X-Men (2000) vs. First Class and Origins: Wolverine

If I am to understand things correctly all of the X-Men movies we've had so-far take place "in the same universe" which is fine and good but between the different directors and the 13 year time span between X-Men and The Wolverine the consistencies seem... muddy.

For all intents and purposes it seems that end of "Origins: Wolverine" take place in 1979. I say that as I'm guessing the incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant was "covered up" as being the partial meltdown that happened there in that year. Granted, that's pure speculation but the time of the movie is hard to pin down as it seems not too much attention was paid to trying to establish a time-period.

So in "X-Men" Professor-X suggests that Wolverine has been drifting on his own for "15 years." We'll ignore that the movie claims to take place in "the not too distant future" (or by that it's speaking in a matter of days, weeks or maybe months.) But Wolverine has been drifting on his own for probably closer to 20 years. (TMI incident: 1979, X-Men: 2000.)

In X-Men Professor-X says he was 17 when he met Magneto but in "First Class" Charles Xavier is in his early 20s/in college when he meets Magneto and, of course, the big one being the movie seems to take place over the course of months maybe at the end of which Xavier ends up crippled and he and Magneto gone their different ways.

We see a teenage Scott Summers in Origins (again, 1979) but he certainly doesn't seem to be man pushing 40 in X-Men and, well, we could go on and on.

You know, maybe this movie series needs a huge reboot in order to make consistency here.

 

Just ignore Origins. Even the studio seems to be.

If not for anything, it's one of the most incompetently made blockbuster productions in decades. I don't think we should be analyzing its script for "consistency."

Then again, I thought "The Wolverine's" script was pretty terrible, too...so what do I know?

 

No. That was what some people wanted, but it didn't happen.

With the new movie mentioning Kayla, showing a WWII flashback and having bone claws all over the place, they're hardly ignoring Origins.

 

Ignore all dates in the X-Films. It doesn't fix all the problems, but it helps.

 

Ha, gotta include its inclusion in future blu combo packs somehow, I guess. Fifty cents to manufacture an extra disc, another five bucks to the sticker price.

C'mon, man, every X-fan worth his or her adamantium knows about that one time Cyke brawled with the Timekeeper and was rifted forward two decades.

Hey, puppies!

​

 

Damn, that's right.

Damn.

 

Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

Rearguard actions are so cute...

 

Hey, I think XMO:W gets a bad rap. Start watching it about halfway in, and you've got yourself a fairly decent flick. I even found the climax kinda moving, as I'm a total sucker for seeing cute girls escape captivity. I'll happily watch it over the more polished yet far more depressing missed potential of The X-Men Film That Shall Not Be Named any day.

That said, I'm sure that even those that made it know that that first hour is crap on a stick.

 

First Class i feel is the best movie of the 3. Story, direction and action are all excellent.

Next I give X-Men Origins. It wins out over X-Men because Origins paints a better picture of mutants. Not all mutants are restrained and responsible with their powers. The mutants in Origins are irresponsible and don't care how they use their powers or how they effect people around them. Sure the action is WAY over the top, but I'd rather that than X-Men (2000) second stringer Brotherhood of Mutants vs a superior X-Men team.

 

Yeah, but only because it's so crappy.

 

X-Men Origins is right up there with Revenge of the Fallen in terms of crappiness I agree. However I prefer them each over X-Men 2000 and Transformers 1.

With them I only ask to be entertained. The moment i turn on my critic or nerd rage cap I get frustrated.

 

The next new XMen movie will have time travel and fix everything.

 

which cute girl are your referring to?

 

Eh, people get older and remember dates and facts wrong, so Professor X could be just guesstimating. The dates are roughly close enough. Overall, I still see all movies tied into a grand story. It seems like DOFP is like a sequel to both First Class and X-Men 3.

 

Speaking in a meta-sense I don't buy that as he's delivering exposition to the audience. We're supposed to take him at his word because he's providing us backstory on what happened and he's not supposed to come across as the "unreliable narrator."

Speaking in-universe, I don't buy it either. As I'm sure Professor-X is smart enough to know the difference between "that time I was 17, still in high-school with a pimply face and met Magneto" and "that time I was in my 20s working on a Graduate degree and picking up chicks with my mind-powers and met Magneto."

 

I watched X-Men 3 the other day and noticed another inconsistency. When Xavier and Magneto find Jean in the 70s, Xavier can walk, but he was crippled at the end of First Class back in the 60s.

 

Well, see, that's your first mistake.

The blonde. I mean, I like seeing any kids set free, but cute gals = bonus.

 

I actually liked X-men 3. It has flaws, but its not bad, and its definately better than Origins. Also, the blonde woman in Origins is emma frost. They said she was, and they never took it back when First Class came out. I don't care how some fans spin it, they outright said it was her, and I've never seen an interview with any of the in charge people say she wasn't. I think Origins is probably only about 75% ignored. They'll reference somethings, but I doubt Deadpool from that movie will ever be mentioned, and I can easily see them bringing in a new, totally unconnected gambit. I'd also bet that the magic adamantium bullet will never be heard from again. There is also the fact that Xavier should not have been walking (or bald, or as old as Patrick Stewart was) and of course Cyclops age which makes a good part of that movie not work with the others anyway.

As for dates, you need to ignore them in X-Men movies, otherwise you have to wonder how storm being about 4-5 in 1962 (unless Xavier was seeing another white haired mutant in cerebro) makes any sense, same with Cyclops age (and having his brother be about 20 in 1962, meaning he'd be born in the fourties and Scott couldn't be that much younger than Alex).

I like the X-men movies, but you do kind of have to ignore some things that they didn't seem to have thought out to well while making the movies, like dates. Also, just talking about the X-men movies, am I the only one who hopes they ressurect Cyclops with a new actor if they're going to keep making X-Men movies in the same universe? The old one was ok, but obviously not very reliable for an ongoing series of movies (they should have just switched actors in X3 instead of killing him off). I know he's not really needed, but I do like the X-men movie universe and it would be interesting to see Cyclops in it again.

 

^ Well, I assume that post-DOFP, we'll be on an entirely new timeline, as in Trek XI. Either way, there's no reason a new, young Cyke couldn't join McAvoy and Co. in their third flick.