Zander Rice
So he was supposed to be Stryker's son?
shareNo. Stryker did have a son though, but he was a mutant and depending on universe, he did not live long. This son was in the X2 film. Zander however is from the comics and there he is the son of Dale Rice who also worked on the original Weapon X where he ultimately indeed was killed by an escaping Wolverine... so we must assume this reference was to an unshown episode in Logans long life :)
shareWell, that makes things more complicated than they need to be.
shareHow so?
The bad guy is the son of the dude that helped make Wolverine back in the day and whom Wolverine killed. So for the illiterate I guess it could be Styker. Same same.
I have no idea who this father is. And didn't Stryker do it in the films anyway?
sharestryker was played by the thespian brian cocks
shareBut does that matter? It is a sort of lip-service to fans, but for the movie this detail is irrelevant. All that matters is that the villain here is a son of the creators of the original Weapons X. It is enough. Full circle. Almost poetic.
It creates a massive plot hole.
shareI cannot see that at all. Can you explain your point of view?
shareIn X2 Stryker created Wolverine.
In Origins: Wolverine Stryker created Wolverine.
In Apocalypse Stryker created Wolverine.
Now in Logan, we're being told Zander Rice's father who is a completely different character to Stryker created Wolverine.
I see what you mean. No, this is not how I see it. We learn that Zander's dad was part of the original team, and that Wolverine might have ended him back in the day. This does not rock with anything about Stryker and his part in history. Stryker was still the main cheese back then. No plot inconsistency here.
Apparently, they (the writers) wanted to come full circle by connecting the new villain with the original Weapon X 50+ years earlier. This makes sense and as I said, it is sort of poetic to come full circle here in this movie.... they could not use Stryker as he had no offspring to survive to this time and he himself was long gone. However, the comics has this other character which worked with Stryker and who had a son associated to the program.... so, all they essentially do is connect the new villain with the old team (here amongst Stryker). IMO this works nicely.
Doesn't work so well, since it means they created this new character for no apparent reason.
It would have been much simpler to retcon that Stryker had another son (especially when you take the alternate timeline into account)
I disagree. That would go against the canon too much. Stryker and his relation to his mutant son is a too important arc in the comics (and movies) to mess with now. They can stray from the canon a bit for the sake of these movies, but they should always try not to. And here they did not.
Again, they just wanted to connect the main villain to the original project X. And they used a character in the canon for this. It is short remark and it does not go against any thing in any of the previous movies.
Obviously you do not like it and that is fair. But it is not a plot hole, and to be real; it is a minor thing only briefly mentioned.
Stryker being invoked in Weapon X is against canon.
shareand he was not.
Zander said his dad was part of project x from the beginning, not that he was the one who started it.
That's not how it happened in the previous films.
shareWhat do you mean? Batman, you are reaching for straws here :) In the previous movies the Weapon X was driven by Wiliam Stryker indeed. However, he alone did not do the whole thing... he was a military commanding officer running a covert facility. One of the many scientists etc. that were under his command was Zander's dad. This we learn in LOGAN.
It works under movie canon. No problem.
In Comic canon though, Zanders dad has a different part than what is hinted here in LOGAN. Although here too he was one of many scientists that worked on Weapon X so even in comic canon it works.
Exactly, Logan apparently killed some unknown guy we never see.
Rice would have had way more impact if he was connected with someone we already knew (like Stryker) than some guy we don't even know.
Exactly. We do not see this kill.... or perhaps we did. He killed quite a few scientists and henchmen while at the WeaponX facility. And this connects Wolverine with the status quo of this evil organization. I like that.
And you are right, had he been someone we knew or indirectly knew we would have more on him. But for whatever reason the movie makers decided not to go down that road. It is their provocative.
I like that we did not have the old Stryker thing again again. You do not. And I also like that Zander simply represented this evil establishment... almost as a no- face, but not quite... full circle.
So Zander's dad was some mook in Apocalypse?
shareLikely. Although Wolverine went possibly back and did more havoc later in his life. In movie canon we do not know when he was killed. Although we know Wolverine knows he may have killed him, so I think it was sometime later. But we do not know.
shareWell, that's retarded.
share… the movie kept a lot of stuff from us. Also what happened in Westchester? (I mean this pretty much ended the X-men and we know close to nothing about it). And why are no new mutants born? Why would mutants "allow" themselves to be slowly eradicated (does it has something to do with Westchester) Or why was Caliban now hanging with our friends (he was no hero in Apocalypse). Or why was Logan sick? Why was Logan limping? etc. much was left mysterious. I think it was clever story telling.
The movie focused on Logan. In a complex universe with 9 movies leading up to it, it kept it simple and dare I say beautiful?
All this speculation back and forth between all the 10 movies that anyways do not support each other that well, I sort of see Logan as a standalone movie… and I feel the director did too. I dig that. The previous movies mess it up too much anyway.... comic books are often not connected that well either.
shareXavier's mind powers killed the X-Men.
Its explained that Transigen found the X-Gene and used industrial connections to make sports drinks, fast food, sodas, etc, isolating the X-Gene.
I doubt mutants allowed it.
The X-Men films are filled with plot holes like Emma being younger in Origins than she was in First Class, Angel being in Apocalypse when he wouldn't have been born yet according to Last Stand, etc. Its completely retarded.
Logan was getting sick from the adamantium. Again, explained in the film.
Thanx, that isolating gene drink went over my head.
shareConsistency between the movies was never a priority to them. Like how Singer ends his DOFP on a "cliffhanger" and then does nothing about it in his next installment. And the death of Xavier in X3.... yes, I know he lived again in a coma dude, but why still wheel chair etc... many things suck. And yet, I still enjoy them, mostly.
shareYes, that was retarded. What was Mystique doing there.
Actually, the wheelchair was stupid. Even if you except that Xavier had a braindead twin brother, if would make no sense for him to be paralysed.
The movies are so poorly connected that one of the producers should have had the balls to just say; fuck it, and make every film a standalone.... a bit like the comics too does not pay that much attention to each others... heck, perhaps this is what LOGAN actually does....
share