Nope.
Every film that has been released since 2000 and that will be coming out in the next year occupies a single uninterrupted narrative continuity.
Said continuity contains multiple timelines, but it's still a single whole.
The X-Men Cinematic Universe (General Discussion)
- Thread starter DigificWriter
- Start date
Nope.
Every film that has been released since 2000 and that will be coming out in the next year occupies a single uninterrupted narrative continuity.
Said continuity contains multiple timelines, but it's still a single whole.
The old continuity was intended to be thrown out and restarted from scratch with FC, instead they just messed everything up and now we have multiple timelines no one can make sense of.
Admittedly, even the multiple timelines don't entirely account for some of the plot holes between films. But I still appreciate the franchise for even bothering to attempt to maintain a single--if flawed--continuity over 17 years. That kind of staying power is all too rare these days when we're on our 3rd iteration of Spider-Man as well as seeing 2 separate live-action attempts at both Batman & Superman during that same period. Heck, we're even getting a Hellboy reboot. So while I expect that, barring something crazy happening with Dark Phoenix, we're nearing the end of this particular franchise, it's one that I will mourn deeply and can only hope that it gets the great send-off that it deserves.
It's weird looking back on the first X-Men and how tentative it was as far as embracing its comic book roots. It's a very small movie in comparison to what would come later but I think it's very well done. Some of the best character moments in the entire franchise are quiet scenes between Wolverine & Rogue in that film.
It's weird looking back on the first X-Men and how tentative it was as far as embracing its comic book roots. It's a very small movie in comparison to what would come later but I think it's very well done. Some of the best character moments in the entire franchise are quiet scenes between Wolverine & Rogue in that film.
If X-Men: First Class was intended to be a pure reboot of the franchise, they wouldn't have been so careful to avoid including established characters that were too young to have been on the team in 1962 like Cyclops, Iceman, & Jean Grey. They also would have figured out a way to reimagine young Erik's time in the concentration camp rather than using actual shots & music cues from the prologue of the 2000 movie. (To say nothing of the Hugh Jackman & Rebecca Romjin cameos.)
Without having to overtly reference the MCU, it would be nice if the whole XMCU could finish with some kind of (Phoenix related ?) reset.
Then they shouldn't have messed up how Xavier said his first meeting with Magneto went in the first X-Men movie. It's the movies' wishy-washy approach manifesting. It couldn't decide what to do.
Other than Professor Xavier's age, the events of X-Men: First Class are generally consistent with how events were described in X-Men. And honestly, I'd forgotten that Xavier even mentioned his age until someone else pointed it out to me.
Nope.
There was never a time when First Class was ever intended to reboot the continuity of the franchise.
They didn't.
In the first movie, Charles says he met Magneto when he when he was 17. it's after he's graduated from University. Bryan Singer has even said that he regrets this continuity error.
https://www.scifinow.co.uk/news/bryan-singer-hopes-youll-forget-x-men-continuity-errors/
https://www.scifinow.co.uk/news/bryan-singer-hopes-youll-forget-x-men-continuity-errors/
That's not a continuity error; it's a retcon... and I highly doubt Singer was being serious when he said he regretted writing the original line that he later retconned out of existence.
Also, why is it that I even have to once again remind people that a retcon is not a continuity error in the first place?
First Class changing Xavier 's age when he met Erik is a retcon because it's literally "retroactive continuity", overriding a previously established bit of information with new information.
As far as an example of an actual continuity error goes, here's one from the Harry Potter novels:
In the very first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Sorcerer's Stone in America), we are introduced to a minor character named Marcus Flint, who is a Sixth Year; the character is also featured in the second book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, where he is in his Seventh and final year, and again in the third novel, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, even though he should have graduated from Hogwarts at the conclusion of the second book.
Rowling forgot that Flint was supposed to be gone from the school when she wrote PoA, creating discontinuity between that novel and CoS, and never bothered to try and explain, within the course of the narrative of PoA, why he was still at the school during that book.
As far as an example of an actual continuity error goes, here's one from the Harry Potter novels:
In the very first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Sorcerer's Stone in America), we are introduced to a minor character named Marcus Flint, who is a Sixth Year; the character is also featured in the second book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, where he is in his Seventh and final year, and again in the third novel, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, even though he should have graduated from Hogwarts at the conclusion of the second book.
Rowling forgot that Flint was supposed to be gone from the school when she wrote PoA, creating discontinuity between that novel and CoS, and never bothered to try and explain, within the course of the narrative of PoA, why he was still at the school during that book.
Really? You can't see the difference between a retroactive (after-the-fact) alteration of previous continuity that overrides said previous continuity and an unexplained contradiction that flat-out ignores previously established continuity?
She's not.
I've said this before and will continue saying it, but there is no such thing as the bolded ( "soft reboot").
Sure she is. Classmate of Scott in 1983, classmate of Rogue in 2000s.
Yes there is.
But there’s no such thing as a "visual reimagining". Now that’s a made-up term recently invented by fans.
Nope.
If something retains any connection(s), however slight, to a previously-established narrative or narrative continuity, it is not a reboot. Period.
Making up terms like "soft reboot" to describe something that is in fact a sequel doesn't change the fact that it's a sequel. You can't take a shovel and call it a rake.
Wrong.
Unlike a reboot, which discards all continuity in a franchise, a "soft reboot" is a sequel which introduces a film, television, or video game series to a new audience while still maintaining continuity with previous installments. There are many of examples.
It also takes its (soft reboot or warm reboot) name from computing, where the system restarts without the need to interrupt the power.
But there’s no such thing as a "visual reimagining".
Similar threads
