• 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)

Reverend, you are correct. At the end of IM3 it is I *in bold* am Iron Man, implying not my suits.
At the end of AoU, it was never implied that he was retiring from being Iron Man but that he was passing on the responsibility of the Avengers, and MAYBE taking a break.

A common comic book trope by they way.
 
There were no contradictions between the first two films, and I don't think The Wolverine contradicted anything in and of itself.
Doesn't The Wolverine have him in the present day remembering Japan 1945, when he should have lost most of his memories from that adamantium bullet? Or did Xavier help him get some/alot of his memories back? I can't recall
 
Doesn't The Wolverine have him in the present day remembering Japan 1945, when he should have lost most of his memories from that adamantium bullet? Or did Xavier help him get some/alot of his memories back? I can't recall
He was starting to remember some stuff in X2, so I think the general notion is that some of it has come back to him. Really though, he both does and does not remember whatever the plot dictates.
 
Reverend, you are correct. At the end of IM3 it is I *in bold* am Iron Man, implying not my suits.
At the end of AoU, it was never implied that he was retiring from being Iron Man but that he was passing on the responsibility of the Avengers, and MAYBE taking a break.

A common comic book trope by they way.

JLU had Captain Atom proclaiming that he was leaving and when he came back an hour later, he noted that he was only leaving to get coffee.
 
Getting this discussion back on topic, the inconsistencies that exist in the XMCU ultimately mean little in the grand scheme of things in regards to its practical functionality as a single unified narrative, which Dark Phoenix, for better or worse, will bring to a close by repeating the "time echoes" conceptual narrative motif that was first introduced in Logan, which is fitting, IMO, because it will give future audiences some choice in consuming the franchise and thus give it a longer "shelf life" than other Superhero franchises.
 
Getting this discussion back on topic, the inconsistencies that exist in the XMCU ultimately mean little in the grand scheme of things in regards to its practical functionality as a single unified narrative, which Dark Phoenix, for better or worse, will bring to a close by repeating the "time echoes" conceptual narrative motif that was first introduced in Logan, which is fitting, IMO, because it will give future audiences some choice in consuming the franchise and thus give it a longer "shelf life" than other Superhero franchises.

How, by saying "BTW all the past struggles were meaningless because the future was always doomed"?
 
What does this mean?

Similar things happen even with the timeline having been changed in DoFP.

For example, mutankind is nearly extinct by the 2020s in both the original and altered timelines as shown in DoFP and Logan, with only the cause of that near-extinction differing (Sentinels in DoFP and genetic food manipulation in Logan).

How, by saying "BTW all the past struggles were meaningless because the future was always doomed"?

I'm not sure why you see this as a negative, but what I was getting at re: future audiences having choice in how they experience the franchise is that they'll be able to pick between experiencing either the original timeline or the altered timeline and still get a satisfactory narrative out of the bargain because of the way that the two timelines have narratively mirrored stories on them (The Last Stand and Dark Phoenix and Days of Future Past and Logan).
 
I'm not remembering this. Can you help refresh my memory, please?

His theory in the scene where him, Xavier and Wolverine are in the room with all the TVs. Beast proposed that time is like a river. You could throw massive stones that ripple with consequences, but ultimately the current still readjusts down the line and ultimately remains the same.

Singer and Kinberg stated in interviews that this was their intent with the movies from Days of Future Past onward. That massive changes could be made to the timeline and the fates of some individuals, but the fates of the mutant community and the world at large are ultimately set in stone, as are the fates of other individuals. Yeah, we got a genetically engineered food induced post-apocalypse instead of the Sentinel induced one, but the mutants are still an endangered species led by a small resistance movement against the corporate/government group behind it. At least the DoFP end scene/Logan timeline ends on a more hopeful note than the "everybody dies" scenario in the Last Stand/Days of Future Past timeline. And Jean goes through her Dark Phoenix saga in both timelines, just far earlier in the new one.
 
Last edited:
^ I honestly didn't remember that dialogue exchange, but postulating the concept and showing it are different things, and Logan is the first time we see it confirmed via onscreen narrative.
 
One thing that's evident from DOFP alone is that some version of Liberty Island still happened in the new timeline, going by Rogue's hair.

Which is yet another thing that is confirmed by Logan.

That movie really did cement a lot of things that hearkened back to previously released films in the franchise that were either stated by the XMCU's production team or otherwise implied, further refuting the perception of DoFP and its succeeding films as being a "reboot".
 
In the history of film, you'd be hard-pressed to find a movie series that didn't have major discontinuities and retcons between installments. Many never even bothered to maintain more than a superficial pretense of continuity, like the Universal Monsters films or the original Planet of the Apes films.

I thought making sequels but with major inconsistencies was generally considered a sign that the sequels were or were becoming increasingly cheap, even embarrassing.
 
My biggest issue with the newer X-Men films is that in FC and DoFP (aside from them having weak/uninteresting writing in general) Xavier is depicted as way too flawed, not really inspiring at all, while Magneto is depicted as much more likeable, much more the one to root for, but still pretty cartoonily evil/bad, I think both of those were too disappointing depictions compared to their predecessors. So I'm not really interested in seeing what happened to them later.
 
^ The XMCU's version of Xavier has always been deeply flawed, and he clearly didn't "learn from his own mistakes" despite having been given intimate knowledge of the chaos his alternate future self had wrought with his choices, since he went and did pretty much the same thing in the new timeline re: Jean (memory suppression - which is what it's implied he did - is just as bad as power suppression).
 
I thought making sequels but with major inconsistencies was generally considered a sign that the sequels were or were becoming increasingly cheap, even embarrassing.

You can't generalize about such things. There are many reasons for such inconsistencies. For instance, in the case of Planet of the Apes, none of the first four films was intended to allow for a sequel, so when they were successful enough to warrant sequels, it was necessary to retcon their assumptions in order to make those sequels possible. Sometimes a movie series (like Highlander or Halloween or, heck, Superman if you count Returns) disregards one or more failed sequels and pretends it/they never happened.

But the main reason is that your highest priority when you tell a story is the good of that story. The goal is to make your current project as good as it can be. And if that means you have to reinterpret or ignore something from an earlier story, then that's what you do. Because these are not encyclopedia entries, they're colorful lies for fun. It's nice if they fit together convincingly, sure, but since they're all just pretend to begin with, it's not a higher priority than the quality and enjoyability of each individual story.


My biggest issue with the newer X-Men films is that in FC and DoFP (aside from them having weak/uninteresting writing in general) Xavier is depicted as way too flawed, not really inspiring at all, while Magneto is depicted as much more likeable, much more the one to root for, but still pretty cartoonily evil/bad, I think both of those were too disappointing depictions compared to their predecessors. So I'm not really interested in seeing what happened to them later.

They were supposed to be different when they were younger, so they'd both have character arcs over the series. Xavier starts out as an egotistical, immature jerk, but learns his lessons the hard way and grows into the wiser, kinder figure he eventually becomes. And Magneto needs to start out as a more redeemable, morally ambiguous character who can be a friend and ally to Xavier prior to their eventual falling out. Though maybe the sequels didn't handle that arc as well because of the need to somewhat reset the two characters for each successive movie.
 
Sometimes a movie series (like Highlander or Halloween or, heck, Superman if you count Returns) disregards one or more failed sequels and pretends it/they never happened.

But the main reason is that your highest priority when you tell a story is the good of that story. The goal is to make your current project as good as it can be.

It seems to me most sequels that do that disregarding aren't good themselves, i.e. even most of the people who dislike Halloween 4-6 don't think H20 was that much better (I thought it was better than 4 and 5 but not by much, not as good as 6).
 
The handling of Magneto in the new movies has been kind of weird. It seems like each movie has reset all of the progress and development he got in the last.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top