Question: Have the filmmakers offered any explanation as to why they used CGI for Wolverine's claws in the bathroom scene? As has been pointed out numerous times, the CGI is very poor. Given that the previous three X-Men films used practical claws that looked just fine, this seemed like a very impractical thing to do, especially considering the extra time and money going with CGI would require.Phaneron
Question: Given that Logan's body (skin, bone, muscle, etc) is what "regenerates" quickly, and Adamantium is absolutely fixed once it is solidified, Logan would now have two permanent holes in the front of his skull from the bullets fired into his brain to destroy his memories at the end of the film? Unlike the skin, muscle, bone and brain tissue, the Adamantium would not "heal over" or regenerate, so the two vulnerable bits of bone would remain, a bit of a vital vulnerability in a dangerous area of the body.
Question: Toward the end, in Stryker's island compound, Logan is astonished to see Kayla still alive. Kayla explains that Victor only gave her an injection that simulated her death, and we then see a flashback clip of Victor sloshing a container of blood on Kayla's unconscious body to complete the illusion that he had murdered her. What did Logan do with Kayla's body after discovering it? Did he take her body to a hospital or at least to local authorities, where it would certainly be determined that she had no wounds? Being so much in love with her, why wouldn't Logan himself inspect Kayla's body for actual wounds? How is it possible that Logan was fooled by a little spilled blood on her clothing when he had personally witnessed Victor's savage work many times in combat settings over the previous century? Is there any official explanation for this glaring plot-hole?Charles Austin Miller
Question: Was the scene of a naked Wolverine arriving at the elderly couple's farmhouse supposed to be some kind of a reference to Superman? The couple seemed to resemble Ma and Pa Kent, the house and farm looked identical to the ones in the Superman films and Logan turning up naked seemed to mirror the fact that baby Clark was naked when he first arrived. So was it intentional?Gavin Jackson
Question: What year does this movie's climax take place in? Because a mutant wearing a mouth gag with ginger hair can be seen as one of Stryker's prisoners, and this prisoner is meant to be Banshee. However, in Days of Future Past, it is mentioned that Banshee died at some point before 1971 due to experimentation, I realize there are other continuity issues within this "canon" and that some of them have been rectified if not completely erased from the timeline, but I love Banshee and am just trying to connect each of his appearances. It makes sense that he would be a prisoner of Stryker's since Stryker and Trask were working together in 1971, but only if the end of Origins takes place before then.
Question: I don't know if this was answered in the comic books, but here goes. Wolverine's claws were irregularly shaped before the bonding. So, how could they become perfectly razor shaped after the procedure all by themselves? I don't think that adamantium itself would perfect the shape of the claws all by himself, so how it is possible? And how come his teeth remained unchanged?Domagoj Rimac
Question: When Zero shoots Wolverine's forehead in the lab, the bullet only penetrates the skin and not his skull, we can see his metal skull. In X-Men 2, the police shoot Wolverine's forehead and the bullet penetrate his skull. It's like the adamantium skull become can be penetrated. Well, it's different from X-Men Origin. Why?
Question: At the beginning, during the war montage sequence when you see Wolverine and Sabretooth fighting in the various wars, you see them fighting in the American civil war. I was just curious and this may seem like an incidental question, but is there any indication as to which side they're fighting on?MusicalPurist
Question: So the adamatium bullets erased Wolverine's memory, Cyclops wore a blindfold (for lack of a better term) the entire time he was at 3-Mile Island and thus never saw Wolverine, and Xavier obviously withheld information he knew all about in the first two X-Men films because he's Xavier, but what about Sabertooth/Victor? How is it he lost his memory between this movie and X-Men 1? And with all the punishment he took in this movie, how can anyone seriously believe he died in the first movie?
Question: A while ago, it was leaked that Australian actor Christian Clark would be in the movie, and speculated that he would play Mister Sinister. However, after seeing the movie 2 times, I didn't notice neither Christian nor Mister Sinister. After trying a thorough internet search I couldn't reach a conclusion. Could anyone please give a thorough answer as to what happened (i.e. the scenes were cut, the actor or character was dropped)?
Question: Why does Sabertooth look so different in this movie than he does in X-men 1? Even in the comics and the cartoon that was on in the early 90's, he was always shown to be at least 7 feet tall and at least 400 lbs, and in the comics and 1st movie he was very animalistic looking; here he looks like a human with a bad manicure and small fangs. Does anyone know why this is?
Question: If Stryker was capturing mutants and put their powers in Weapon X1, how come he only used 4 powers (Wolverine, Cyclops, Wraith and Deadpool)? He could have used Emma Frost's powers to turn into a diamond, Bradley Bolt's power of telekinesis, Blob's strength, and Agent Zero's skill with weapons. If he used those powers he could win against Wolverine and Sabertooth.
Question: [Minor spoiler] I'm curious, because I can't remember 100%. Ryan Reynolds as Wade is very similar to Deadpool in the comics. The bad guy in the final fight, however, is nothing like the comic Deadpool, and I'm fairly sure that while it's of course strongly implied that he's the product of experiments on Wade, it's never explicitly stated. Stryker makes a reference to a "dead pool", and Wolverine says something like "Wade, is that you?" (with no answer), but as far as I can remember there's no concrete connection between Ryan Reynolds' character at the start and that final bad guy beyond implication/our assumption. I'm largely curious because there was talk of a Deadpool spinoff with Ryan Reynolds, and with the changes to the character, plus the events at the end of the film, that might be difficult, so I'm wondering if they left a deliberate loophole so if they make a Deadpool film they can just say "no, that wasn't him - everyone just assumed it was. The real Deadpool was off somewhere else". Make sense?Jon Sandys
Join the mailing list
Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.