^ The "it" in that sentence is Dark Phoenix.
The X-Men Cinematic Universe (General Discussion)
- Thread starter DigificWriter
- Start date
Crap - I could have written that more clearly. I mean the Dark Phoenix similarities to X3. That’s what happens when I try to write one of these things on my phone.
It didn't really last that whole time. It basically ended in 2006, had a failed attempt at a rebirth in 2009 and then restarted in 2011 until now.
Everything you just said is objectively wrong.
Prove it. The X-Series was considered dead after Last Stand, and for 3 years we had nothing until Wolverine Origins which failed to be the rebirth hoped for. Two years later the real restart happened with First Class which was a soft reboot because it didn't match up with what the first X-Movies told us.
It's not one consistent universe, it's smaller ones linked together barely.
By whom?
Which went into production shortly after the release of TLS.
Origins Wolverine was not a "rebirth" of anything; it was a direct spin-off from and prequel to the X-Trilogy, and, as noted, went into production shortly after TLS's release.
This is complete BS that uses made-up terms and is blatantly contradicted by the facts.
Nope.
What the hell is wrong with you two...
Most everyone.
3 years? Not buying it.
Took 3 years to make, was clearly an attempt to restore credibility. Failed.
Xavier told Logan he first met Magneto when they were both 17, they were in their 30s in First Class. Plus Apocalypse doesn't match up with what we saw in Last Stand about them meeting Jean.
Yep. It can't keep up with how a proper cinematic Universe is done, lack of ambition and a Feige figure.
I highly doubt that.
Up until Marvel Studios started churning out content by creating a homogenous and formulaic process, 3 years was the "standard release window" for major franchise blockbusters .
That is your opinion; don't mistake it for fact.
The first thing you're citing is called a Retcon... and they happen all the time in fiction.
The second thing you're citing takes place in an altered timeline.
I don't. Folks were surprised when they made Origins because they thought the series was done.
Staying on budget and on a time schedule is formulaic and homogenous?
Which doesn't change the surprise at the making of a new movie.
You think Origins was the success the studio wanted?
No, this was a soft reboot.
The timeline alterations wouldn't have affected the kids being born earlier than they were.
The "main series" -X-Men films had been completed; Origins Wolverine was a spin-off and was announced as such; anyone caught off guard by its production had their heads stuck in the sand.
The 3 year release window standard had nothing to do with going over-budget or being behind schedule.
It made enough money to launch a trilogy.
And here you go again with the made-up terms.
Except they did.
You can call foul on whether or not it makes sense, but it is what has happened from an in-universe narrative perspective.
No, that's just after-the-fact nonsense cooked up to make it seem like everything from 2000 to now was coherent. It never was.
In your opinion... which, FYI, is irrelevant to the facts, which are that the XMCU films released from X-Men to New Mutants are part of a single contiguous universe, no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.
They're part of a single connected universe in the broadest of strokes. Being based on comic books which have very loose continuity themselves, it makes it more acceptable fot a 6-foot-plus black man to transform into a diminutive white man than in most franchises.
Star Trek is full of way more unexplainable inconsistencies than the XMCU, but no-one disputes that its films and television series exist as part of a contiguous shared universe... because doing so would be idiotic based on the reality and facts of the situation.
Have you looked around these forums much?
'DSC isn't the same universe as TOS!'
'ENT takes place in an alternate timeline created by First Contact!'
'The new movies aren't real Star Trek!'
Even Roddenberry himself deliberately undermined the 'reality' of TOS, claiming that it should be viewed as a sort of dramatic presentation of the Federation but it wasn't capable of showing things as they 'really' were due to budget and technical limitations. The implication being that the new and improved Star Trek was the *really real* Federation.
I wish the filmmakers had just moved forward, with a different cast of characters, made more sequels, rather than a bunch of prequels.
Let me rephrase/clarify my point:
No-one tries to seriously argue that the Star Trek franchise has lasted for 50+ years and counting; they might disavow the existence of certain elements of the franchise for themselves, but they still recognize that the franchise has existed as a contiguous whole for 50+ years and counting even if they don't like or personally "count" certain elements of it in their "headcanon".
This thing with Anwar and the XMCU is different because he/she refuses to acknowledge the facts, which are that the XMCU is a singular franchise that has spanned 19 years, and instead insists that said franchise consists of a bunch of "reboots" that bear only the loosest of connections to one another, which just isn't an accurate statement.
They seem to think it's impossible to do an X-Men story without Logan or Xavier.
Only 2 of the 13 films that will make up the XMCU when it wraps up later this year are Prequels ( Origins Wolverine and First Class).
Everything else is either a standalone or a sequel to another film in the franchise.
Similar threads
