In the film-verse they originate from Origins. And you can't say the same about Kayla.
Logan's history is largely plot as opposed to traits.
The X-Men Cinematic Universe (General Discussion)
- Thread starter DigificWriter
- Start date
In the film-verse they originate from Origins. And you can't say the same about Kayla.
Logan's history is largely plot as opposed to traits.
@DigificWriter -- I'm pretty sure Moira having a son is a reference to Proteus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus_(Marvel_Comics)
@JD -- I like Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique just fine. I just think that there are so, so, so many other characters that deserve a spotlight before her.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus_(Marvel_Comics)
@JD -- I like Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique just fine. I just think that there are so, so, so many other characters that deserve a spotlight before her.
@Turtletrekker I knew about Proteus, but there's nothing that says that they'd ever go that route in the films, and even if they did/do eventually, it still functions as an explanation for the Last Stand Moira because of the nature of altered timelines.
"First name James" and "had bone claws prior to Weapon-X" hardly constitute a history on their own. They're traits. Traits that come from the comics. That 'Origins' portrayed them first is irrelevant and doesn't automatically validate anything else that was portrayed in that movie.
You may as well claim that since 'Origins' named Wade Wilson first, that 'Deadpool' took the name from that earlier movie, which is obviously nonsense. It's an established trait of a well established comic book character. Just like the bone claws and just like Wolverine's given name.
I don't see why it's in need of "validation"; it's valid on its face, and where later productions may selectively and specifically invalidate particular elements of it, this equally shouldn't be taken as necessarily invalidating "anything else that was portrayed in that movie" as you say. I don't think it's ever been the case that any film in the series has been ignored in its entirety, simply that certain aspects and portrayals have been subject to significant reinterpretation and modification as the series goes on.
Now, I haven't yet seen Deadpool, but (1) doesn't it take place in the altered post-DOFP timeline, (2) don't the same character issues it presents surrounding Wade Wilson already apply to multiple other characters from films other than Origins in that timeline, and (3) isn't Deadpool in particular traditionally a metafictional character who transcends and defies the "rules" of the universe(s) he inhabits anyway?
Last edited:
I could list the reasons why it no longer works in continuity, even prior to the DoFP divergence, but that would require either thinking about the movie in detail or watching it again to remind myself. I don't want to do either of those things, because it's a pile of unwatchable crap and I have better things to do.
Call it conceding the argument if it makes you feel better, but I just flat-out don't care. So far as I'm concerned it's invalidity (figurative and literal) is self-evident.
The title sequence was kind of fun though...
Wade isn't sure. "these timelines are so confusing!""
Objectively though, yes, it would indeed appear to take place in the present day (or the fictional equivalent thereof.) Which is part of the problem, as I already pointed out. The Wade Wilson in 'Origins' can't be the same person in 'Deadpool' with an altered history (despite both bearing a striking resemblance to Ryan Reynolds.) The latter was a grown man in the mid-1970's while the former appears just a little bit older, but in the mid-2010's. No amount of flapping butterfly wings can make a person be born 30-odd years later. Especially since said person would *already have been alive* when the timeline diverged in DoFP.
Yeah, which is why I've repeatedly said that the X-Men movies are very inconsistent with their continuity and that it's really not worth sweating the details. 'Origins' is only an outlier in the sense that even the main plot doesn't fit. With the others it's mostly background cameos and nods, not the actual narrative and half the cast.
No.
*He* knows he's in a comic book/movie, but to those around him he's just really crazy and still very much exists in their world as they perceive it. They don't know there's a fourth wall for him to break. From their POV he's mostly talking to himself.
Last edited:
You say that like it actually means something. Nevertheless, I accept your apology.
I'm thinking about it, and I'm struggling to think of any "reasons why it no longer works in continuity" that go egregiously above and beyond the very same reasons why the original trilogy of films don't. (Or why pre-Abrams Trek doesn't fit with his films, for that matter.)
Plainly, by whatever logic is being applied in this series of films—which I readily admit seems rather "illogical" on the surface at least—it can.
With this much, I fully agree.
Last edited:
I like her. I thought she had a good storyline in First Class and a great one in DoFP. Her storyline in Apocalypse was incredibly weak and mainly seemed to exist for the sake of making Jennifer Lawrence the star. Despite the fact that I really like Jennifer Lawrence, it didn't work at all, and I suspect that if they continue trying to make her the star, we're more likely to see more repeats of Apocalypse than DoFP, because at the end of the day: 1) the X-Men franchise shouldn't even have a single star to begin with and 2) the character of Mystique works best as a villain, or at most, as a wild card, but definitely not as the heart of the X-Men.
I wouldn't mind keeping her around if they would just give her a role appropriate to the character, but I suspect if she stays on fox will mandate she be the star of everything purely due to name recognition.
Plus, she's fairly intricately linked to Magneto, and while Fassbender has been amazing, this series desperately needs to move on to a post-magneto space and finally start telling some stories that aren't 100% about the Xavier/Magneto relationship.
So for that reason, I'd be happier if they both just left (or even took a break for a few movies) to allow some different characters into the spotlight.
I've never seen a first name described as a "trait" before.
To you... for obvious reasons. But to deny that those are the Origins bone claws we see in subsequent movies is bending over backwards to escape the obvious.
Apples and oranges: the Deadpool in Deadpool is clearly a re-envisioning of the character, to a version in line with the comics, while the Origins version was very much not supported by the comics. The same cannot be said for Logan's portrayal over the films in question.
Time travel is kind of a pain in the ass.
I didn't know that.I was about to say that.
Kor
With the way the movies keep playing out, I wish they would just make Magneto a member of the X-Men full time. We've already seen him working with them repeatedly in the current trilogy, and he's been with them for a while on the comics so there's precedent for it there too.
I would hate to lose Fassbender, and it's starting to get annoying how much they seem to have him keep flip flopping back between being good and bad.
I have seen Deadpool twice. I agree that Deadpool & X-Men Origins: Wolverine are mutually exclusive. However, for continuity purposes, I choose to disregard Deadpool. There's really nothing in Deadpool to tie it into the X-Men movie continuity. Aside from Deadpool himself, the only other Deadpool character to have appeared in any of the X-Men movies is Colossus. And Stefan Kapicic's version of Colossus from Deadpool is completely different from the version played by Daniel Cudmore in X2, X-Men: The Last Stand, & X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Now, if they ever put this new version of Deadpool into a new X-Men movie or have a movie-established version of one of the X-Men characters appear in a Deadpool sequel, then I may have to rejigger my thinking a bit. (Given the box office success of Deadpool, it's probably inevitable.) But until then: Deadpool is NOT an X-Men movie!
Admittedly, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is probably the worst as far as dumping in characters that would later appear much earlier in X-Men: First Class & X-Men: Days of Future Past. In addition to "Emma," Stryker's prison also includes a redhead with his mouth covered (Banshee?), a guy trying to move really fast (Quicksilver?), and a guy in the middle of a tornado (Riptide?).
Speculation: Sometime while fighting in Europe, either Logan or Victor or possibly both suffered battle wounds which would kill a normal person. To keep their mutation a secret, they then faked their own deaths and somehow established new identities as soldiers with a different unit that went to Japan.
I agree that you have to "squint" on certain details. But, frankly, the line about Xavier being 17 when he first met Magneto is one of the very few that I don't have even a kind of explanation for. Most of it, even if a stretch, can fit if you want it to.
As for Stryker, when he said, "You were an animal then and you're an animal now. I just gave you claws," I figured he was speaking metaphorically. Furthermore, he seems to be playing fast & loose with the truth in general in his scenes with Wolverine. Example:
Wolverine: "You took my memories. You took my life!"
Stryker: "You act as if I stole something from you. As I recall, it was you who volunteered for the procedure."
X-Men Origins: Wolverine shows this to be, at best, a half-truth. Wolverine did volunteer for the adamantium experiment but only because he'd been falsely led to believe that Kayla had been murdered. And he certainly did not volunteer to have his memories erased by being shot in the head with adamantium bullets. It's a canny attempt to manipulate Wolverine on Stryker's part. It doesn't ultimately work, but he can lie with impunity since Wolverine doesn't really remember any of it.
Here's my theory on that: In X-Men: Days of Future Past, Beast says that Xavier takes too much of the mutant suppressing serum. Perhaps, in the mid/late 1980s, Xavier experimented with taking smaller doses of the serum which allowed him to walk while still giving him a more limited form of his telepathy. Eventually, his immune system developed a resistance to the serum and he had to stop using it entirely.
Because the serum eventually lost its potency, Beast had become reluctantly resigned to never achieving human form again. So, the possibility of a new cure in X3 was a surprising temptation for him. But, presumably, the "cure" created by Worthington Labs eventually wore off too. This explains how Magneto got his powers back (and Rogue in the Rogue Cut of X-Men: Days of Future Past).
No. She was one of my favorites in X-Men: First Class, which is my favorite film out of the entire franchise! Personally, I don't have a problem with making more movies about her, although I think it would be better if they were team movies, not solo-films.
True, with enough speculation and conjecture one can get around just about any inconsistency. Allow me to help you out with this one: Erik and Charles could have indeed happened to be in the same place once when the latter was 17, and encountered each other in passing, without actually being introduced, and by the time of First Class they'd both simply forgotten about it. One or both of them could have remembered this later. (This is what happened with Wolverine in DOFP.)
Doesn't change the fact that they were really just making it up as they went along and ignoring whatever didn't fit, of course!
Objectively you're probably right, but I don't care because Deadpool is such a better movie and uplifts the rest of the franchise by it's mere existence.
Seriously though, I find it surprising just how attached some people are to Origins. Certainly more attached than anyone actually involved in the thing. It's amazing what some people will tolerate in the interests of being continuity completists. Probably the worse case of mass denial I've seen since the Highlander franchise. Really, there's nothing there of value there worth holding onto.
I sense some cognitive dissonance in your suggestions that on the one hand we shouldn't "sweat the details" of the franchise's "very inconsistent" continuity, while simultaneously on the other we should ignore one of its entries in its entirety because it exhibits some inconsistencies with the continuity of the franchise...
Who's really in denial here?
No denial, I just don't see the point of people attempting back-flips in an attempt to force Origins to still fit in, even vaguely.
Most of the other movies at least have the basic narrative make sense from one movie to another, even if the *background* stuff is all over the place with careless cameos and inattention to inconsequential details. Origins doesn't even have that. It's a mess from top to bottom. Literally the only takeaways from that movie seems to be "Logan's first name is James" and "had bone claws", neither of which are terribly important and both of which actually originated from the source material.
There's a big difference between "don't sweat the details" and "don't sweat the plot, the narrative, the characters or anything. Now fuck it, just put Nuclear Man in there already!"
So what are you arguing in favour for exactly? That none of the continuity matters regardless, or that Origins is the greatest movie since 'Howard the Duck'?
Most of the other movies at least have the basic narrative make sense from one movie to another, even if the *background* stuff is all over the place with careless cameos and inattention to inconsequential details. Origins doesn't even have that. It's a mess from top to bottom. Literally the only takeaways from that movie seems to be "Logan's first name is James" and "had bone claws", neither of which are terribly important and both of which actually originated from the source material.
There's a big difference between "don't sweat the details" and "don't sweat the plot, the narrative, the characters or anything. Now fuck it, just put Nuclear Man in there already!"
So what are you arguing in favour for exactly? That none of the continuity matters regardless, or that Origins is the greatest movie since 'Howard the Duck'?
The only problem with Origins, in a narrative sense, is that Wade/Weapon XI is inconsistent with Deadpool ( and that the franchise insists that Deadpool is in continuity so as not to depress box office ). Thus it indeed fails the "background" standard which you've created precisely for the purpose of failing it. Other than that, there is nothing wrong with the narrative "making sense from one movie to another". And this is something done to Origins after the fact, as opposed to a reflection of Origins' quality in isolation from later films. You seem to be deliberately conflating two separate issues for some reason.
Last edited:
Similar threads
