X-Men: Days of Future Past

[Anzik]

The Cinematic X-Men continuity is a joke. In the comic Kitty was sent back the day of the assassination of Senator Kelly and in that day everything changed because of immediate anti-mutant hysteria. From that point onward the apocalyptic future was set in motion.
In the film, the assassination that sparks it happens in 1973 yet for the next thirty years no one seems to know what a mutant is according to the events in X1 and X2. They never release Mark I sentinels, but wait till the Nimrod version is ready in 50 years. I know the US government is slow but thats really stretching it.

 

[fosing]

who? what?

the cable guy?

 

[Snake Plissken]

who? what?

the cable guy?

 

[karamazov80]

The Cinematic X-Men continuity is a joke. In the comic Kitty was sent back the day of the assassination of Senator Kelly and in that day everything changed because of immediate anti-mutant hysteria. From that point onward the apocalyptic future was set in motion.
In the film, the assassination that sparks it happens in 1973 yet for the next thirty years no one seems to know what a mutant is according to the events in X1 and X2. They never release Mark I sentinels, but wait till the Nimrod version is ready in 50 years. I know the US government is slow but thats really stretching it.

 

[Deckard]

The Cinematic X-Men continuity is a joke. In the comic Kitty was sent back the day of the assassination of Senator Kelly and in that day everything changed because of immediate anti-mutant hysteria. From that point onward the apocalyptic future was set in motion.
In the film, the assassination that sparks it happens in 1973 yet for the next thirty years no one seems to know what a mutant is according to the events in X1 and X2. They never release Mark I sentinels, but wait till the Nimrod version is ready in 50 years. I know the US government is slow but thats really stretching it.

Yea, I haven't seen it yet but I picked up on this even before it came out and mentioned it was going to be a massive problem. The entire movie is a plot hole if they don't address what changed the timeline.

In Back to the Future, Marty travels back and ****s up future events. In Star Trek, Nero travels back and ****s the whole timeline to the point Vulcan doesn't exist.

If no one travels back before Wolverine, there is zero explanation as to why Trask is a white midget instead of black man, why no one knows Mutants exist, why there are no Sentinels for 40 years, why no one knows Magneto killed JFK, why Charles and Eric are buds going to recruit Jean or why Magneto and Mystique still hang out. etc. etc. in X1-3.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Yea, I haven't seen it yet but I picked up on this even before it came out and mentioned it was going to be a massive problem. The entire movie is a plot hole if they don't address what changed the timeline.

In Back to the Future, Marty travels back and ****s up future events. In Star Trek, Nero travels back and ****s the whole timeline to the point Vulcan doesn't exist.

If no one travels back before Wolverine, there is zero explanation as to why Trask is a white midget instead of black man, why no one knows Mutants exist, why there are no Sentinels for 40 years, why no one knows Magneto killed JFK, why Charles and Eric are buds going to recruit Jean or why Magneto and Mystique still hang out. etc. etc. in X1-3.

I believe there wasn't any back then because the Pentagon denied Trask's request to produce them and it wasn't put into consideration until the 21st century when humans started becoming fearful of mutants (like in X2 when Magneto tried to kill all the humans with Cerebro). Although I'm not denying the inconsistencies.

 

[karamazov80]

Actually, there's a perfectly obvious explanation for why all those things happened--the guys behind First Class and now DOFP wanted to make the best stories they could, and considered these other concerns secondary to that. I'm sure they knew it would bug some fans, but rolled the dice that the benefits would outweigh the costs, and based on the critical consensus and ticket sales, I would say it was the right move.

When we live in a world where comic movies can be as bad and off the mark as Ghost Rider, Man of Steel, or Fantastic Four (or even W: Origins or X3), I personally embrace inter-film inconsistencies with open arms if it means we get something as good as the last two X-films as a result.

 

[pturtle]

I believe there wasn't any back then because the Pentagon denied Trask's request to produce them and it wasn't put into consideration until the 21st century with when humans started becoming fearful of mutants (like in X2 when Magneto tried to kill all the humans with Cerebro). Although I'm not denying the inconsistencies.

Exactly this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jye4ever]

And this movie is defended why?

Was the quality of the product that good that all this is ok.

A-dev 1
Everyone else 0


Go a-dev, go a-dev, go a-dev.

 

[Deckard]

The funny thing is they had the ability to fix everything in this movie.

You say Bishop went back first and caused a ripple in time that changed everything somehow and then address it later in Apocalypse. But the fact that he doesn't go back until after Wolverine means something before him would have already had to cause the change(like with Trask) and therefore you lose the ability to actually fix anything.

Too funny, the writers in Hollywood...

 

[jye4ever]

Actually, there's a perfectly obvious explanation for why all those things happened--the guys behind First Class and now DOFP wanted to make the best stories they could, and considered these other concerns secondary to that. I'm sure they knew it would bug some fans, but rolled the dice that the benefits would outweigh the costs, and based on the critical consensus and ticket sales, I would say it was the right move.

When we live in a world where comic movies can be as bad and off the mark as Ghost Rider, Man of Steel, or Fantastic Four (or even W: Origins or X3), I personally embrace inter-film inconsistencies with open arms if it means we get something as good as the last two X-films as a result.

Jeepers, my attempt at firing up a-dev was thwarted by Kara, I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids'!

 

[DiFabio]

I've never cared about film continuity in any series with sequels. Never understood why people get so caught up in the "universe" of a fictional world. These X-Men films have always been all over the damn place.

Any film/story worth it's salt should be quality as a standalone. X-Men, X2, First Class and Days of Future Past all shine in that department.

 

[Deckard]

I've never cared about film continuity in any series with sequels. Never understood why people get so caught up in the "universe" of a fictional world..

Nice sig.

 

[DiFabio]

Yeah, I wanted someone to call me out on that.

Good response.

 

[Deckard]

 

[pturtle]

I've never cared about film continuity in any series with sequels. Never understood why people get so caught up in the "universe" of a fictional world. These X-Men films have always been all over the damn place.

Any film/story worth it's salt should be quality as a standalone. X-Men, X2, First Class and Days of Future Past all shine in that department.

I agree with you on this, sacrificing continuity in order to make the best film possible always works for me.

Anyway once Apocalypse comes out, I doubt everyone's going to really care about what happened in the older trilogy anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snake Plissken]

I do wonder how much tighter (and better) this series would have been had Singer simply stayed on board with his own X-Men 3. In retrospect, it was stupid of him to jump ship for Superman Returns. Not even sure why he did that. The X-Men films are much more compelling than what Superman Returns offered. Besides, everything seemed to be in place after X2 for a proper Phoenix saga film and the third ended up being in development hell? Why drop that?

Likewise, Matthew Vaughn, I believe was also offered X-Men 3 and dropped out of it. Had the third worked like it's predecessors, the time continuum for these movies might have actually made sense and we could have still gotten our "First Class" prequel and "Days of Future Past" finale. Though, I guess it's not really fair to blame X3 since it came first and the sequels didn't adhere to the tracks it laid down. The worst culprit being Wolverine Origins. While I dig what Singer cherry picked for the film amongst the good and the bad, I think it was lame how he kept/carried over the bone claws from Origins. In the first two X-Men films, those claws are clearly weapons that were implemented for Stryker's weapon X project (like Deathstrike in 2), so why keep the bone claw crap?

It's possible they were really hers before getting coated in Adamantium

 

[DiFabio]

Man, my posts keep getting deleted any time I go to edit them. Makes no sense. Looks like my friends list got demolished too.





I do wonder how much tighter (and better) this series would have been had Singer simply stayed on board with his own X-Men 3. In retrospect, it was stupid of him to jump ship for Superman Returns. Not even sure why he did that. The X-Men films are much more compelling than what Superman Returns offered. Besides, everything seemed to be in place after X2 for a proper Phoenix saga film and the third ended up being in development hell? Why drop that?

Likewise, Matthew Vaughn, I believe was also offered X-Men 3 and dropped out of it. Had the third worked like it's predecessors, the time continuum for these movies might have actually made sense and we could have still gotten our "First Class" prequel and "Days of Future Past" finale. Though, I guess it's not really fair to blame X3 since it came first and the sequels didn't adhere to the tracks it laid down. The worst culprit being Wolverine Origins. While I dig what Singer cherry picked for the film amongst the good and the bad, I think it was lame how he kept/carried over the bone claws from Origins. In the first two X-Men films, those claws are clearly weapons that were implemented for Stryker's weapon X project (like Deathstrike in 2), so why keep the bone claw crap?

 

[pturtle]

I do wonder how much tighter (and better) this series would have been had Singer simply stayed on board with his own X-Men 3. In retrospect, it was stupid of him to jump ship for Superman Returns. Not even sure why he did that. The X-Men films are much more compelling than what Superman Returns offered. Besides, everything seemed to be in place after X2 for a proper Phoenix saga film and the third ended up being in development hell? Why drop that?

Likewise, Matthew Vaughn, I believe was also offered X-Men 3 and dropped out of it. Had the third worked like it's predecessors, the time continuum for these movies might have actually made sense and we could have still gotten our "First Class" prequel and "Days of Future Past" finale. Though, I guess it's not really fair to blame X3 since it came first and the sequels didn't adhere to the tracks it laid down. The worst culprit being Wolverine Origins. While I dig what Singer cherry picked for the film amongst the good and the bad, I think it was lame how he kept/carried over the bone claws from Origins. In the first two X-Men films, those claws are clearly weapons that were implemented for Stryker's weapon X project (like Deathstrike in 2), so why keep the bone claw crap?

He left because Tom Rothman wouldn't give him the budget he felt he needed to make an epic X3/X4. Since Singer was a huge fan of the Donner-verse Superman, he came up with an idea for WB, they liked what they heard and that was that. What I do hate Singer for was casting James Marsden in Superman Returns, that's the reason he was killed off in X3.

If Singer would have stayed with the franchise I'm sure there still would have been minor continuity problems but less than what we ended up getting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deckard]

I agree with you on this, sacrificing continuity in order to make the best film possible always works for me.

Anyway once Apocalypse comes out, I doubt everyone's going to really care about what happened in the older trilogy anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think he was being serious.

Marvel hinges on Universe building to survive. The Avengers is the culmination of working very hard to have 4-5 consistent products. Look at Iron Man 3, it fairly gets criticism over no Shield or Cap showing up when the president of the country is about to be murdered on live tv. So it's not like anyone's exempt.

The Batman movies, Star Wars, The Godfather, especially Harry Potter, these are considered such amazing franchises because of continuity. There is a clear story and character you can follow for years. It's also why TV is becoming a preferred medium for storytelling. Breaking Bad doesn't have trouble going from one season to the next.

I'd agree all movies should be able to stand on their own, without needing another to resolve the major plot issues, but leaving threads hanging is always going to be a part of movies like this and if the people who come in next can't sew those threads together, you have a problem. You're excited for the next movie right? Why? Because of this movie and what it set up. Otherwise there is nothing to look forward to. You're even mentioning it right there.