, like he was on the verge of a patented berserker fury. Mind you, this photo did not even have the claws inserted. No, the claws were to be CGI, another smart decision on the part of the filmmakers. That way the action of extending and retracting them would be fluid and lightning fast, as it should be. Nonetheless, Jackman had become Wolverine. The wallpaper on my laptop is currently an endless tiled pattern of a photo that appeared recently on the X-Men movie site: a close-up Jackman as Wolverine, trademark scowl and almost sadistic smile on his face, with his right hand poised beside his face, claws extended, protruding right out of his flesh.

The day I first saw Wolverine was the day my opinion of this upcoming film shifted from largely negative with a few small hopes to overwhelmingly positive with only a couple conservative reservations. Was it petty of me to put so much stock in physical appearance? Not in this case, no. Few people will say it aloud, but everyone is thinking it: looks are gonna mean a lot in this film. And no, I'm not entirely happy with the looks of a couple of the X-Men, but I've gotten over that, and I'm willing to give everyone a chance. But from that point forward I read the X-Men updates with pride, knowing that at the very least we'd be getting Logan, not an actor with weird hair and prop claws. I read an interview with Jackman a little while ago. He said that the word "bub" never appears in any of Wolverine's dialog in the film, but that he added the word into his speech on a number of occasions because that's simply how Wolverine spoke. That's how you can tell this is the right guy for the job.

Time folded forward. More pictures, more reports. And then the teaser trailer. Less than sixty full seconds of rough, unedited footage on High-Res Quicktime 4. A lightning fast montage of images set to the beat of some grinding techno music. We saw, among other things, Sabertooth getting fried by an electrical bolt, Magneto taking on an entire SWAT team, and a spectacular showdown between Sabertooth and Wolverine on top of the Statue of Liberty, the last image a close-up of Wolverine's claws extending with their trademark "SNIKT!" It was beautiful. It was impressive. It was The X-Men.

Don't get me wrong; I haven't completely let my guard down on this issue. I still have one major item on my shit list that have to resolve before I can really respect this film and approach I with the same sense of excitement I approached The Phantom Menace. The director is set and the cast is set, but what about the writing, the all-important script factor? This is the issue where things start to get a little hazy. The story now is that Chris McQuarrie was collaborating with another writer to create the final draft, but during filming the story was there were no fewer than SEVEN writers attached to this project! That, my readers, is always a bad sign. I don't care if good minds do think alike - a script cannot possibly have a solid direction or definitive message with seven people throwing in their opinions, their own take on The X-Men, and, of course, their own styles of writing and pacing. I've also read interviews with some folks who have read the script and very few of them have been overwhelmingly optimistic on the subject. Apparently one insider was asked if the film was good and he responded, very hesitantly, "Um, yeah, I think it's going to be a fun film." "Fun"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sure, I want it to be fun, but I also want it to be exciting and loyal to the comics and at least respectful of the true-to-life allegory within The X-men about racism and evolution. And what of the rumor that the execs at Marvel panicked when they were allowed to see a rough cut of the film, apparently determining that this movie would be the worst thing to happen to them since they first conceived the words "Ben Reilly"? Marvel denied it, of course, when asked publicly about the rumor. Was the panic rumor bogus, or were they covering their asses and hoping to cut their losses when it came time for the movie to debut? I have lots of questions on this subject but very few answers. Short of reading the script, which I don't intend to do, I'm just going to have to wait until I see the film to judge for myself exactly how well it all turned out, plot-wise.

My problem is that I'm in danger of letting my excitement over this film cloud my judgment and keep me from remaining impartial until the big day arrives. I read a rumor or two, watch the teaser a few times, or just stare at my latest wallpaper for a while and I find myself growing school-girl giddy just thinking about how potentially cool this movie is. I never imagined a year ago that I would be preparing myself for the theatrical release of a big-budget adaptation of The X-Men. I had heard so many rumors, seen the plans shot down so many times, I guess I got a little bitter. I so want to believe that this is going to turn out all right; that this film is going to define a new generation of superhero films. I want to know that the ten hours I plan to spend in line will be worth every second. I want to be able to turn to my fellow Dairy Farmers in the middle of the movie and say to them "This is The X-Men". I want to leave that theater on July 14th and have an overpowering desire to get back in line for a second showingŠand I want to fulfill that desire. I want to be so impressed with the movie that I can seek solace in it during the waning weeks of summer, much like I did with The Phantom Menace. I want to catch myself humming the soundtrack while washing the dishes at night. I want this to work. I want to believe so badly that it is still possible to make Marvel good again. So you see, The X-Men film is as critical to me as it is to Marvel and the future of the superhero film genre. I need it to convince me there is still hope for this epic art form. I want. I need.

So what's it going to be? Will "The X-Men" condemn usŠor redeem us? Spectacular success or utter ruin? And DFFQI? Well, we can never say no to half a day of waiting expectantly outside a movie theater, attracting the local media along the way. Our mantra of late has become "Please God, don't let this movie suck!" Me? I'm what you might describe as cautiously optimistic. I hope I can remain that way. Humanity's last stand comes July 14th. Still so far away. Through it all, however, come Hell or high water, I can comfort myself with one indisputable fact: at least that clichéd Cajun Gambit is nowhere to be seen.

Next Year in Jerusalem!

---

John Paige
4.2.2000

Dairy Farmers For Quebec's Independence