The X-Men Cinematic Universe (General Discussion)

[Grendelsbayne]

Alternate Universe is different then altered timeline. Anyway, I don't really care. Its weird how the worst X-Men movie has people trying to jam it into canon, when at least one and possibly two of the characters in it (depending on when the Gambit movie is set, if it even comes out) won't match age wise and Deadpool has almost nothing in common with the Origins version. Even if you like the movie, its been so retconned that it seems a bit silly to try to justify its existence by talking about major changes to the timeline.

It's not. If a universe where your parents led completely different lives (from before the time when you were born) can still have a person in it who is recognizably you, then a universe that's exactly the same except your mom didn't get pregnant until a few years later than she should have can as well. In both cases, you're almost certainly being born from a different egg and a different sperm and under different conditions and still (though the magic of fiction) turning out to be the same basic person, therefore both cases are equally logical.

And I'm not trying to force origins into canon. I'd be perfectly happy if it disappeared - it's easily my most disliked superhero movie ever. But that doesn't change the fact that it is canon, regardless of any possible continuity errors. It was on screen. It continues to be referenced by the new movies. It is canon.

I suppose Wolverine's time travel also caused Psylocke to be born 15 plus years earlier too, and gave her completely different powers. The time travel apparently also made Banshee have a daughter some time after he died. Actually, the second thing couldn't have happened, since Banshee died before Wolverine went back in time, so it was something that already happened in the original timeline. Yet, Siryn still exists. In the end, the X-Men movies had (and still have, to an extent) a stupid trend of using a bunch of cool X-Men as background characters, then having to eventually retcon those into something else when they want to use the character "for real".

Bolivar Trask, Hank McCoy, Deadpool, Psylocke, Angel, even Sabertooth were all used as background characters (or barely coherent henchmen in Sabertooths case) and then the X-Men people went "Oops, we shouldn't have done that, now we want to use them and what we did doesn't fit with what we're doing now". All of these weren't the result of Wolverine's time travel. I like the X-Men movies, but there is a lot of stuff you just have to shrug off because of the weird things the franchise does sometimes. Using Wolverine's time travel to explain that is ridiculous, and doesn't even fit with half of the characters anyway, even if you accept that people can have the same kids decades before they time they were supposed to.

I've already mentioned that it's a ridiculous justification for some of the characters. That doesn't mean it's a ridiculous justification for all of them. It's perfectly reasonable to say (within the context of a comic book universe) that a timeline change could result in someone being born later (though obviously not someone who was born before the timeline changed).

And there's absolutely no reason why a discussion of the possible results of the DoFP timeline change should even be expected to solve every continuity error in the franchise, anyway.

 

[Taylirious]

Is Taylor Swift indeed Dazzler? I am guessing not but hated recent teases!

 

[DigificWriter]

Is Taylor Swift indeed Dazzler?

We don't know.

I'm personally hoping she is, but that's just because I like her.

There's absolutely no reason why a discussion of the possible results of the DoFP timeline change should even be expected to solve every continuity error in the franchise, anyway.

Especially since there aren't actually that many continuity errors that needed to be fixed in the first place.

 

[Taylirious]

We don't know.

I'm personally hoping she is, but that's just because I like her.

I wanted her to be Dazzler since stuff surfaced months ago, that image of her with people involved with the film.

 

[DigificWriter]

In order to steer the conversation back in a more positive direction instead of arguing about its overall success and/or how flawed its continuity actually is versus how flawed it's (wrongly) perceived to be, I wanted to ask people who their favorite character(s) are or have been from the franchise overall thus far.

For me, I've always been partial to Rogue, Logan, Charles, Erik, Jean, Hank, and Raven, and happen to love the way that their stories have ended up being interwoven over the course of the franchise thus far. I'm especially fond of the foster sibling relationship that's been established between Charles and Raven (even though it ended really badly in the original timeline), and am really interested in seeing what ends up leading them to reconcile post-DoFP.

 

[kirk55555]

Favorite X-Men movie Characters: Professor X (both versions), Magneto (both versions), Wolverine, Beast (Kelsey Grammer), Colossus (Deadpool version), Deadpool (Deadpool movie version)

Least Favorite: Emma Frost (I'd say she's just bland, but compared to the awesome comic version she's horrible), Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence version, boring and gets too much attention, I hope Apocalypse takes her out),

 

[Set Harth]

Alternate Universe is different then altered timeline.

In this case they are the same; branching time travel creates an alternate timeline which for all intents and purposes is a different "universe".

I suppose Wolverine's time travel also caused Psylocke to be born 15 plus years earlier too, and gave her completely different powers.

On what basis can you say she has "completely different powers"? We hardly saw any usage of powers by X-Men 3's version of Psylocke, so there's no basis for comparison.

 

[DigificWriter]

@kirk55555 I fail to see how you can realistically and seriously make this "Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique is boring and gets too much attention" argument based on TWO movies in which she was an ENSEMBLE character, but whatever.

 

[kirk55555]

@kirk55555 I fail to see how you can realistically and seriously make this "Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique is boring and gets too much attention" argument based on TWO movies in which she was an ENSEMBLE character, but whatever.

Its personal opinion. I thought the character/actress was boring in First Class, and rewatching DoFP yesterday she's pretty unimpressive from an acting perspective, too. She's THE character of Apocalypse though, front and center ahead of even Professor Xavier in advertising. They look to be replacing Hugh Jackman with the least charismatic actress in the X-Men movies (outside of January Jones, but she was a side character and doesn't really count). Again, its just my opinion, but I liked the X-Men movies more when Mystique was the mostly silent minion of Magneto, or at least not the focus of the story.

 

[DigificWriter]

She's THE character of Apocalypse though

Unless you've somehow managed to travel into the future and see Apocalypse, there's no way you can realistically claim that she's "THE character" in that film, because advertising means jack-**** in terms of being an accurate indicator of who is or is not "prominently featured" in an actual story.

Han Solo was featured far more prominently in the marketing for The Force Awakens than any of the other characters in that movie, including the lead protagonist (Daisy Ridley's Rey), and yet, when it came to the actual story, he was very much a supporting/ensemble player.

I liked the X-Men movies more when Mystique was the mostly silent minion of Magneto, or at least not the focus of the story.

Mystique's character has never BEEN "the focus of the story", though, so this argument makes no sense.

In this case they are the same; branching time travel creates an alternate timeline which for all intents and purposes is a different "universe".

I disagree. Altering a timeline and creating an alternate universe through time travel are based on the same root idea (the "ripple effect principle"), but they end up creating two fundamentally different types of narrative.

The second establishes a narrative where you can harken back to things that were done in the "original universe" without actually affecting said universe, whereas the first establishes a narrative wherein what happened in the "original timeline" still profoundly affects what happens in the "altered timeline" even if there are vast differences between what HAD happened and what MIGHT happen.

 

[kirk55555]

Unless you've somehow managed to travel into the future and see Apocalypse, there's no way you can realistically claim that she's "THE character" in that film, because advertising means jack-**** in terms of being an accurate indicator of who is or is not "prominently featured" in an actual story.

Han Solo was featured far more prominently in the marketing for The Force Awakens than any of the other characters in that movie, including the lead protagonist (Daisy Ridley's Rey), and yet, when it came to the actual story, he was very much a supporting/ensemble player.

That's Star Wars. The X-Men franchise has had a main character since Hugh Jackman became basically the focus of every movie until First Class. He's already said he's close to being gone, and it looks to me like Lawrence is being set up to replace him. She starred in some stupid YA movies, so she's the most "marketable", even though she's a mediocre actress she has the name recognition. She'll probably be the person who is the key to defeating Apocalypse

She's never BEEN "the focus of the story", though, so this argument makes no sense.

She was a HUGE part of DoFP. She was the catalyst of everything that happened in the future, and her choice at the end is what saved the future. She gets a bunch of character development, and probably more solo scenes than anyone else. She got way too much in that movie, now she'll be in a movie where she probably has the biggest name (even though Fassbender and McAvoy are much better actors with much better characters).

 

[Set Harth]

they end up creating two fundamentally different types of narrative.

No, they don't. They are one and the same. A timeline that has branched, so that there is a new timeline while the original timeline remains intact, gives us a different universe in parallel with the original one. I'm not talking about the "single timeline" philosophy.

 

[DigificWriter]

No, they don't. They are one and the same. A timeline that has branched, so that there is a new timeline while the original timeline remains intact, gives us a different universe in parallel with the original one. I'm not talking about the "single timeline" philosophy.

What happened with DoFP's time travel wasn't the creation of a "branching timeline", though; what DoFP's time travel did was to "change the course of the future" so that what happened before won't happen again, or at least won't happen in the same way.

 

[One Lucky Red Shirt]

Im not gonna get into this time travel doctor who realities. The xmen films f the most part have been a very good entertaining film franchise. Ive enjoyed all of them and plan on watching them all before age is released.

The only gripes i have with the films is some characters being underused such as cyclops, colossus, toad, sabretooth and storm while others get too much time and spotlight such as raven and wolverine.

The only very bad film so far has been origins. Last stand doesnt deserve all the hate it gets. It couldve been longer with more character moments though.

Like others have said, sometimes u just have to shrug it off and enjoy the films series for what it is. Singer and co. Have done a beautiful job at fleshing all these xmen out on screen. Its amazing what theyve done with so many characters in these 2 hour films. Anyways, with age setting up a new trilogy, they need to play with the fall of the mutants and especially inferno and finally finish it with the dark Phoenix saga. Bring on mr. Sinister already!!

 

[Set Harth]

The only very bad film so far has been origins. Last stand doesnt deserve all the hate it gets.

Origins doesn't really deserve all the hate it gets either (IMO). It does a few things poorly but there are a lot of great moments.

 

[DigificWriter]

Origins doesn't really deserve all the hate it gets either (IMO). It does a few things poorly but there are a lot of great moments.

I agree. Both Origins: Wolverine and X3 are better movies than people think they are, and I will forever maintain that what happens with Jean in X3 is and was a brilliant, if different, take on the Pheonix character and storyline, especially once you add in what happens in The Wolverine, Days of Future Past, and the 'pre-history' that DoFP retroactively adds to the internal mythology of the X-verse as it exists at the time of the original X-trilogy.

I honestly feel that if people cast aside all their preconceptions and perceptions about X-Men in relation to other franchises and about what they think is or isn't consistent with regards to the franchise's internal mythology and just accepted the films for what they are, this franchise would get far more credit than it does, because it truly is a phenomenal series on the whole.

 

[Tosk]

The only very bad film so far has been origins. Last stand doesnt deserve all the hate it gets.

Origins doesn't really deserve all the hate it gets either (IMO). It does a few things poorly but there are a lot of great moments.

Maybe not, but they both deserve some of the hate they get.

 

[Set Harth]

Origins in particular was trashed even before it came out by people who were reacting to a workprint with unfinished effects. That self-fulfilling prophecy became the "internet consensus" view of the film.

 

[Beagleman]

My biggest problem with Origins is the amount of great actors it totally wasted on subpar writing. And what they did to Deadpool, well at least that has been repaired.

 

[DigificWriter]

I want to take a moment to talk about what a tremendous job the franchise has done thus far in 'matching' the younger and older actors, because it really does feel like we're seeing Fassbender, Hoult, and J'Law play younger versions of Ian McKellen, Kelsey Grammar, and Rebecca Romjin(Stamos).

McAvoy, for as good as he is, just doesn't quite have the gravitas of Patrick Stewart and so the 'matching' isn't quite as seamless, but they've made things work by playing his Xavier in a way that fits with what we know of the character from the first trilogy but lets him bring his own 'flair' to the role.