X-Men: Apocalypse announced for May 2016

[EnriqueH]

I'll be VERY sad to see Jackman go, but he's had a great run. Some movies were better than others (I for one enjoyed them all in varying degrees), but he was always consistently good and transcended the weaker scripts to always give a phenomenal Wolverine.

Personally, I was never a huge X-Men fan and was sick to death hearing about Wolverine when the first movie came out.

Jackman singlehandedly made me a HUGE fan of the character.

Not only did I love the first film, but X2---when it came out back in '02 (time flies)---was one of the best superhero movies EVER, and Jackman was a big reason why.

 

[JD]

I think Manu Bennett would be a fantastic Wolverine. Yeah you'd have to change his origin (or have him drop the accent, but no) but he's definitely got the charisma and ferocity to do it right. He's taller than Wolverine "traditionally" is again, but eh.

He might not be a perfect match for the comic appearance, but I do agree that Bennett would be a great Wolverine.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Hawk from Hawk and Dove doesn't have that. He's a caveman with no redeeming attributes.

Which is ironic, since Hawk was originally conceived as the hero of the two.

And then DC made him a villain. He became Monarch twice in 1991 during Armageddon 2001. Where he killed his partner Dove and his future self. In 1994, Hawk (now Monarch) became another villain Extant. As Extant he killed 3 JSA members and tried to destroy all of time with Parallax. Extant finally dies in plane crash in a 2000 JSA storyline. In 2009-2010 he's brought back as a Black Lantern and proceeds to kill his sucessor Holly Granger (Dove's sister) who is the new Hawk.

DC just can't help but keep Hawk a villain. And they have tried and tried to retcon all the nasty things he's done but Hawk is still an unlikable caveman when he's not a villain. His short lived New52 series illustrated that also.

 

[Dales]

So it looks like Angel will be in the film. Is this Ben Hardy's role? And, if so, is it compulsory for the character to be played by actors called Ben?

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/x-men/34778/x-men-apocalypse-artwork-confirms-character-return

Angel still make no sense and brings about a lot of continuity errors. he was in X3 as a young boy and so was jubilee who was in X2. there is no need for him to exist in the 80s.

There are also like 1000 mutants to choose from so why go for Angel? There is another character with wings called Jay Gutherie who mutant name is Icarus. The should have used him instead of Warren.

 

[Christopher]

^Singer's pretty much said that they're using the timeline reset to change the characters' ages as needed. Which isn't unprecedented in comic-book universes; every time DC uses a time-travel plot to reboot their history, they make the characters younger than they were in the last reality. Even Star Trek did it with Chekov, who was born four years earlier in the Abrams movies than he was in the Prime timeline.

 

[RoJoHen]

So it looks like Angel will be in the film. Is this Ben Hardy's role? And, if so, is it compulsory for the character to be played by actors called Ben?

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/x-men/34778/x-men-apocalypse-artwork-confirms-character-return

Angel still make no sense and brings about a lot of continuity errors. he was in X3 as a young boy and so was jubilee who was in X2. there is no need for him to exist in the 80s.

There are also like 1000 mutants to choose from so why go for Angel? There is another character with wings called Jay Gutherie who mutant name is Icarus. The should have used him instead of Warren.

And are they going to call him Angel? Considering the "First Class" timeline already had a female character by that exact same name, it seems...odd.

 

[Christopher]

And are they going to call him Angel? Considering the "First Class" timeline already had a female character by that exact same name, it seems...odd.

Well, that was her actual given name (Angel Salvadore, code name Tempest), while in Warren's case, it's a code name.

But since this is Apocalypse, it's possible they'll bypass the Angel name and go straight for Archangel.

 

[RoJoHen]

And are they going to call him Angel? Considering the "First Class" timeline already had a female character by that exact same name, it seems...odd.

Well, that was her actual given name (Angel Salvadore, code name Tempest), while in Warren's case, it's a code name.

But since this is Apocalypse, it's possible they'll bypass the Angel name and go straight for Archangel.

Archangel does make sense in an Apocalypse story, of course.

I honestly wonder how this story is going to play out. I feel like Apocalypse is almost too big to fit into a single movie. They could do so much stuff with him.

All I want is a Cable movie!

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think the most logical thing to do would be to start with Angel and have him turned into Archangel by the third act.

 

[TemporalFlux]

Well, the X-men reset could go with conception theory. One tiny, seemingly unrelated change in history could mean a child is conceived earlier than before and even looks a little different than before.

 

[RoJoHen]

One tiny, seemingly unrelated change in history could mean a child is conceived earlier than before and even looks a little different than before.

In which case it would just be a totally different person.

 

[Christopher]

One tiny, seemingly unrelated change in history could mean a child is conceived earlier than before and even looks a little different than before.

In which case it would just be a totally different person.

Realistically, yes. But as I said, it's an accepted conceit in comic books that changing the timeline can cause the same people to be born earlier or later. The Earth-2 Superman became an adult in the late 1930s, the Earth-1 Superman in the '50s. The late-'70s Batman once crossed over into a timeline where Bruce Wayne was still a child, and Batman was able to prevent the Wayne murders there. Of course, those were pre-existing parallels rather than ones created by temporal disruption like the later Crises and Zero Hours and Flashpoints and what-have-you, but they set the precedent.

After all, it's not about representing real physics or biology. The time-travel stuff is just an excuse to rewrite the continuity.

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, sure, and with things like comic books and superheroes, you pretty much have to adjust the timeline if you want them to continue. Otherwise Batman would be like 90 years old by now.

I guess it's just weird for me that these kinds of timeline adjustments are already happening in the movies, especially since they're seemingly a part of the same universe. I just think there are so many more stories and characters that they haven't even touched yet, so it's weird that they feel the need to recast the existing characters and change so much so soon.

 

[Christopher]

^The previous movies that featured characters like Angel were made without Singer's supervision, and weren't well-liked. So Singer used a time-travel reboot as an opportunity to retcon them away so he can do the characters his way. That doesn't seem weird to me.

 

[RoJoHen]

Yes, I get all that, and I like the way that DOFP undid the events of X3, but I still think certain things should be adhered to to keep the universe consistent. Just like I'm going to be really annoyed if the new Alien movie does things to contradict Alien3 and Resurrection.

Time travel can be used to undo events in a character's life: ex: Jean and Scott being alive and well. I don't think it should be used to make a character suddenly be born 30 years earlier than he previously was. The X-Men movie series just hasn't been around long enough for those kinds of reboots to be necessary, IMO.

I just really don't like the whole "I don't like it, so I'm ignoring it" approach to filmmaking.

 

[Pauln6]

Yes, I get all that, and I like the way that DOFP undid the events of X3, but I still think certain things should be adhered to to keep the universe consistent. Just like I'm going to be really annoyed if the new Alien movie does things to contradict Alien3 and Resurrection.

Time travel can be used to undo events in a character's life: ex: Jean and Scott being alive and well. I don't think it should be used to make a character suddenly be born 30 years earlier than he previously was. The X-Men movie series just hasn't been around long enough for those kinds of reboots to be necessary, IMO.

I just really don't like the whole "I don't like it, so I'm ignoring it" approach to filmmaking.

I agree. The presence of a second, unrelated Moira in First Class is the principal reason why I excised it from my personal continuity (although it's not the only reason). Two Trasks is fine since Trask in X3 could be a relative of Trask in DoFP (adopted son for example) but two Moiras of different ages and nationality was just daft. Moira's maiden name was Moira Kinross so is the explanation that Moria McTaggert v1 had a son out of wedlock, raised him in Scotland and he coincidentally married a Scottish scientist named Moira? Daft and unnecessary. They could have used Gabrielle Haller instead. I noticed somewhere that Rose might be back for Apocalypse. I love the actress but it will really frustrate me if I have to excise that movie too.

I REALLY want them to tell Angel's most iconic story but if characters are going to be introduced as older or 'different' in Apocalypse then there should be a plausible excuse, like them being aged or even created in Sinister's lab and not just introducing a different character of the same name.

Plus of course it WAS Singer's choice to use Jubilee as a student who was Kitty's age in X1 and X2.

 

[Christopher]

Time travel can be used to undo events in a character's life: ex: Jean and Scott being alive and well. I don't think it should be used to make a character suddenly be born 30 years earlier than he previously was. The X-Men movie series just hasn't been around long enough for those kinds of reboots to be necessary, IMO.

I just really don't like the whole "I don't like it, so I'm ignoring it" approach to filmmaking.

I can sympathize with that point of view. Personally, I share the sentiment that it's unlikely for the same person to be born at a different time. But in this case, we're talking about movies that most of the audience didn't like and wants to see ignored, so I can understand their reasoning.

Besides, we've already had two contradictory versions of Emma Frost even before the timeline shift. It's easy enough to rationalize, since the "Emma" character in Origins: Wolverine was never addressed by name onscreen and had a different power, so she can easily be interpreted as a separate character. But still, this is not a film franchise that's had a particularly rigorous continuity. Then again, not many film franchises do. I actually found it impressive that DOFP incorporated the continuities of Origins and The Last Stand as smoothly as it did even while negating their future influence. It's more than Singer did with Superman III and IV when he made Superman Returns.

 

[Pauln6]

I actually found it impressive that DOFP incorporated the continuities of Origins and The Last Stand as smoothly as it did even while negating their future influence. It's more than Singer did with Superman III and IV when he made Superman Returns.

Very true.

 

[Ethros]

Been a while since I watched it, but is the name "Angel" even used in X3? It still pissed me off now that in the marketing campaign, posters etc, you have Angel in the X-Men uniforms, but in the actual movie he's in literally three scenes for like three seconds. I thought he was gonna become a proper part of the team, but in fact he doesn't really do or add anything.


Scenes with Ben Foster-
1. Jumps out a window
2. Shows up at the mansion and says about two words
3. Rescues his dad from the rooftop, maybe says two words


Waste of time. So if Singer wants to actually do something with the character then fair enough really.

 

[Pauln6]

Yeah they should either have done a promo shot of him in uniform at the end or put him in a uniform to rescue his dad.