• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The X-Men Cinematic Universe (General Discussion)

If the XCU wants to get back on track, they need to drop Kinberg too. They have a good set up and talented actors. What's wrong is Kinberg and Singer lack imagination for what to do with the material. There are great epic where Apocalypse is the big bad, and the character himself can have any power he wants. Singer and Kinberg took all that and made him such a waif.
 
Until/unless we hear information to the contrary, I think it is extremely premature to claim/assume that FOX is going to throw the continuity that they have established to date, alternate timelines and all, out the window, and to assume that Singer's involvement with the franchise in all of its aspects has come to an end even if he doesn't return to direct another X-Men film.
 
Yeah, I don't see this as a reboot, just as a bit of a change, which we already seemed to be leading to with Apocalypse.
 
With the production moving to Vancouver, signs do point to this next X-Men movie being a New Mutants flick. Fox has been signalling they want a reboot of the main X-Men movies (again). I can let the new members of the Apocalypse cast go. The movie was forgettable and imagined too poorly for me to want to see a continuation down that path.

New Mutants!

tumblr_nob3d0oNd61r4pq4io1_500.jpg
 
^ There's never been a reboot of the "main" X-Men movies, and the fact that they're actively planning to try and re-sign McAvoy, Fassbender, and Lawrence signals the exact opposite of a desire to reboot now.
 
^ There's never been a reboot of the "main" X-Men movies, and the fact that they're actively planning to try and re-sign McAvoy, Fassbender, and Lawrence signals the exact opposite of a desire to reboot now.

Yep, Sophie Turner is still Jean in the next one, they may be fading out some of the old gang but it will be a continuation.
 
^ There's never been a reboot of the "main" X-Men movies, and the fact that they're actively planning to try and re-sign McAvoy, Fassbender, and Lawrence signals the exact opposite of a desire to reboot now.
First Class was a soft reboot. Then they got Singer back, and decided to mush the FC cast and the OG cast together to make X-Men 4/DOFP. From what I've read so far, it's Kinberg (the writer of Apoc, X3, FF 2015, and DOFP) that is penning the Apoc sequel with McAvoy, Fassbender and Lawrence in mind. Reboot talk has been circulating for months now. Fox wants to keep costs down and get a clean slate. Since Apocalypse under performed. Just like Sony after TASM under performed. Deal with Marvel or not, Sony was planning on rebooting Spider-Man anyway.
 
Which really just means it was a sequel. (Or prequel in this specific instance.)
Or a reintroduction to the audience of characters they are already familiar with. Watching X1 and FC back to back, you do find a lot of incongruities between what Xavier says about meeting Erik and how FC shows it. Continuity and attention to detail mean little to Fox, and I don't care. It's just the intention at the time, was to give the X characters a new path forward, after X3 seemingly closed the door on the franchise.
 
There are a few terms that have entered the popular culture Lexicon that are nothing but gibberish, and "soft reboot" is one of those terms. It means absolutely nothing because it describes a creative process that doesn't exist. You either reboot something completely - whereby you completely discard its existing continuity - or you retain the continuity of what already existed and add new installments to said continuity.

Period.

Making the claim that a fictional property has undergone a "soft reboot" is an immediate signal that you don't actually have a clue as to what you're talking about.
 
There are a few terms that have entered the popular culture Lexicon that are nothing but gibberish, and "soft reboot" is one of those terms. It means absolutely nothing because it describes a creative process that doesn't exist. You either reboot something completely - whereby you completely discard its existing continuity - or you retain the continuity of what already existed and add new installments to said continuity.

Period.

Making the claim that a fictional property has undergone a "soft reboot" is an immediate signal that you don't actually have a clue as to what you're talking about.
If you say so mate. Doesn't change the fact that Fox retroactively stitched together the FC chain of events, with the Post-X3 chain of events in DOFP.

Things like Logan getting the adamantium 15 years prior to X1. Even though XM Origins had him get the metal in 1979 (during the 3 Mile Island event). X1 being set in 2005.

Charles stating in X1 that he was 17 when he met Erik, but in First Class they met in 1962. 18 years after (a presumably 10 year old) Erik and his family were sent to Auschwitz in 1944.

The origin of Magneto's helmet. Charles is surprised to see he couldn't read Magneto's mind in X1, but if FC had happened, then Charles would've known about it prior.

Xavier walking in 1984 (X3) but being crippled in 1962 (FC) Magneto.

Mystique growing up with Charles in FC but in X1-X3 she never speaks nor acknowledges any history with him. Because there was none.

The two Deadpools (played by the same actor decades apart), the two Sabertooths, the two Toads, the two Bolivar Trasks (X3 and DOFP), the two Emma Frosts, the soon to be two Gambits etc.

There are more instances. The point is, there was no master plan to have all of this fit together when Fox started in 2000. Fox doesn't care about continuity gaffes, unaswered question (like how did Xavier come back to life after X3) and just keeps moving forward with whatever the agenda is at the time. Plans change, the narrative changes. In 2011, FC was both a prequel (originally Magneto Origins, like Wolverine's) and a reboot to the X franchise. In 2014 however, both iterations were married together. Like this was their plan from the start. It wasn't.


Terms like "hard" and "soft" used to describe reboots are meant to demonstrate the level of disconnect from a previously establish movie or series of movies. TASM movies were hard reboots, because they started from scratch with an origin and all new cast. Originally, before the Marvel deal, Sony was talking a soft reboot for Spider-Man because they didn't want to start over again completely with Spider-Man again. Which worked out for Spidey in Civil War. He's already been bitten, has web shooters, Uncle Ben is dead, and he's helping people.

Contrast to Prometheus (Alien) which was said by Scott to be both a prequel and soft reboot of his Alien franchise. All the trappings the audience recognize are there, but it's only tangentially connected to the original Alien and Aliens.
 
Last edited:
^ The vast majority of the stuff you're talking about are called RETCONS, and they don't "reset" the existing continuity; they simply change certain things about it.

With regards to Prometheus, Ridley Scott can describe that movie however he wants, but it's not a "reboot" so long as it has any connection to the already existing continuity of Alien/Alients/etc.

Period.
 
If you say so mate. Doesn't change the fact that Fox retroactively stitched together the FC chain of events, with the Post-X3 chain of events in DOFP.
First Class shifted focus, but never abandoned its roots, How do you explain Hugh Jackman, Rebecca Romijn, and the extensive re-use of footage from the first X-Men?

If we treat every inconsistency between X-Men movies as a sign of reboot, then almost none of them count as a "real" sequel. They're "old school sequel" sloppy, like the Apes flicks.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top