The X-Men Cinematic Universe (General Discussion)
- Thread starter DigificWriter
- Start date
Huh?
Even after skipping most of the conversation on the last page, I get what Skywalker is referring to. Although thinking about it, it's probably because I did skip that I get what he is referring to.
A timeline change in 1973 achieved through time travel can account for changes in the 60s or 70s if the new timeline has someone traveling to 1960 for example that the old timeline didn't have.
Given how easily they could have found someone who looks more or less like the X2 prez, and the larger context of things going better for the mutant community since that movie, it's silly to assume a radically different-looking guy isn't meant to be a different character.
Well, actually...
This kind of thing came up in discussions regarding the Abrams films in the Trek continuity.
It is theoretically possible that the changes to the timeline allow for additional time travel events of some kind in the future of the altered timeline and that these have affected the past. In that sense the ripple effect can be said to propagate backwards.
EDIT: I just saw that @Timelord Victorious already covered that.
I used to buy this notion, but it just doesn't make sense with there only being one year (or less) between the events of X2 and TLS.
It doesn't even require additional time travel for the "ripple effect principle" to work backwards. In the 2011 Mortal Kombat game, Raiden's transmission of a thought-projected warning to his past self creates changes that independently put a number of characters in places that they hadn't previously been in the original timeline.
So it's not out-of-the-question at all for certain characters to have either been born earlier or later relative to the new X-verse timeline's "change point" of 1973, because the scope of the changes isn't limited just to that year.
But there's absolutely no reason to assume any such thing has actually happened in the X-Men universe. And every reason to assume it's just a continuity error.
If you try hard enough, you can explain away literally every problem in any movie.
Mortal Kombat isn't the X-Men.
^ Both Mortal Kombat and X-Men have used the narrative device of timeline alteration to open up new creative storytelling avenues, and have implemented said timeline alteration through similar means that are rooted in the "ripple effect principle".
I don't follow. Right now Obama is the President. In less than a year, someone else will be. So I don't see what that has to do with anything. I always thought it was obvious that there was a new President in X3. There is zero indication it was intended to be the same one from X2 recast.
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff." -The Doctor
Last edited:
That still doesn't mean they play by the exact same rules.
Yup. Not sure why this is a question: elections happen.
The fact that the X-franchise hasn't been rebooted, even with the alteration of the timeline, says (to me) that both it and Mortal Kombat do in fact play by the same rules, at least in terms of the basic conceits of the "ripple effect principle" upon which the way the two franchises have altered their respective timelines is based (which is that one change creates many other changes as a 'ripple effect').
I find it hard to believe, based on what's presented in both X2 and TLS, that there's enough time for an election to have taken place, especially when you have both Hank and the President speaking and behaving as if Hank's been in his position as Secretary of Mutant Affairs for a while.
Last edited:
Absolutely, and neither do they likely play by the exact same rules as DW. But the point is that it's hardly unknown for popular depictions of time travel and jumping alternate quantum realities and the like to posit that effects of mucking about with such things can propagate beyond what seems "logically" sensible from a human point of view.
(Not that I would personally place the concept of an event creating a "ripple" or expanding bubble of effect which emanates outward in all directions from its origin—including backward—at the extreme of illogic. Is it really any more illogical than the underlying premise of traveling backward through time and consequently effecting change upon the "past" that, from your point of view, preceded the "future" you came from? Treating the time travel event's origin as the point from which the traveler departed, aren't we already dealing with a kind of backward-rippling effect to begin with?)
I don't understand how changes made by somebody traveling to the '70s can change things in the '60s. I really think unless that is specifically stated in one of the future movies, it's to just go along with whatever changes they made and not give it that much thought. Contradictions and retcons happen all the time in this kind of stuff, so it's best to just go with it.
There's nothing in either film to say that the election wasn't only months or even weeks away in X2.
...And for what it's worth, Jean has what looks to be about 18 months worth of hair growth between films.
^ As someone who puts 100% faith in the official timeline and the uncontradicted dates that it gives, I'm going to have to disagree with the notion of there having been a Presidential election between X2 and TLS, and just say "to each their own".
If you can come up with an explanation that works, more power to you, but for me, the physical appearance of the President in TLS is an incongruency and one that I can't come up with a workable solution for; however, it doesn't affect my overall enjoyment of the franchise as a whole or TLS in particular (and I do very much enjoy TLS).
I'm watching the Extended Cut of The Wolverine right now, and although it's previously been hard for me to pick a favorite film in the X-franchise overall due to the fact that I like each and every movie in it for different reasons, I have to say that, if I absolutely HAD to pick a favorite, it'd be hard for me not to give The Wolverine the spot, because it really is a brilliant film on par with X2 and DoFP.
I love Hugh Jackman's performance and his chemistry with both Tao Okamoto and Rila Fukushima, and the way the film ties together Origins: Wolverine and The Last Stand while also telling its own self-contained story is phenomenal. I also love that they infused the film with a unique mutant presence in the form of Yukio and Viper, the latter of whom is one freaky chick and gives me serious Lady Deathstrike vibes, especially since, for all intents and purposes, she's largely an original character.
If you can come up with an explanation that works, more power to you, but for me, the physical appearance of the President in TLS is an incongruency and one that I can't come up with a workable solution for; however, it doesn't affect my overall enjoyment of the franchise as a whole or TLS in particular (and I do very much enjoy TLS).
I'm watching the Extended Cut of The Wolverine right now, and although it's previously been hard for me to pick a favorite film in the X-franchise overall due to the fact that I like each and every movie in it for different reasons, I have to say that, if I absolutely HAD to pick a favorite, it'd be hard for me not to give The Wolverine the spot, because it really is a brilliant film on par with X2 and DoFP.
I love Hugh Jackman's performance and his chemistry with both Tao Okamoto and Rila Fukushima, and the way the film ties together Origins: Wolverine and The Last Stand while also telling its own self-contained story is phenomenal. I also love that they infused the film with a unique mutant presence in the form of Yukio and Viper, the latter of whom is one freaky chick and gives me serious Lady Deathstrike vibes, especially since, for all intents and purposes, she's largely an original character.
It's cool if you decide that they are the same president. At the end of the day, we can all discuss why we think something the way we do, but it's not supposed to be a fight so I'm happy to agree to disagree. 
Even though I already pointed out that it's wrong?
Then again, faith isn't always about facts.
I'm quoting my own post (with emphasis) in order to make the point that when there are conflicts between the official timeline released in Empire Magazine and the films, the films win out over what's in the timeline unless it's clear from narrative intent that there have been retcons associated with certain events as presented by the films). However, there are only a few instances of that happening, meaning that for instances for which we do not have concrete dates outside of what's in the Empire Magazine timeline (such as the timing of Logan and Victor being recruited by Stryker, Logan walking away from Team X, and the timing of the original trilogy) , I place my complete faith in the dates that it gives and use them to supplement, support, and compliment what the films themselves reveal.
The official timeline isn't perfect, but it can and does work in most instances to establish a narrative and chronological 'framework' for the franchise, and therefore should not be dismissed out-of-hand.
Similar threads
