To be fair, traveling back in time to prevent a terrible future was a common theme of X-Men. That being said, I'm skeptical that it would be the theme here.
^Right. Just because it was relatively common in the comics, that doesn't mean they'd want to do it twice in a row in the movies.
Oh yeah, I highly doubt they'll follow the same plot twice in a row. It's called a joke, people. I can't remember how the Age of Apocalypse was resolved in the comics.
I feel like it would be weird to have an Apocalypse movie without some kind of time travel element. Granted, this is only based on my experience with the FOX cartoon. Maybe the movie could take place in Egypt! Some unwitting soul accidentally (or intentionally) opens up Apocalypse's sarcophagus and starts unleashing hell.
Apocalypse himself isn't really about time travel, since he's immortal. But as someone who's lived through millennia, he has a tendency to interact with time travelers like Cable or Kang. I think that Apocalypse's main schtick as a character is his desire to push mutant evolution forward and to exterminate those he considers weak and unworthy. Often he transforms mutants into more powerful forms, like Mister Sinister or the Four Horsemen. And of course he wants to rule the world and remake it in his image and yadda yadda yadda.
Niether of the comic book versions of Age Of Apocalyse nor Days Of Future Past were really about time travel though, they were about attempting to stop a alternate future reality from happening. Which was John Byrne's gibbest complaint about the DOFP movie, in that unlike the comic book story the future alternate reality is erased.
Nope, we also never found out exactly how taking away Xavier's power in that show allowed him to walk again. Or whether Angel was or wasn't once part of the team. Or why they'd let Gyrich be in the same room as Xavier. Or...lots of things.
That just sounds like Byrne beine Byrne, especially since the movie actually had the ending he intended for the comic. Byrne's original plot had the X-Men winning a clean victory with the future timeline completely erased, but Claremont changed Byrne's intent for the story with one caption box.
The ending wasn't remotely the same, in the comic the alternate future was avoided altogether and Sen. Kelly's life was saved. In the movie Magneto proved oncreen that mutants can be and are indeed dangerous. Not mention the illogic of having Kate Pryde somehow take Wolverine's mind into the past. Kitty's ability is be able to phase people and herself though solid objects not navigate minds though time and space. Wolverine's actions in the movie didn't change Mystque's mind to make her give up nor did he stop Magneto.
I don't think that was the ending, just the resolution. I assume the ending is Wolverine waking up again. The only question is did Byrne intend the apocalyptic future to be erased and is the movie closer to carrying out that intent than the comic was?
It was the intent in the comic book story and that's what happened and no IMO the movie failed in that aspect.