The X-Men Cinematic Universe (General Discussion)

[JD]

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

It doesn't look likely. A couple weeks ago Sophie Turner (Apocalypse new Jean Grey) posted a picture of her and Cyclops looking at a Dazzler record which used a picture from a Dazzler comic cover. I'm assuming if Taylor Swift was playing the character it would have been her, rather than an old comic book image.

 

[DigificWriter]

I've made it to X3, and have to say that aside from the in incongruency of recasting the President of the United States way too freaking old, it really does do a good job of following up on X2. I do wish we'd gotten an explanation for Piotr and Kitty joining the X-Men and Nightcrawler being absent, but "what can you do?"

I've never sat down and tried to figure out which of the films in the franchise is my favorite overall because I like all of them for different reasons, but I will say, if pressed, that X3 is my favorite of the original trilogy, primarily because of the Phoenix story, but also because of the way it partially pits the X-Men against each other "Civil War"-style. I also really like the introduction of Kelsey Grammar's Beast, who does very much feel like an older version of the character as played by Nicholas Hoult in First Class.

Also, while I'm on the subject, it's quite awesome the way that Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence's Erik and Mystique feel like younger versions of the characters played by Ian McKellen and Rebecca Romain(Stamos), which is a testament to the casting department.

 

[Set Harth]

I've made it to X3, and have to say that aside from the in incongruency of recasting the President of the United States way too freaking old

Uh... different President? Elections happen.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ There's about a year between X2 (which is set in 2006) and X3 (which is set in 2007) in-universe, and where we start and end end up in X3 in terms of the government's attitude towards Mutants is clearly meant to be a direct outgrowth of the scene in the Oval Office at the end of X2, so the "new President" idea doesn't work.

 

[Set Harth]

where we start and end end up in X3 in terms of the government's attitude towards Mutants is clearly meant to be a direct outgrowth of the scene in the Oval Office at the end of X2

That alone doesn't require the same President to be in office, and I don't see where supposed 2006 and 2007 dates are set in stone anywhere.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ The official timeline that was released through Empire Magazine 2 years ago.

And The Wolverine mentioning that it's been 6 years since the events of The Last Stand.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Magazine articles aren't exactly canon. And how does the Wolverine mention set a specific date for x2?

In any case, it pretty clearly is a new president, even if he's following the lead of the last one. If that bothers you somehow, just imagine the last president had an unexpected heart attack one night and the new guy was his VP.

 

[Gaith]

It's a new prez; the dialogue says so. And it's one of that horrible, no-good movie's many, many failings:

- A new president: Why? The one in X2 had a cool, square-jawed look to him, and since he was barely in it, he could easily have been recast if necessary. The new prez is a kindly old geezer. This is a minor detail, yes, but it pisses me off to no end. The X2 prez was given a choice by Xavier of how to proceed. What did he choose? Apparently to be tough on mutants, which a newly-hippie-fied nation rejected him for, as the X3 prez is clearly more mutant-friendly: he has one in his Cabinet, for Pete's sake.
​

.

 

[DigificWriter]

@Gaith I just watched The Last Stand yesterday, and nowhere in the movie does it say the the President we see is new. They simply recast the role far too old, making it an incongruency, albeit one that, contrary to your contention, isn't all that big of a deal.

@grendelsbayne The timeline that Empire printed was created based on information that came straight from people directly involved in the franchise. It's not perfect given that some of its dates don't match up with stuff we're told about within some of the films themselves, but in those instances, the film info supercedes what the timeline tells us and everything works just fine.

People have gotten it into their heads that there are far more issues with the consistency and continuity of this franchise than there actually are, and it by and large holds together incredibly well.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

@Gaith I just watched The Last Stand yesterday, and nowhere in the movie does it say the the President we see is new. They simply recast the role far too old, making it an incongruency, albeit one that, contrary to your contention, isn't all that big of a deal.

@grendelsbayne The timeline that Empire printed was created based on information that came straight from people directly involved in the franchise. It's not perfect given that some of its dates don't match up with stuff we're told about within some of the films themselves, but in those instances, the film info supercedes what the timeline tells us and everything works just fine.

People have gotten it into their heads that there are far more issues with the consistency and continuity of this franchise than there actually are, and it by and large holds together incredibly well.

In other words, the magazine doesn't even fit whats on screen. Who provided the info doesn't really matter, it still is just a magazine article - nothing (of the new information) in it actually made it into a movie. Creatives give all sorts of information and thoughts in articles like that, and half the time wind up directly contradicting them in later onscreen entries. And I don't know why anyone needs the movie to tell them it's a new president when it's blatantly obvious that it's a new president. He's much older and has a very different attitude. And while that choice may be creatively suspect (why throw away the ending of X2 like that?), it's not a continuity issue at all. Presidents change.

 

[Tosk]

People have gotten it into their heads that there are far more issues with the consistency and continuity of this franchise than there actually are

How many would you peg it at?

Edit: Also, I just had a quick look at that timeline. It says that Logan quit Team X in 1979, and gets his adamantium skeleton to fight Victor in 1987. The film itself says "Six Years Later" between those two events.

 

[Relayer1]

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.

As far as continuity stands, it's a fresh start. Anything in the other movies happened, but it's all changed now, handwave though that may be. As long as the new movies maintain continuity with themselves I'm good.

Favourite character ?

Deadpool : 'X-Men Oranges' version, natch !

 

[DigificWriter]

@grendelsbayne The official timeline isn't perfect, but there really are only a few instances where the films contradict it:
* According to onscreen information, the bulk of Origins: Wolverine takes place in 1985 rather than 1987
* Warren Worthington's powers manifest themselves in 1997 rather than 1996
* Jean is recruited by Charles and Erik in 1987 rather than 1981

The relationship between the official timeline and the films is exactly the same as exists between the Star Wars films and the novelizations thereof: the information contained therein is Canon so long as it isn't contradicted by the films themselves.

@Tosk: Aside from the already-mentioned incongruency of a President in TLS who is far too old based on official dating, the only other issues that I've seen in my rewatch have to do with props, and are as follows:
* Wolverine has his iconic banded leather jacket in First Class and DoFP even though he doesn't actually get it until the events of Origins: Wolverine, which take place much later

* Josh Helman's William Stryker is missing his commendation service medals from the Korean War during his appearances in DoFP

Most of the things that people claim as continuity errors (Xavier walking in O:W and the flashback in TLS, young!Emma in O:W, Charles and Raven and Logan and Victor's familial relationships not being mentioned in the original X-Trilogy, Xavier not meeting Erik at 17 years of age, mentions of Logan having been turned into Weapon X 15 years before the events of X1/X2) aren't actually errors at all because they are either covered by "word of God" statements or are retcons (and therefore do not constitute errors).

@Relayer1 The altered timeline created by DoFP occupies the exact same continuity as the original timeline outlined by and in the pre-DoFP films. This becomes crystal clear if you actually listen and pay attention to how the filmmakers talk about the franchise, even if people mistakenly believe otherwise.

 

[Tosk]

the only other issues that aren't covered by retcons have to do with props, and are as follows:

So no probs with the multiple Psylockes, Angels and Jubilees?

or are retcons

Aren't those exactly what we're talking about though? Things that have become mutually exclusive over time? If any incongruity is a retcon, then I agree...there are no issues at all.

* Wolverine has his iconic banded leather jacket in First Class and DoFP even though he doesn't actually get it until the events of Origins: Wolverine, which take place much later

He got another copy of the same jacket along the way. Problem solved.

* Josh Helman's William Stryker is missing his commendation service medals from the Korean War during his appearances in DoFP

They fell off in the wash.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

@grendelsbayne The official timeline isn't perfect, but there really are only a couple of instances where the films contradict it:
* According to onscreen information, the bulk of Origins: Wolverine takes place in 1985 rather than 1987
* Warren Worthington's powers manifest themselves in 1997 rather than 1996
* Jean is recruited by Charles and Erik in 1987 rather than 1981

The relationship between the official timeline and the films is exactly the same as exists between the Star Wars films and the novelizations thereof: the information contained therein is Canon so long as it isn't contradicted by the films themselves.

Based on what?

@Tosk: Aside from the already-mentioned incongruency of a President in TLS who is far too old based on official dating, the only other issues that aren't covered by retcons have to do with props, and are as follows:
* Wolverine has his iconic banded leather jacket in First Class and DoFP even though he doesn't actually get it until the events of Origins: Wolverine, which take place much later

* Josh Helman's William Stryker is missing his commendation service medals from the Korean War during his appearances in DoFP

Most of the things that people claim as continuity errors (Xavier walking in O:W and the flashback in TLS, young!Emma in O:W, Charles and Raven and Logan and Victor's familial relationships not being mentioned in the original X-Trilogy, Xavier not meeting Erik at 17 years of age) aren't actually errors at all because they are either covered by "word of God" statements or are retcons (and therefore do not constitute errors).

You forgot how Warren Worthington and Jubilee somehow managed to be teenagers in both the near future and the early 80s. Also, I'm curious what your rationale is that Xavier and Erik's relationship isn't a continuity error.

 

[DigificWriter]

You forgot how Warren Worthington and Jubilee somehow managed to be teenagers in both the near future and the early 80s.

These things are covered by the fact that DoFP alters the timeline, and by the "ripple effect principle" that underpins said alteration (see Mortal Kombat [2011] and Mortal Kombat X for an equivalent example).

Also, I'm curious what your rationale is that Xavier and Erik's relationship isn't a continuity error.

The age at which Charles meets Erik was retconned by First Class so that it happens when they're older; since retcons overwrite and override previous Canonical information, what First Class tells us about their ages at the time of their first meeting supersedes and cancels out what X-Men 1 told us... therefore, there is no continuity error because the "old" information is overwritten and superseded by the "new" information.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

These things are covered by the fact that DoFP alters the timeline, and by the "ripple effect principle" that underpins said alteration (see Mortal Kombat [2011] and Mortal Kombat X for an equivalent example).

Nope. DoFP altered the timeline *starting from* 1973. These new versions of the characters must have already been born before the timeline change happened, or else they couldn't possibly be teenagers in 1983.

The age at which Charles meets Erik was retconned by First Class so that it happens when they're older; since retcons overwrite and override previous Canonical information, what First Class tells us about their ages at the time of their first meeting supersedes and cancels out what X-Men 1 told us... therefore, there is no continuity error because the "old" information is overwritten and superseded by the "new" information.

That's pretty much exactly what a continuity error is. Certainly it's exactly what just about everyone is talking about when they talk about the continuity problems in the series. Two movies supposedly in continuity giving directly contradictory information. The fact that it was intentionally done changes nothing.

 

[DigificWriter]

@grendelsbayne There's no rule that says that the "ripple effect principle" only works forward.

Retcons are, because of their very nature, not contradictions. That's why they work.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

@grendelsbayne There's no rule that says that the "ripple effect principle" only works forward.

Retcons are, because of their very nature, not contradictions. That's why they work.

There's no logical way of saying it works backwards. The timeline before 1973 has already occurred before the changes in 1973 take place. Unless you just handwave it away as 'that's how it works in this series'. Which X-Men has never done.

And Retcons are literally by their nature contradictions. Unless they provide actual reasons for their inherent contradictions, which is how good retcons typically work: this character wasn't dead because it was all a trick all along; that event never happened because someone traveled back in time and prevented it; this character's history has been changed because this is a whole new universe, due to x screwing with the fabric of reality.

Any retcon that doesn't do that is a continuity error. Which isn't the end of the world. It can still work. But it works in spite of the contradiction, not because of it.

 

[DigificWriter]

There's no logical way of saying it works backwards.

I disgree.

And Retcons are literally by their nature contradictions. Unless they provide actual reasons for their inherent contradictions, which is how good retcons typically work: this character wasn't dead because it was all a trick all along; that event never happened because someone traveled back in time and prevented it; this character's history has been changed because this is a whole new universe, due to x screwing with the fabric of reality.

Any retcon that doesn't do that is a continuity error. Which isn't the end of the world. It can still work. But it works in spite of the contradiction, not because of it.

The bolded is a blatantly false idea, but it's not really worth arguing over anymore.