Got back from seeing it and it was quite good; it is certainly up there with the best of the series. Quicksilver came out much better on screen than in print and advertising, and was one of the highlights of the movie. The level of brutality they showed with the Sentinels was quite surprising as well, and would advise those with kids to see it before taking them.
Spoiler:
They did an excellent job of cleaning the slate of the previous films while also not ignoring them. The ending with Logan seeing friends long thought dead was, while not really a huge shock, was still a really nice moment. Of course seeing Apocalypse at the end was a treat as well.
Overall it was ok. One issue that had me scratching my head, how do you build a complex jet powered robot without any wiring? Yeah you can build the outer shell and some of the components with non conductive polymers, but electronics and circuitry use metal. Especially back in the 1970's.
Everything in the entire movie centered around Mystique which I found a little meh, obviously the assassination plot was key to moving the story along but also being the entire base for all the technology. It seemed more like mystique the movie featuring some Xmen.
While dated I really prefer the old school sentinel look, the new ones just look like that crappy robot from Thor, complete with a face laser. Was not keen on them at all.
Yes. I don't think it is worth it in 3D. The 3D doesn't detract from it, but it also doesn't really add much. The one exception being the Quicksilver scene, but you won't be missing out on the experience. If you liked 1,2, and First Class you will like this one.
Overall it was ok. One issue that had me scratching my head, how do you build a complex jet powered robot without any wiring? Yeah you can build the outer shell and some of the components with non conductive polymers, but electronics and circuitry use metal. Especially back in the 1970's.
Everything in the entire movie centered around Mystique which I found a little meh, obviously the assassination plot was key to moving the story along but also being the entire base for all the technology. It seemed more like mystique the movie featuring some Xmen.
While dated I really prefer the old school sentinel look, the new ones just look like that crappy robot from Thor, complete with a face laser. Was not keen on them at all.
Spoiler:
Pretty much. Although I assume in 2023, they found some ways around that? I'm not sure, the whole sentinel thing seem a bit too much like BS to me. Especially considering Mystique's powers are kind of crappy anyway. She can mimic the look but she can't mimic the powers, like when she fought wolverine in x1 and her claws got ripped into shreds by his genuine claws.
The movie raises more questions than it answers. Like what happens now during the events of X1 onwards? Why is Mystique; in the guise of Stryker, the one dragging Wolverine up from the river now? Does Wolverine still go through weapon X? We never see him with his adamantium in the future
Figuring out how she can change at will allows them to figure out how to make the future Sentinels mimic different abilities as needed, but it wasn't solely her but combined experiments/torture done to other mutants; she was just the catalyst for figuring how to make adaptive sentinels.
Really glad they blanked X3. Very happy with the movie overall. Even if there were some silly plot holes I considered it worth it and it was an excellent hero movie overall.
I'm glad they finally decided "continuity is difficult, so feth it". It's going to make future storytelling a lot easier, and it really reflects just how goddamn confusing the X-books were round bout when I stopped reading comics. So, faithful adaptation!
You think with all the times he's accidentally stabbed somebody while raging in his sleep that they'd learn to restrain him ahead of time or at least put corks on the tips of his claws.
Going with a girl from work Monday, so I'm avoiding the spoilers text. But is it true that the movie kills X3? That's all I care about. Bring back Cyclops.
I think it is safe to assume that he still his adamantium claws in the "new" future since the ending of Days of Future Past erased what happened in The Last Stand and therefore The Wolverine since that movie takes place after The Last Stand.
soundwave591 wrote: honestly it was boring for allot of it, this movie seems to be a set up movie, which is good and all but I wouldnt pay to see it again.
Spoiler:
angel is dead? I recall magneto or mystique saying something like that in the past, but he was in x3 so how was he dead in the correct* time period?
correct meaning original
Spoiler:
There are two Angels in the X-Men movies: Angel Salvadore (Tempest) from First Class, who was killed by Project Wideawake before Days of Future Past (Mystique finds her autopsy report in Trask's files) and Angel (Warren Worthington III) from The Last Stand who, according to promotional material for Days Of Future Past, was killed by Sentinels in 2011 during the Occupy Wall Street protests.
soundwave591 wrote: ooooooh i thought that was pixie or something like that. So is the other one still there, or?
Spoiler:
I explained the fate of both characters. However, the case could be made that Warren Worthington is still alive in the retconned future since his death occurred after The Last Stand. Tempest (Angel from First Class) is still dead though; she died before the events of Days Of Future Past.
Watched it last night, loved it. Easily as good as First Class. And honestly, I could watch Jennifer Lawrence in that suit all day even if she's doing the most boring, pedestrian gak in the world. Mystique goes shopping! Mystique knits a sweater! Mystique does laundry! I'm there.
Mystique does squats! Mystique touches her toes, as seen from behind! Mystique eating a banana! I'm with you, man.
I'm going to go see it on Monday. I already read all the spoilers, but I figured why not, it's not like I didn't read the comics back int he day anyway. There was a great criticism I read here that you might want to read as well: specifically, it touches on why boning the continuity is bad for this (and any other, really) franchise. Many spoilers abound.
However, it doesn't change the fact that personality-wise, Cyclops is one of the lamest X-Men. He's pretty much the Marvel equivalent to Superman; the one dimensional, archetypal "Boy Scout" hero. Unfortunately for the character, the screenwriters and James Marsden did Cyclops no favors in any of the movies.
His power is kind of cool, I guess, but when compared to the other core team members (specifically during the "Blue Team" and "Gold Team" days in the 90s) it's bottom tier. I'll give him credit for being the leader of the Blue Team and being smart enough for drafting Jubilee for the team so there is at least one other mutant with lamer powers than him. Keep in mind his team also had Wolverine (nearly invincible with unbreakable metal claws), Rogue (super strength, flying, and the ability to steal other mutants powers... plus sexy as hell), Gambit (a professional thief that throws explosive playing cards and is a total badass because he hooks up with Rogue), Beast (super strong and agile plus one of the smartest people on the planet and has the whole misunderstood monster thing going for him), and Psylocke (an Omega-level mutant that is also a ninja... possibly even sexier than Rogue).
I get it though, to each his own and all that, but at the end of the day Cyclops is still a tool to me.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: He's pretty much the Marvel equivalent to Superman; the one dimensional, archetypal "Boy Scout" hero.
This is false, for both Cyclops and Superman.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Unfortunately for the character, the screenwriters and James Marsden did Cyclops no favors in any of the movies.
You are right about the writing, wrong about Marsden. Marsden was a good pick, but was given a badly written and developed character. They seemed to think he was just there to get in Logan's way with Jean, and that is a kind description. I also blame Singer for screwing up Cyclops.
I dunno, I think I agree with Scotty - Cyclops has pretty much always sucked, at least up to when I stopped reading right (right after the X-Tinction Agenda, so a while ago).
Cyclops was fairly inspiring early on, but in the 90s he became possessed by Apocalypse. He changed drastically then. Became much more of a badass. He is far from a one dimensional character now. I'll agree he used to be, way back when. If you think he still is, you don't have a clue.
Ahtman wrote: This is false, for both Cyclops and Superman.
In reference to their "classic" characterizations it is not, which is where the X-Men movies draw most of their influence from. They are both Idealistic, natural-born leaders that are also wholesome goody two-shoe "all-American heroes." I know, especially with Cyclops, that recent portrayals of them in the comics try to make them "edgier" and "grittier" but I just don't buy it. Cyclops is still that lame douchebag that he always has been.
You are right about the writing, wrong about Marsden. Marsden was a good pick, but was given a badly written and developed character. They seemed to think he was just there to get in Logan's way with Jean, and that is a kind description. I also blame Singer for screwing up Cyclops.
Well we can disagree about James Marsden. Personally, I am not a fan; just have a look at his filmography, most of the movies he is in suck hard. However, he was pretty decent in Hairspray and Enchanted, so there's that I guess.
Still, even if the character was written better that wouldn't change my opinion on him. I just plain do not care for the character and the bottom-tier coolness of his mutant power. I mean, his optic blasts are somewhat similar to what Bishop can do (and yes I understand the fundamental difference between the two powers, but I'm just using it as an example) and the character of Bishop is about 100 times better than that of Cyclops (not to mention the cool guns he uses and the badass "M" brand over his eye).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: He is far from a one dimensional character now. I'll agree he used to be, way back when. If you think he still is, you don't have a clue.
Oh no, I very much have a clue.
The thing is, I don't care as much about how he is portrayed in the current X-Men stories because I don't read them like I did when I was in high school in the 90s. Furthermore, I think it makes him even lamer that they've tried to change the in to a "contemporary" and "edgy" (just like the "punk" revival of Storm in the 80s...). I find it irksome when they try to "re-brand" classic characters like that. I know it a bit of a conundrum, but I'd prefer the character to stay the same because as lame as I think he is, at the end of the day it's what makes Cyclops, Cyclops.
Again, I base all of this from my heyday with X-Men comics, which includes the X-Tinction Agenda, Fatal Attractions, and the Onslaught Saga.
So...because you stopped reading the comics he's in, he's still lame because you don't want him to be any different from what you remember. Got it. Fingers in ears syndrome-dont wanna screw up your precious memories by changing a character by making him go through seriously mind altering situations. You want him to stay boring, so you ignore everything that's happened since your childhood. By your own admittance, your opinions are skewed by ignoring recent stuff as "unimportant" because you don't want to accept it. I think we're done here. The fact that you think you're right by choosing ignoring the past decade of X-Men comics would be cute if it wasn't so pathetically sad.
timetowaste85 wrote: So...because you stopped reading the comics he's in, he's still lame because you don't want him to be any different from what you remember. Got it. Fingers in ears syndrome-dont wanna screw up your precious memories by changing a character by making him go through seriously mind altering situations. You want him to stay boring, so you ignore everything that's happened since your childhood. By your own admittance, your opinions are skewed by ignoring recent stuff as "unimportant" because you don't want to accept it. I think we're done here. The fact that you think you're right by choosing ignoring the past decade of X-Men comics would be cute if it wasn't so pathetically sad.
I don't think your rudeness is justified here and there is no reason to be so insulting because I dislike a comic book character that you like. This isn't a matter of who is right or wrong so let's at least pretend to act like adults here.
Ahtman wrote: This is false, for both Cyclops and Superman.
In reference to their "classic" characterizations it is not, which is where the X-Men movies draw most of their influence from. They are both Idealistic, natural-born leaders that are also wholesome goody two-shoe "all-American heroes."
You are conflating "classic characterization" with "classic stereotyping" me thinks. The description you give here is not "one-dimensional boy scout" either, so it seems a bit of back pedaling, even if unintentional. He is certainly more difficult to do well than Wolverine, who is much more of a masculine power fantasy, and he has certainly had bad writers in the comics, but then so has every comic book character that old.
Ahtman wrote: This is false, for both Cyclops and Superman.
In reference to their "classic" characterizations it is not, which is where the X-Men movies draw most of their influence from. They are both Idealistic, natural-born leaders that are also wholesome goody two-shoe "all-American heroes."
You are conflating "classic characterization" with "classic stereotyping" me thinks. The description you give here is not "one-dimensional boy scout" either, so it seems a bit of back pedaling, even if unintentional. He is certainly more difficult to do well than Wolverine, who is much more of a masculine power fantasy, and he has certainly had bad writers in the comics, but then so has every comic book character that old.
He classic characterization was a classic stereotype.
I'm not back-pedaling at all; for my entire experience with the character he has been the "Boy Scout" of the X-Men. He's always upheld the fundamental values of Xavier while shouldering the burden of leadership to a group that society is reluctant to accept; that is why he's always been Xavier's prized student. The more recent attempts to give him a more "edgy" personality have, in my opinion, not succeeded in feeling genuine. There is also a whole list of other reasons why I dislike the character other than his bottom-tier superpower and [former] goody two-shoes personality. Also, while slightly tongue-in-cheek, there is this: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mccarricksean/x-reasons-why-cyclops-is-everyones-least-favo-fjmu
Was "one-dimensional" a poor adjective to describe him? Maybe, but I still find the character boring to read and watch in a movie.
In reality, you can deconstruct every member of the X-Men and come up with ample reasons why they are lame characters. Wolverine is a prime example of that. Even with "good" writers the character can get boring: he's a troubled soul haunted by a life time of war that is also nigh indestructible save for some cheap gimmick that you know he'll overcome in the end.
Your first description was that he was one dimensional, your next was "Idealistic, natural-born leaders that are also wholesome goody two-shoe all-American heroes" which is already beyond one dimensional. Your second description directly counters your first. Either you are backpedaling or you are uncertain of your own argument. He isn't my favorite character either, but I don't think your description is accurate.
Your first description was that he was one dimensional, your next was "Idealistic, natural-born leaders that are also wholesome goody two-shoe all-American heroes" which is already beyond one dimensional. Your second description directly counters your first. Either you are backpedaling or you are uncertain of your own argument. He isn't my favorite character either, but I don't think your description is accurate.
His "one dimension" is the Boy Scout of the X-Men which entails all of the traits I described and I think you understand that. The "classic Cyclops" (that Marsden's character was based one) is one dimensional as in he lacked depth, which has been a complaint amongst numerous long-time X-Men fans. The recent portrayals of him in the comics have been an obvious attempt to address that issue, and like I have said before, I think it falls flat.
At this point you are either picking apart my diction as a way to discredit me or you are doing just for the sake of an argument.
My rudeness is because you're ignoring part of his history, casting him into a role he hasn't fit for the past decade and a half, and saying that time hasn't mattered because you don't accept it. You've been dismissive with a quarter of the characters life, and have no coherent argument. And yes, I do like the damn character, and with a stupid argument, of course I'm going to be a bit irritated. Calling him lame because you've plugged your fingers in your ears and shouted "lalala, can't hear the changes" is infantile, and hostility to that type of attitude shouldn't surprise you. If you go read even half if that decade and a half you skipped, come back and say "nope, still think he's lame", your opinion will carry more weight. Ignoring his entire character transformation and everything tht came after for 15 years is ignorant, childish, and quite honestly, not even a worthwhile opinion.
Marsden is solid. It was the writing that let him down big time. And just when he might have started to harden up they have Jean kill him off camera in X3. So we don't get a single bit of the real Cyclops. Now Cyclops wasn't my favorite and his power was meh but the movie character needs to be laid at the feet of the director and writing.
Again, super glad that this movie basically resets the timeline. I thought it was a solid way to handle the original, and in my opinion, bad trilogy while basically opening it up for the "First Class" group which seem to work far better in writing and concept than the original X-men did.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: At this point you are either picking apart my diction as a way to discredit me or you are doing just for the sake of an argument.
Thanks for projecting. Lord knows no one could have a reasonable basis of disagreement. No no, it must be the others are being mean to you on the interwebs out of spite.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: At this point you are either picking apart my diction as a way to discredit me or you are doing just for the sake of an argument.
Thanks for projecting. Lord knows no one could have a reasonable basis of disagreement. No no, it must be the others are being mean to you on the interwebs out of spite.
The basis of your argument has been that I have misused the term "one dimensional" even though I explained that it was because I believe the character lacks depth. So instead of explaining how you disagree, you just accuse me of back pedaling and not fully understanding my argument... but he isn't your favorite character either yet you will continue to argue with me over my opinion of a crappy character.
Your rudeness has no place here and it unwarranted.
you're ignoring part of his history, casting him into a role he hasn't fit for the past decade and a half, and saying that time hasn't mattered because you don't accept it.
I could make the case that you are ignore most of the character's history and instead focusing on how the writers tried to make him edgier in recent years, which I still find equally as lame.
You've been dismissive with a quarter of the characters life, and have no coherent argument.
You've been dismissive of my opinion because I don't agree with you. Sorry, I don't think the character is cool, I never have and never will.
And yes, I do like the damn character, and with a stupid argument, of course I'm going to be a bit irritated.
It's a comic book character, my friend. We don't all have to love the same one. You know who my favorite characters are? I'll list them for you: Nightcrawler, Colossus, Wolverine, Bishop, and Psylocke. Each one of those has serious flaws and you know what? I don't get in someone's [virtual] face over their dislike for them. In fact, I even gave a few good reasons as to why Wolverine is a boring and stupid character a few posts back. Guess what, I still enjoy his books and I don't give a crap when someone points them out; it's a comic book character.
Calling him lame because you've plugged your fingers in your ears and shouted "lalala, can't hear the changes" is infantile, and hostility to that type of attitude shouldn't surprise you.
I know the character has changed and I still don't like him, because as I've said before... I do not like the character.
If you go read even half if that decade and a half you skipped, come back and say "nope, still think he's lame", your opinion will carry more weight.
I have read them and I still think he is a lame character. However, I have never once said my opinion holds more weight than yours. Quite the contrary, you've been making that argument since the beginning.
Ignoring his entire character transformation and everything tht came after for 15 years is ignorant, childish, and quite honestly, not even a worthwhile opinion.
And yet you continue to tell me my opinion is wrong.
I get it, you really love Cyclops. Good for you. That doesn't give you an excuse for being a condescending jerk to me because I don't like the same fictional character that you do. That, my friend, is childish.
I quit comics shortly after her appearance in Age of Apocalypse and thought she was only in that alternate universe and died with it. Saw her in the previews and immediately knew who she was and it brought back a flood of memories from my comic book days.
nels1031 wrote: Does Blink play a significant role in this movie?
I quit comics shortly after her appearance in Age of Apocalypse and thought she was only in that alternate universe and died with it. Saw her in the previews and immediately knew who she was and it brought back a flood of memories from my comic book days.
That and Fan Bing Bing is.... Hnnnnnnngh.
She's a supporting character in the future.
She has a couple of cool fight scenes in the movie.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The basis of your argument has been that I have misused the term "one dimensional" even though I explained that it was because I believe the character lacks depth.
The basis of the argument is that you contradict yourself. You also did it again later when you said all characters can be written poorly, because at that point all characters can be shallow, so the fact you dismiss one for it while not others is confusing.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: So instead of explaining how you disagree, you just accuse me of back pedaling and not fully understanding my argument...
I was pretty clear about why I disagree, just because you don't like it or don't agree with it doesn't magically make it not there; hand waving doesn't make it go away, except perhaps in your mind. I understand your argument, which is how I know it is either backpedaling and/or contradictory.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Tbut he isn't your favorite character either yet you will continue to argue with me over my opinion of a crappy character.
Just because he isn't my favorite character doesn't mean I can't recognize a specious argument.
Ahtman wrote: The basis of the argument is that you contradict yourself. You also did it again later when you said all characters can be written poorly, because at that point all characters can be shallow, so the fact you dismiss one for it while not others is confusing.
My dislike for Cyclops is multi-tiered.
I've explained why I dismiss Cyclops: I think his superpower is lame. Now add that to the fact that for most of his existence the character has lacked depth. Again, I base all of this is from when I was heavily invested in the comics and in reference to his portrayal in the movies, which is how this topic started. However, I have also stated there are plenty of other reason that I do not like the character.
I was pretty clear about why I disagree, just because you don't like it or don't agree with it doesn't magically make it not there; hand waving doesn't make it go away, except perhaps in your mind. I understand your argument, which is how I know it is either backpedaling and/or contradictory.
You're still arguing only arguing semantics with me. At least the other guy is arguing from something valid, that being his feelings for the character.
Just because he isn't my favorite character doesn't mean I can't recognize a specious argument.
Exactly, at this point you are arguing with me solely for the sake of arguing with me.
Look, you want to sit there and accuse me of backpedaling and argue over semantics, go ahead. You think my argument is invalid and I think your argument is equally invalid. I dislike the character and always have. If readily admitting that the "current" Cyclops is not the same shallow douchebag character that he was from the 90s is contradicting my opinion, that's fine; you can take that. If you think my use of the term "one dimensional" is not up to snuff for you, you can have that too. Relish in your victory, please. The character is still a tool and I still dislike him. Luckily, I know I'm the only one.
Hulksmash wrote: Comic Rogue is awesome. Movie Rogue is worse than Movie Cyclops. I wish I could put it more strongly but I just can't find the words...
I'm actually skipping anything X-Men related by Fox until they give us a Rogue any fan of the last thirty years actually recognizes. Someone wake me up when she flies across the screen and punches a sentinel clean through a building.
Hulksmash wrote: Comic Rogue is awesome. Movie Rogue is worse than Movie Cyclops. I wish I could put it more strongly but I just can't find the words...
I'm actually skipping anything X-Men related by Fox until they give us a Rogue any fan of the last thirty years actually recognizes. Someone wake me up when she flies across the screen and punches a sentinel clean through a building.
I kept hoping that they would make Movie Rogue more like Comics Rogue... but I guess we don't always get what we want.
What's annoying it could have been easy to translate on screen now as well. Just throw in a idea that the serum she took (Rogue would have never surrendered like that in a million years, but lets ignore that awful bit of writing) was a variant of what Hank designed in First Class.. and it ended up boosting her powers to how we know her. No confusing Carol,Danvers tie in, but Rogue becomes the powerhouse of the team she should be.
The worst part of Days of Future Past is the end, where we have the school restored with Storm, Beast, Jean, Cyke, Kitty, Colossus and everyone restored.
Otherwise the movie was fine, if a little dull. The trailers overplayed the importance of the future scenes, and as the future scenes just amounted to the X-Men getting trounced by the super-Sentinels I guess I don't see what the point was. The only really interesting thing, to me, was the coldly ruthless way Magneto dealt with the possibility. I felt that was wonderfully true to his character.
As far as Quicksilver goes, yeah his scene was really cool but he's this film's equivalent to the Army of the Dead from Return of the King: So powereful as to make everyone else's powers irrelevant, yet they just let him go. I mean if they'd kept him around the final battle would not have happened. Mags helmet would be gone in the blink of an eye, Xavier would freeze everyone and use Mags to disassemble the Sentinels and that'd be it.
Technically, the only movie we can be sure has been 100% negated is X3: The Last Stand. Which I'm sure we all can agree is for the best.
X1 is the movie that basically introduces Rogue to Xavier's academy. As she is there, and dating Bobby, we can see that some events of X1 and X2 still happen (since she doesn't start dating Iceman until X2 really).
I think Jean in a bright red dress is supposed to be a slight hint that the Phoenix Force is still there, which means X2 (or at least parts of it) is still on the table.
Really the only things it did was undo:
1. Rogue losing her powers (she has gloves on at the end of DoFP, and there is a scene that was cut from the theatrical release where X and Magneto go and recruit her, and she has her powers).
2. Jean and Scott dying. Both are alive and well.
3. Uh... maybe just those two things are definite.
I am curious what Raven/Mystique 'rescuing' Wolverine means for him, especially with regards to his adamantium skeleton. We don't see him pop his claws or anything in the end sequence of DoFP, so there's no real way to tell.
Overall I enjoyed the movie immensely. The "Future" scenes were basically mutant power porn, which was awesome fun. <3 Blink, even if she's technically out of her dimension, I don't really care. She was part of the Exiles for awhile, so having her exist outside of AoA is a-okay with me. Very cool to see Warpath, Bishop and Sunspot as newcomers also.
As for the focus on Mystique, I was fine with that. The original DoFP focuses on Destiny as the assassin that sparks the whole thing, but as we didn't want to introduce a new character (that no one will give 2 gaks about), why not use Destiny's main accomplice from the comics: Mystique. I think that's also the reason why Shadowcat/Kitty Pryde/Ellen Paige was used to move people through time (even though that's not her power). In the DoFP comic, she's the one that goes back through time not Wolverine. So having her be the time-anchor-mutant-whatever is a decent enough homage to the comic, even if it bugs me that they never explain how after 4 movies she suddenly has that power.
As for Quicksilver, I'm with HBMC on the powers thing. It's what I like to refer to as "The Flash Problem". You have to tone them way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down, or they just make everyone useless. Having him be young and not really "part of the team" makes enough sense to get him in, showcase his power-porn, and then get him out. Him holding his little sister (aka Wanda, aka Scarlet Witch) was a decent enough touch at the end as well.
Just got back from seeing it. I have a lot of stuff from the movie in the spoiler, and I'm not gonna hop in and out of spoilers, so DON'T FRIGGING READ BEYOND THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT!
Also, I loved it. I only had one gripe, and it'll be the first thing in the spoiler
Spoiler:
Kitty sent Wolverine back?! Dafuq? Okay, I get that there is no Rachel Summers/Grey because Jean and Scott both died before babies. Cool. But Shadowcat hasn't demonstrated any telepathic or time-travel capable abilities at all, so how did this happen? My assumption (and that's all it is) is that because she can phase through objects, Singer decided she could phase through time. Okay, I can live with that. But it was still a jolt. Seeing Bobby die in the first thirty seconds was insane. Watching his head get crushed into a powder? Holy crap. Right then, I knew this wasn't gonna be a kids movie. Colossus getting torn in half at the end wasn't a bad touch either. Very happy that Storm died by getting impaled. Thank you, Singer, for bringing back the classic comic for her death. Much appreciated. Glad to see Warpath, Blink, Bishop (okay, he doesn't channel his power through his guns, but whatever) and Sunspot kick serious ass before dying heroically. Wish Alex Summers got more screen time, and I was okay with Mystique being the main baddy, as she was in the 90s Cartoon as well, skipping Destiny. Adding in random characters to do important things would be a mistake, which is why I ended up being okay with Kitty sending Logan back and Mystique going after Trask (fulfilling Senator Kelly's spot). I loved Quicksilver's quip that his mom used to date a guy who could manipulate metal. Good-it's thrown in there that Magneto is his daddy. The movie definitely takes a LOT of stuff from the 80s comic, the 90s cartoon and even the single season of Wolverine and the X-Men. And it removed X3 from ever happening. Great!! This is by far the best X-Men movie to come out, hands down. Glad I went, and I'll be buying it as soon as it comes out.
True. But this is also the future-notice Wolverine's grey sideburns that he had during the future setting. Kitty and Colossus have grown up a couple years and have become teachers. I'd say that's fine. Kitty's new time-distorting powers should be more upsetting than her being a teacher.
streamdragon wrote: Technically, the only movie we can be sure has been 100% negated is X3: The Last Stand.
And X2. Kitty and Colossus weren't a teacher around the time of X2, they were students. Neither was Beast.
We don't know exactly how long after the end of X2 it is that Wolverine "wakes up", per se, but I agree parts of X2 are probably gone. Like I said, we have no idea how Raven/Mystique grabbing ole Wolvie will play out which definitely impacts the events of X2. If the Red Dress is an indication of the Phoenix Force being around (which is 100% my speculation, naturally), at Jean becoming its host from X2 is still around.
I'm definitely curious how things played out in the intermediate between Wolverine being dredged up and waking up at Xavier's school, but given that X-Men: Apocalypse is supposed to be more of a First Class follow on than a DoFP follow on (according to Singer), I'm not sure we'll get to know in movie form.
I don't think we'll be getting any more 'modern' X-Men films with the original cast. That section from the end of DoFP where we saw everyone sans Nightcrawler, Angel (Worthington) and Pyro will be the last of that, a way of showing that everything is the way it should.
As far as the events of X2, I don't think they happen. Jean not being under a ton of water is a big give away there. We don't even know if or how Wolverine goes through the Weapon X program, and whether he has adamantium any more.
We can't say for certain anything really - we don't even know if X1 still counts - but we can say that pretty much everything from every other movie bar First Class, the 70's bits of DoFP and X1 is now gone.
I posted that previously ITT and I'm glad you posted it again because seriously, you guys, you should read that article if you have seen the movie. I mean, they really have kind of screwed up the franchise a bit now I think; although really it wasn't in such hot shape to begin with.
I wish instead of everyone doing a "less cool avengers universe" with their own little splinter of Marvel IP, the studios could come together with some kind of cost sharing and revenue splitting system that would allow us to have the Marvel Universe on film that we all deserve.
Except the mutants. They shouldn't be part of the MCU. Who cares if someone can build a cool flying robot suit or if they got a drug that made 'em as strong as 10 men when there's a guy who can freeze people with his mind, and another that can lift entire stadiums just by thinking about it. Mutant powers are both too wonky and nonsensical (my tattoo's do things to people... I have a long tongue... I can control fire but can't make it... I can make fire but can't control it... I can warp reality!) to try and fit into a world as cohesively built as the MCU.
The Fantastic Four (powers as a result of an accident), and Spider-Man (Oscorp did it!) would be far easier to justify.
I haven't seen it yet, but I know the plot (I read the plot 99% of the time prior to watching the film) and they do a great job of rebooting the series after the disaster of X-3.
Spoiler:
Really excited for the upcoming Apoc film. Both Marvel franchises (Avengers/X-Men) are headed in a great direction).
Ouze wrote: I dunno, I think I agree with Scotty - Cyclops has pretty much always sucked, at least up to when I stopped reading right (right after the X-Tinction Agenda, so a while ago).
Cyclops used to be my favorite X-men when I was little... then I grew up and discovered Gambit.
Ouze wrote: I dunno, I think I agree with Scotty - Cyclops has pretty much always sucked, at least up to when I stopped reading right (right after the X-Tinction Agenda, so a while ago).
Cyclops used to be my favorite X-men when I was little... then I grew up and discovered Gambit.
It's okay, you're keeping it in the family, at least. Gambit is the gene-spliced clone of Cyclops and Mr. Sinister. And to any possible naysayers, Chris Claremont (the guy who created Gambit) said so. So it's fact. Read X-Men: The End for the full story. Yes, I'm aware it's an alternate future because they can't ACTUALLY kill a cash-cow like the xmen, but the only alternate timeline portion is this tail-end part. The background of every character remains accurate to who they are. Cyclops has a very big (and often disturbed) family tree.
I agree with what has been said about the Mystique factor. I thought she was way overplayed, and I don't remember mystique being such a main character when I used to read comics. Thought she was a bit player.
Magneto was really cool, and so was quicksilver, but the rest of the movie was kind of meh.
I was looking forward to the futuristic scenes, but it all seemed just thrown in there..well just because.
And how did I miss apocolypse? Was there am aftercredits scene?
Yes, there was an "after credits" thing. And Mystique was part of the team that attempted to assassinate Senator Kelly in the classic story. Destiny was the one who pulled the trigger in that story, but they had Mystique do it here so a highly recognizable character was involved instead of a name only comic readers knew. It was the right call.
I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Possible the best comic book film ever. Yes, i'm serious!
Spoiler:
The Mystique Connection: Utter brilliance for moving the film along at an enjoyable pace. All main forces had a connection to her so it was imperative that we followed her more. It makes sense that it would be her DNA that would lead to a major breakthrough for the future Sentinels. She has the ability to visually mimic others but what other power is down in her family tree and could possibly be unlocked through further research? Rogue's ability to absorb powers.
Very happy with the ending, it's great to see the previous films retconned as this allows us to have a pretty blank slate when it comes to the next film.
I loved the various mutants in action and particularly enjoyed the future Sentinels dispatching them so ruthlessly. Their dropships were cool as all hell. Genuinely enjoyed the future scenes with their Future War vibe. Slight disappointment that the Sentinels never spoke. It did give them a horrific edge though.
Fassbender as Magneto was glorious, when he gets his cape and outfit he just looks like a badass. Even when he's being bad you just have to like him. You can't not like Magneto, he's reactionary but it makes sense for him to be that way.
Really looking forward to the next film, hopefully they keep the same writing/directing combo because they knocked it out the park.
Here's the post-credit scene if you missed it. Really hoping we see Sinister in the next film. I guess it's guaranteed if Apocalypse is in it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Soundtrack was a particular highlight for me throughout the film.
Edit again: Did I mention how great this film was?
Edit: Well they haven't. Certainly parts have, but others have been changed. I don't think it's a bad thing to switch things up for a Movie adaptation as long as the themes and characters stay mostly the same.
Spoiler:
They could probably skip him entirely. It would be a shame but he might over complicate the story unless they do it as a two part film. I wondered if the 4 Horsemen at the end credit sequence were just symbolic and are not going to be as old as Apocalypse himself as they frequently changed.
I'm really hoping that the door is now open for Rogue to be a badass now that she has her powers and is more mature.
I don't think the continuity part is such a big deal in terms of "The Wolverine" or "Origins: Wolverine" as they were terrible films. It did show some parts of The Wolverine in WW2 but that could have happened regardless of Wolverine going on to fight a giant Samurai suit or not. Basically the story is X1, X2, X3, First Class, Days of Future Past with everything else not being required. Even then you could probably cut some films. I don't see it as a big deal. I'm actually quite glad.
Going back to Days: I loved the death scenes of the Mutants in the future, they were horrible and really illustrated the power of the Senitnels. Iceman and Sunspot's deaths were particularly brutal and Warpath getting the Wolverine treatment. I liked Storms death, very quick as she's just discarded over the edge of the temple wall.
I take it from the end of the film that Magneto/Eric has taken up Xavier's point of view and will go into hiding, hence why he left his helmet behind. I hope he gets it back for the next film though as he looks far too awesome in it. I also wonder if Wolverine will go through the Weapon X program if Mystique saved him instead of Stryker.
Ouze wrote: I dunno, I think I agree with Scotty - Cyclops has pretty much always sucked, at least up to when I stopped reading right (right after the X-Tinction Agenda, so a while ago).
Cyclops used to be my favorite X-men when I was little... then I grew up and discovered Gambit.
It's okay, you're keeping it in the family, at least. Gambit is the gene-spliced clone of Cyclops and Mr. Sinister. And to any possible naysayers, Chris Claremont (the guy who created Gambit) said so. So it's fact. Read X-Men: The End for the full story. Yes, I'm aware it's an alternate future because they can't ACTUALLY kill a cash-cow like the xmen, but the only alternate timeline portion is this tail-end part. The background of every character remains accurate to who they are. Cyclops has a very big (and often disturbed) family tree.
Medium of Death wrote: I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Possible the best comic book film ever. Yes, i'm serious!
Spoiler:
The Mystique Connection: Utter brilliance for moving the film along at an enjoyable pace. All main forces had a connection to her so it was imperative that we followed her more. It makes sense that it would be her DNA that would lead to a major breakthrough for the future Sentinels. She has the ability to visually mimic others but what other power is down in her family tree and could possibly be unlocked through further research? Rogue's ability to absorb powers.
Very happy with the ending, it's great to see the previous films retconned as this allows us to have a pretty blank slate when it comes to the next film.
I loved the various mutants in action and particularly enjoyed the future Sentinels dispatching them so ruthlessly. Their dropships were cool as all hell. Genuinely enjoyed the future scenes with their Future War vibe. Slight disappointment that the Sentinels never spoke. It did give them a horrific edge though.
Fassbender as Magneto was glorious, when he gets his cape and outfit he just looks like a badass. Even when he's being bad you just have to like him. You can't not like Magneto, he's reactionary but it makes sense for him to be that way.
Really looking forward to the next film, hopefully they keep the same writing/directing combo because they knocked it out the park.
Here's the post-credit scene if you missed it. Really hoping we see Sinister in the next film. I guess it's guaranteed if Apocalypse is in it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Soundtrack was a particular highlight for me throughout the film.
Edit again: Did I mention how great this film was?
Well in that case, McDonald's has the healthiest food in the world.
Days is FAR more gruesome than Avengers. I liked the poster saying to see it before taking kids. This could have pulled an R rating, if they were so inclined: it was really only missing blood and nudity. Everything else was there, and some of the lack of blood was more disturbing: future X-deaths where bodies were just obliterated. This movie had a few scenes that made me chuckle, but wasn't as jovial as Avengers. It was definitely more badass.
Overall I enjoyed Avengers more. That said I enjoyed it more because it was part of an excellent universe and felt like a major chapter in an excellent novel.
On the balance DoFP is probably a better "movie" from a stand-alone perspective if you don't include the universe of either leading up to it or even if you just include First Class.
However, in their respective universes DoFP is just a start in the right direction and doesn't hold a candle to Avengers.
Loki wants to get the Tesseract because... then suddenly Space Men from another dimension...? That's honestly all I remember. I like Iron Man in the film, just because it was nice to see him being awesome like in Iron Man and not in Iron Man 2 (or after the Avengers in No. 3).
Loki wants to get the Tesseract because... then suddenly Space Men from another dimension...? That's honestly all I remember. I like Iron Man in the film, just because it was nice to see him being awesome like in Iron Man and not in Iron Man 2 (or after the Avengers in No. 3).
Well, that's because the plot is paper-thin. However, it was an accomplishment by Whedon to bring those characters together and have them all work well onscreen. It was fun and slickly done, and RDJ did his part to keep the thing afloat...as always.
Honestly, even after seeing Avengers a week ago, I couldn't tell you what the plot really was. DoFP was much better written, and is definitely the best X-Men movie so far. Fassbender was a badass as always, the future scenes were really grim, and the little references here and there (Quicksilver: "My mum used to know someone like that" and him holding Wanda later on) made it a brilliant movie IMHO.
Ahtman wrote: It is becoming a bit of a problem in comic movies that setting up the next film is more important than the film itself.
I think the worst offender so far has been The Amazing Spiderman 2. Not only did they cut out most of the scenes in one of the trailers, the ending just felt sloppy, and I walked away disappointed. DoFP, on the other hand, wa a great sequel to First Class which simultaneously rebooted and finished off all of the films after X1.
I don't think that was the intention with this film certainly. Obviously we have the teaser for Apocalypse at the end, but other than that it feels like a whole experience.
Marvel are churning them out a bit on the Avenger end and it just seems like you're not missing much if you choose to skip them.
Speaking of other comic book Movies. I never realised Blade had went back to Marvel/Disney control.
Spiderman/Blade crossover with Morbius in it to reboot Blade would be nice.
NSFW: That intro tho...
Hard to imagine any Marvel film going down the R/18 path now. Not that it's necessary really, can provide some epic scenes though.
I thought the film was excellent overall. Bringing back Singer and the original Composer (who's name escapes me) made noticeable improvements.
A few points I've come across after reading interviews:
-The next film is slated to take place in the 80s.
-Quicksilver is holding Polaris. Wanda is upstairs (deleted scene).
-Rogue originally had a much bigger role (deleted scene), and she is how the Sentinels gain their power replicating ability.
How is rogue supposed to have a large role when she was 16 or so in 99, when the first movie took place? If its 83, she's a newborn. Also, Lorna has green hair, Wanda had red. That would be weirder than not making them twins in my book (despite being twins in Avengers universe, stupid companies can't work together). So...I think your piecing together is faulty. If the younger sister "Peter" (feth, it's Pietro, Singer!!) was holding had green hair, I'd agree with your thought. So I'm gonna say probably not.
timetowaste85 wrote: How is rogue supposed to have a large role when she was 16 or so in 99, when the first movie took place? If its 83, she's a newborn. Also, Lorna has green hair, Wanda had red. That would be weirder than not making them twins in my book (despite being twins in Avengers universe, stupid companies can't work together). So...I think your piecing together is faulty. If the younger sister "Peter" (feth, it's Pietro, Singer!!) was holding had green hair, I'd agree with your thought. So I'm gonna say probably not.
Rogue was the focus of a future fight scene when she is freed from a prison camp or some such. Also, Wanda is still his twin, just upstairs. Their mother says something to the little girl like 'go bug your sister'.
These are all from Singer interviews, had I the link on hand I'd post it. Take your doubt elsewhere.
Well this is an interesting one. Recently we ran a piece looking at the absence of comic book characters associated with Fox Studios on the Marvel 75th Anniversary Magazine cover, in favour of the likes of the Inhumans and Captain Marvel.
Well, now I’m being told from a Marvel source that Marvel are intending to put the Fantastic Four comic books on hold, both Marvel Universe and Ultimate. The characters will still appear, but in other folks’ books such as Inhuman and Avengers. And that artwork featuring the Fantastic Four is even being taken down in the company offices.
Twentieth Century Fox pretty much has an eternal claim on Fantastic Four and X-Men movies, if they keep making them, after the deal was done during Marvel’s bankruptcy days, with very little benefit to Marvel.
The belief inside the higher echelons of Marvel is that promoting these properties in comics only benefits Fox’s movies at the expense of those from Marvel Studios. Which is why the Inhumans are being pushed as mutant replacements in the Marvel Universe. And Marvel have been pushing Avengers, Guardians Of The Galaxy and other comics over the X-Men. And while X-Men comics remain solid sellers, they are no longer the focus of internal promotion unless, as with the upcoming AXIS event, the Avengers get equal billing.
If this story is true, we should be able to watch for an absence of Fantastic Four from upcoming solicitations. Will we get an Ultimate FF for September? The August solicitations seem rather final…
ULTIMATE FF #6
(W) Joshua Hale Fialkov (A/CA) Andre Araujo
• The ULTIMATE UNIVERSE’S worst nightmare approaches
• Jump into the future of the Ultimate Universe as the DOOMSDAY CLOCK counts down.
• The END of the FUTURE FOUNDATION.
8/13/2014 $3.99
The Fantastic Four is Marvel’s longest running comic book and is the foundation of the Marvel Universe. Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in 1961, even if its sales have varied, it’s considered the cornerstone of the comic books. What will happen if it goes away…?
Marvel gave an “no comment” when approached.
Seems unlikely to me and Spiderman -- which Sony has the movie rights for -- is front and centre still.
But, even with the movie, does see a bit odd that the X-books aren't having a bigger role.
"Nuhumans" as a term sounds a plausible work around/replacement term for mutants.... for the films and any/all TV shows.
With all the talk about Marvel doing their own " Crisis on...." I wonder if they might in fact spin the X-men/mutant characters off into their own continuity/world -- which might work better from Marvel/Disney's perspective and one could argue that if this means the only people with powers in that continuity are mutants it would help re-establish the mutants are a threat/to be feared angle which, at times, is perhaps drowned out or watered down by the presence of XXX ( excuse the pun) other non mutant superpowered people.
Adopted... unless they've made a massive retcon in the past couple of years I missed.
Still not happy with a lot of Singer's choices when it comes to the characters in the X-films, but I didn't mind First Class... so fifty fifty on if I will watch this or not.
Will be very interesting in seeing if Marvel has the bottle to put the FF on hold mind... they are obviously getting frustrated and I guess all legal avenues are proving pointless.
timetowaste85 wrote: How is rogue supposed to have a large role when she was 16 or so in 99, when the first movie took place? If its 83, she's a newborn. Also, Lorna has green hair, Wanda had red. That would be weirder than not making them twins in my book (despite being twins in Avengers universe, stupid companies can't work together). So...I think your piecing together is faulty. If the younger sister "Peter" (feth, it's Pietro, Singer!!) was holding had green hair, I'd agree with your thought. So I'm gonna say probably not.
Rogue was the focus of a future fight scene when she is freed from a prison camp or some such. Also, Wanda is still his twin, just upstairs. Their mother says something to the little girl like 'go bug your sister'.
These are all from Singer interviews, had I the link on hand I'd post it. Take your doubt elsewhere.
I misunderstood the Rogue part: I thought you meant she had a big part in the next movie. Was calling doubt on that. Apologies. Sleep deprivation is a bitch.
And to the other poster: Rogue is Mystique's adopted daughter. They share no blood. She is Nightcrawler's biological mother though: Azazel is his father. I wonder when they had time to get busy before he croaked.
I seriously hope they make a way to do the AoA story on film somehow. The bloodshed of that should rival the future death scenes of DoFP, if not exceeds them. It's my favorite X-story of all times. Needless to say, I flipped gak when WatXM cancelled right before doing it on TV.
I can't see them doing a movie about changing the future by altering the past right after doing a movie about changing the future by altering the past.
Ahtman wrote: I can't see them doing a movie about changing the future by altering the past right after doing a movie about changing the future by altering the past.
Ahtman wrote: I can't see them doing a movie about changing the future by altering the past right after doing a movie about changing the future by altering the past.
Me neither. Apoc might steal some people from the future, but they won't re-do the last film with a different antagonist.
He's pulled other attempts to do over the world as well. I would guess they just have him trying to do over the world, and the X-Men go out to stop him.
Spoiler:
The fact he had the four horsemen shadowed out behind him, in the credits sequence at the end of the DoFP, to me says he's got all the antagonist's he needs.
Watched DoFP last night, and it was a good film, not as great as the Avengers in my mind, but I sadly see too many holes when watching the X-Men films these days, but in all it wasn't too bad when you consider what they had to work with. (Singer's script)
Quicksilver's scene was possibly the best bit of the film, and in the top three best superhero moments in any film for me, which is funny as Singer threw him in as a response to Whedon's announcement for Avengers. he can say all he likes that it wasn't the case, but other info that came to light since says otherwise.
Really liked Blink, and in general the story wasn't too bad. Although I still can't stand Berry as Storm, Rogue is going to annoy me until the do her right, not as the character she was briefly at the very start of her run and before she had any kind of popularity.
Can't fault either Magneto or Prof X in either time period, Hugh once again is fine as Wolverine although I agree with him and would love to see him face off against the Hulk, sadly its not going to happen.
In all, like First Class its a better effort than the original trilogy, but I'd much rather it reverts to Marvel Studios in the long run.
I figured that when Wolverine 'woke up' he was still in the same 'time' or at least, a very similar time, as he was in the 'future past' era (as shown by the holographic tech being everywhere). So, Kitty Pryde etc could very well be teachers, or, at least, tutors hosting a class or two.
There's also nothing really stopping elements of The Wolverine (which I still haven't seen yet), or the other X-men films having happened, but perhaps not worked out 100% the same way, allowing them to fudge things but still keep broad strokes similar.
Incidentally, did Apocalypse look a bit... weedy to anyone else?
I figured that when Wolverine 'woke up' he was still in the same 'time' or at least, a very similar time, as he was in the 'future past' era (as shown by the holographic tech being everywhere). So, Kitty Pryde etc could very well be teachers, or, at least, tutors hosting a class or two.
There's also nothing really stopping elements of The Wolverine (which I still haven't seen yet), or the other X-men films having happened, but perhaps not worked out 100% the same way, allowing them to fudge things but still keep broad strokes similar.
Incidentally, did Apocalypse look a bit... weedy to anyone else?
yeah, though, to be fair, at that point in time he would still be a child. A lot of his abilities are derived from Celestial tech as well, such as his Size Manipulation. (I think that one is tech based, i may be wrong though.)
However, it was an accomplishment by Whedon to bring those characters together and have them all work well onscreen. It was fun and slickly done, and RDJ did his part to keep the thing afloat...as always.
We needed more Bishop.
