Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 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:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'm not back-pedaling at all

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I'm not back-pedaling at all

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.

Can't we just all agree that Rogue is the best one?

Well not in the films anyway...

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...

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
My rudeness

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.

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.

 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.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

 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.

Why?

Because we're never going to get a original X-Men film again with that cast, X1, X2, X3, Origins and The Wolverine now never happened, and I don't think it's wise to treat continuity so lightly.

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

 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.

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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because we're never going to get a original X-Men film again with that cast, X1, X2, X3, Origins and The Wolverine now never happened, and I don't think it's wise to treat continuity so lightly.

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.

 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.