In Logan, James Mangold gave Hugh Jackman's time playing Wolverine a powerful ending. Jackman debuted as Wolverine in the first X-Men movie, but Logan focused more on the individual character apart from the epic superhero action of the main X-Men film series. The film ultimately concludes with Logan's death, seemingly giving Jackman's time as Wolverine a definitive end. Mangold revisited that ending during ComicBook.com's Quarantine Watch Party on Wednesday. During the event, Mangold was asked about the possibility of Jackman reprising the role of Wolverine for Marvel Studios as Disney readies the X-Men for integration into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Mangold doesn't love the idea of Jackman returning to the role after the ending they gave him in Logan, at least not unless there's a truly good reason for bringing him back.
"I'd be startled that Hugh was strapping it on again," Mangold said when asked about such a return. "The thing that I always want to know when I hear this is obviously, on the web, everyone trades in rumors. So, the nugget or the headline becomes the clickbait in the trade so that it would be, 'Downey's back,' or 'Jackman's back,' would be the headline, which people would then debate. What I'd be curious about if any one of these things happened would be, what are they doing with it? Meaning, I would have no qualm about it if someone had a good idea. If it's basically, 'I ran out of money and I needed a big paycheck, and I'm doing an empty film that cheapens the quality of the previous.' Well, that would be its own sadness."
Many fans likely agree with Mangold on topics like Robert Downey Jr. or Hugh Jackman returning to their respective Marvel roles of Iron Man or Wolverine. Bringing the actors back to those characters without good reason could backfire and remove the weight of their respective endings.
"The reality is that, if you have a good idea for a character, then there's nothing wrong with doing anything," he went on. "I don't make these rules. For me, I'm always just asking that someone do something imaginative that doesn't just seem like you're taking all these assets and throwing them on a screen again, just to make dough. That seems to me to be, or to satiate a kind of hunger people have to see more, when the hunger they have to see more is what a movie supposed to leave you with. Meaning that you're supposed to love the characters and that just like a good meal, there is such a thing as too much. Just because it tastes good, if I keep filling your plate, at some point you're going to be like that guy in the restaurant in the Monty Python movie. There's just a limit."