>>40940
>And what is the problem with that?
The problem is that the movie wants us to feel the feelings of seeing the old guy. It's the entire premise of bringing back all these old actors. Having a "variant" is stupid since a variant is a different guy, and thus doesn't carry the emotional weight. It's not like they used the fact that he didn't experience any of the old movies. They just fucked up in how they described his backstory. Actually, this is more like a different Archie Robotnik thing. I'll get back to that.
Yes, I understand that plot-wise they admit he's a different guy. They say he's "the worst Wolverine" or whatever. But the backstory they give him isn't one that's radically different, it's just different enough that he isn't the guy we followed, which is dumb, when an obvious sci-fi excuse to make it so he was the guy we followed (up until the specific movie he died in) was right there. That would have still kept the same emotional beats as the backstory they gave him, only it would be more effective since it would be a guy we saw before.
>No, it didn't.
It didn't require that Logan didn't happen? Yes it did. That was the whole premise. He died in that movie so Deadpool had to find a version that didn't experience that movie. That's the whole idea of the movie.
>In fact, the plots of The Wolverine and DOFP basically "fixed everything". Logan got the "good ending", until Logan happened. Meaning you would have to go ALL the way back to the post X3 if you wanted to go with that kind of Wolverine who's depressed that everyone he loves dies.
No. The Wolverine gave him some level of peace, but then Days of Future Past had it so that that timeline still lead to the Sentinels taking over. Kind of ruins the ending of The Wolverine, when you dwell on that. But whatever. Days of Future Past then resolves it right at the end by having him change the timeline. Fine. All well and good. What I'm saying is that, if you want a version of Wolverine that didn't die in Logan, the obvious thing to do would just say "oh yeah, another version of him actually still existed in the original timeline. He didn't overwrite it, he just created an alt-timeline and the original still existed." That Logan would still even have the sad backstory since the future he lives in is still fucked up, and he can blame himself for it since he actually did quit the X-Men in this timeline, just like the new backstory they gave the new guy in the new movie. He killed Jean, quit the X-Men, then The Wolverine happened and he seemed to get some closure, but oh wait, actually this timeline is fucked beyond repair and Sentinels ruin the world, providing perfectly good reason for him to be depressed and undo the emotional resolution he had in The Wolverine. Stupid? Yes. But this is already a movie specifically about bringing Wolverine back to life so he can tell dick jokes with Deadpool. If you're gonna do it, at least doing it with a version of Wolverine we followed through six movies is better than doing it with a brand new version we've never seen before.
>Meanwhile the point of the Logan in Deadpool 3 is that he's a failure who couldn't save his universe no matter how much he tried, compared to the Logan in the Fox films who DID succeed but everyone he cares for practically dies in the process.
The entire thing I'm saying is that he would think he didn't succeed since, from his perspective, the time travel idea in Days of Future Past didn't work, since he would still exist in the fucked up future. Instead of saying he overwrote the bad future, they could just say he split off a splinter timeline, and a splinter timeline version of himself. That's the one who died in Logan. This one didn't, and just lives on in the bad future.
>Yes, that's the point.
It's not the point, though. The movie doesn't do anything with it. If anything, we're meant to just act and feel as if he did the stuff from the old movies, but nothing in particular. If anything, the backstory they do give sort of evokes that scene in X2 when the government comes and invades the school, but in this new version Wolverine was off being drunk or whatever so he didn't help. That's me being generous, they might not have thought of that scene in particular, but let's be generous. Okay, so the first movie and a half happened. Not as good as if all the movies up to Days of Future Past (meaning every movie where he's important except for Logan, the movie they're specifically setting out to undo) happened.
>See here
Yeah, I saw it. It's pointless. It's not like this version is significantly different in any particular way. He doesn't act different. He's treated the same through the whole movie. The movie does nothing with the fact that he's different. The only important difference is that he's alive. The only other thing they try to do with him is give him a sad backstory, but not only is that par for the course for Wolverine, but it's a generic one instead of a specific one.
>No, they didn't. In fact, there was even a comic where they brought back Robotnik for a week because Eggman is not Robotnik.
I just finished reading this entire series. You want to get autistic? Let's get autistic. That single issue where Robotnik comes back is the only time it's really acknowledged that they're different guys. It's a technicality that the writer decided to play with, and that's all well and good, but for the entire rest of the series, Eggman is treated as if he's effectively, even if not technically, the same guy. Like characters know he's technically not the same guy, but they repeatedly talk about "Robotnik coming back," and when he talks about his own backstory, it's seemingly exactly the same except he won instead of lost. Like in one issue he talks with Naugus and they have the same memories of events that happened before Robotnik died, so Naugus realizes that though he's technically not the same guy, he can rely upon the fact that they know and remember the same things, except for his death.
BUT this reminds me of how there are actually two Robo-Robotniks. In issue 19 Penders introduced Robo-Robotnik, who roboticized his universe's Sonic, but then this only made Sonic powerful enough to defeat him, so he had to roboticize himself in order to beat Sonic. Then in issue 21, Penders killed Robotnik. But in a backup story in issue 22, he brought Robotnik back (honestly it always felt to me like he was forced to bring him back, but I can't prove that). So he had it so Robo-Robotnik bring him back. But when Robo-Robotnik explained his backstory, it was slightly different. In this version, Sonic was not roboticized when Robotnik roboticized himself, and Robo-Robotnik then lost anyway, so in his universe, Sonic has married Sally, had kids, and become king. So this is essentially the beginning of the Mobius 25 Years Later timeline, which Penders just finally followed up on with his long-delayed but finally released book "The Lara-Su Chronicles."
So basically he fucked up and gave two different backstories. So later writers treat it as if the second one is the important one, but clearly Penders intended the guy in issue 22 to be the guy from issue 19. Clearly readers were supposed to recognize him when they saw him, and feel the gravitas of the villain who was the biggest threat the series had by that point. And you can say "well technically they're different guys, and that's fine." But that's fucking stupid, because they're not different guys for any good story reason, but only because of a badly written plot. Yeah, sure, you can justify it and say it's not a plot hole (even though actually it is because in the Sonic Underground crossover special, the Robo-Robotnik who goes on to become Eggman is explicitly identified as the guy who did the Giant Borg plot in issue 19), but it's not about it being a plot hole or not. It's about it being a stupid decision that robs the story of emotional resonance it could have had. That's the entire reason you'd ever use returning characters. Because their histories inform how you see them in each successive story. Removing history for no reason is stupid.
>he really just decided to spend the next few years hiding in a satellite before launching his conquest on Mobius Prime again.
This isn't actually what's said in Issue 22. In that issue it's said that his final battle with Sonic is what lead to that. Indeed, that Sonic is alive and well and not a robot back in his universe.
>Judi Dench M
Yeah, that's a good example, too. That also bugged me, especially in Skyfall, where they really lean on the emotional weight of knowing this character since Goldeneye. I kind of like the fan-theory that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are prequels, but the later Craig films are sequels that happen after Die Another Day. Of course, it's fucked up because we are explicitly introduced to Judi Dench M in Goldeneye as if she is new in the job, but uh... yeah this shit bugs me.
>>40943
>Evoking feelings of nostalgia isn't the same thing as making you see another version of the character the exact same way.
That's precisely my point. It's not. The latter is better than the former. The former is an even more cynical cash-grab. They couldn't even bother to write a way for it to actually be the same character, even though in this case it was pretty obvious. Instead they're just like "here's the actor. Now feel."
It's the same as when they reboot Transformers and expect me to care about Optimus every time. It's only one step better than when they stick some affirmative action hire in a superhero suit and tell me to feel the same since they're wearing the same suit. But no, even if Miles Morales worse Peter Parker's exact uniform, and looked exactly the same, I wouldn't feel the same about him, because he's a different guy. Or for a more generous example, you can look at Wally West. When he becomes Flash, his costume is only marginally different. The untrained eye wouldn't be able to tell if it was looking at Wally or Barry. Or Bart, for that matter. But they're all different guys, with different histories, and I care about them all differently.
>You'd have a bigger case of reprimanding Tom Holland's Spider-man for trying to make people see him as on par with Tobey Maguire.
I disagree. I don't like Holland's Pathetic Spider-Boy either, but this would be more like in Spider-Verse they had Maguire show up, but instead of being the Spidey we saw in those three movies, he was a different guy who we never saw before. Holland at least started from scratch and we saw his story from pretty close to the start. I don't like all of it, but it's there. Here we don't see this new Wolverine's story. We're just told it (show, don't tell), but what they do tell is just enough to see that he's a new guy. We don't care about him because of story, but just because of actor, and that's stupid, when story could have easily been used.
All your guys' excuses are basically just
>"No, you don't understand! They weren't trying to write a good movie!"
Yes. I understand the plot. I'm saying that they missed a chance to change the plot only slightly and make for a better story.