Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

X-Men: Days of Future PastFollow

#1 Oct 29 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
******
49,737 posts

Wolverine is told to go back in time and basically create the X-Men. Nevermind this was essentially a Kitty Pryde storyline. Ooooh no, we gotta focus on Sniktbub.

Edited, Oct 29th 2013 9:01pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2 Oct 29 2013 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,277 posts
I thought it was the storyline where Bishop had to go back to stop the Sentinel War from starting from the assassination of Kelly.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#3 Oct 29 2013 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
******
49,737 posts
I just remember that it was Olde Kitty who time traveled her brain to Young Kitty to prevent the disaster. I think Bishop was involved, but I never really liked him so my memory of his involvement in anything is sketchy at best.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Oct 30 2013 at 4:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,148 posts
So... X-Men 1 and 2 happened as did First Class. But are we to ignore X3 if we watch this? Not that I would mind. Hated that movie.
And does the Wolverine abominatio... movie belong to this continuity?

I'm confused.
____________________________
Osseric
#5 Oct 30 2013 at 6:48 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
All the movies exist in this canon. Xavier survived by taking over the body of his braindead twin.

And yeah, I'm sick of Wolverine. He was never a favorite character of mine, and making the X series all about him has really killed a lot of my interest. Particularly with the way they've written him.

And it definitely needs more Kitty Pryde.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#6 Oct 30 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
It has Fassbender Magneto & nearly naked Jennifer Laurence in it.

I would see this movie even if it wasn't about the X-Men. Singer has stated that this flick will resolve some continuity issues. We'll see how...
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#7 Oct 31 2013 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Wolverine is told to go back in time and basically create the X-Men. Nevermind this was essentially a Kitty Pryde storyline. Ooooh no, we gotta focus on Sniktbub.


Sending back Kitty would make no sense; she's just a teenager in the movies.

Wasn't sure how they were going to handle Xavier's death in X3, but his twin brother sounds like an okay save. Thought the guy in the bed in X3 had more hair, though.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#8 Oct 31 2013 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh boy, I hope it has January Jones!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Oct 31 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
Mazra wrote:
Sending back Kitty would make no sense; she's just a teenager in the movies.


She wouldn't be in the "future" though.

Joph wrote:
Oh boy, I hope it has January Jones!


You will be disappointed.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#10 Oct 31 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
You will be disappointed.

There's no outcome to "Will it have January Jones?" that wouldn't disappoint.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Oct 31 2013 at 3:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Sending back Kitty would make no sense; she's just a teenager in the movies.


She wouldn't be in the "future" though.


Correct. But she's a teenager in the early 2000s, when the first three X-men films occurred. The "in the past" bits will occur in 1973. So she would not have been born yet (at least in the film chronology). While I'm sure the studio's reasons for using Logan are purely profit driven, it actually does make sense to use the character from a story telling point of view. Assuming whomever's mind/soul/whatever is sent back in time wont remember anything they do while "possessed", it can't be any of the main characters who's actions need to be influenced after the possession ends (so can't just send Xavier or Magneto back). Wolverine works because he didn't interact with the X-men (or remember working with them) during the time in question. So no gaps or additional inconsistencies are created.

Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Oct 31 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,277 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.


They already said FU to continuity by introducing Xavier's comatose "twin brother", that just happens to be compatible with Xavier's brainwaves. If they're gonna bring Xavier back, they might as well go all out and bring one from an alternate timeline where Dark Phoenix wiped out the X-Men but left Xavier, Magneto, and maybe Cyclops alive. Smiley: glare
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#13 Oct 31 2013 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,922 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.


They already said FU to continuity by introducing Xavier's comatose "twin brother", that just happens to be compatible with Xavier's brainwaves.


Uh... They introduced the braindead body in the same film they killed off Xavier, and the teaser at the end of that same film had him waking up in said body. So that's not exactly a continuity problem. I know that many people try hard to forget X3, but all of those elements were in the film.

The biggest continuity problems with the films were introduced with First Class. IMO, they set it too far in the past to make it fit well with the previous films.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Oct 31 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,737 posts
The biggest continuity error is their insistence on making Wolverine the key lynchpin of every storyline. Just to get to "Logan saves X-Men" they have to push the timeline back to First Class instead of having the main story happen in the modern time. I guess they want to keep the whole "we done ****** up 2013" element as an easter egg to people that know the storyline. I'd rather be done with Wolverine than a meaningless series of numbers in a time travel story.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Oct 31 2013 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,277 posts
gbaji wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.


They already said FU to continuity by introducing Xavier's comatose "twin brother", that just happens to be compatible with Xavier's brainwaves.


Uh... They introduced the braindead body in the same film they killed off Xavier, and the teaser at the end of that same film had him waking up in said body. So that's not exactly a continuity problem. I know that many people try hard to forget X3, but all of those elements were in the film.


That had to have been after the credits, cause I stopped watching at that part.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#16 Nov 01 2013 at 5:25 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:

That had to have been after the credits, cause I stopped watching at that part.


Pretty sure, yeah. It's possible it was an extended scene, but I remember seeing it when I watched the movie, and I doubt I watched the extended one.

As for Kitty Pryde being a teenager, we have no clue when the future portion of this movie takes place. Is it the year after Last Stand, or is it a decade? You can tell Iceman has aged a fair bit - mid 20s at least. I have no clue, actually, how old he was supposed to be in The Last Stand. I'm going to guess he was 18, though, or nearly there. And the movie came out 8 years before DoFP.

I'm curious what they're going to do with Rogue, tbh. She wasn't in the trailer, and it'll be BULLSH*T if they just erase her from the movie.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#17 Nov 01 2013 at 5:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,148 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm curious what they're going to do with Rogue, tbh. She wasn't in the trailer, and it'll be BULLSH*T if they just erase her from the movie.


She is in it. At 00:26 and very briefly at 01:39.
____________________________
Osseric
#18 Nov 01 2013 at 6:05 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
As an X-men fan, reading these comments made me realize how little I know. I'm not tracking Kitty...
As for the hate against the Wolverine take over, we might as well get over it. That's the drawback about creating these types of movies, the true fans are ignored for the rest of nation. Everyone else want to see Wolverine just as much as Hugh Jackman. They are going for money, not fan base accuracy.

Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
I thought it was the storyline where Bishop had to go back to stop the Sentinel War from starting from the assassination of Kelly.


This was my thought and what I remembered. Then again, I basically only watched the animated series and that's what happened. Now I'm disappointed. Maybe I should get over it...Smiley: frown

Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.


They already said FU to continuity by introducing Xavier's comatose "twin brother", that just happens to be compatible with Xavier's brainwaves. If they're gonna bring Xavier back, they might as well go all out and bring one from an alternate timeline where Dark Phoenix wiped out the X-Men but left Xavier, Magneto, and maybe Cyclops alive. Smiley: glare


Leave Cyclops out of it.
#19 Nov 01 2013 at 7:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
As for the hate against the Wolverine take over, we might as well get over it. That's the drawback about creating these types of movies, the true fans are ignored for the rest of nation. Everyone else want to see Wolverine just as much as Hugh Jackman. They are going for money, not fan base accuracy.

That's the long and short of it. Jackman/Wolverine pretty much owned the previous X-Men flicks and people took to him. Grab some random guy and tell him to name an X-Men and he'll likely say Wolverine. Hollywood's gonna give the (rank and file) people what they want.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Nov 01 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,737 posts
That doesn't mean I have to like it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Nov 01 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Yeah, but that's still on the studio and the writers. They made the franchise weak by failing to make any other character remotely as notorious as him.

Compare it to what Disney is doing with the Marvel movies. Iron Man is currently leading the pack, but they're giving ample attention to Thor, Loki, and Captain America, too.

Being able to carry a feature-length story on the back of multiple characters makes for a much stronger franchise. But while Disney was doing this, Sony was killing off every freaking mutant they could get their hands on, and then completely failing to develop a solid half the cast. Why big name mutants weren't even introduced until The Last Stand, I'll never understand.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Nov 01 2013 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yeah, but that's still on the studio and the writers. They made the franchise weak by failing to make any other character remotely as notorious as him.

You mean they only have to write two or three big actor paychecks per ensemble film instead of six or ten? I'm sure they find that to be a real problem.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 8:47am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Nov 01 2013 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Not having to cut big checks only matters if your revenue stream isn't going to plummet. And judging by how poorly all their films have done, relative to the Marvel films (which are essentially produced at the same budget point), they could use a breath of new talent to help drive sales.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#24 Nov 01 2013 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And judging by how poorly all their films have done

The last few films have done better returns than twice their cost. "Relative" to whatever aside, that's good money not doing "poorly". Studios enjoy a solid return on a safe thing which is why we have these huge franchises in the first place. Wolverine-centered X-Men is a safe thing.

I think one big issue here is that there just aren't that many actors out there with the right charisma to really carry an ensemble franchise. Avengers struck gold with Robert Downey Jr. X-Men did to a lesser extent with Hugh Jackman. Both create an outsized role for themselves purely by virtue of being better in their niche than their surrounding actors.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Nov 01 2013 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And judging by how poorly all their films have done

The last few films have done better returns than twice their cost. "Relative" to whatever aside, that's good money not doing "poorly". Studios enjoy a solid return on a safe thing which is why we have these huge franchises in the first place. Wolverine-centered X-Men is a safe thing.

I think one big issue here is that there just aren't that many actors out there with the right charisma to really carry an ensemble franchise. Avengers struck gold with Robert Downey Jr. X-Men did to a lesser extent with Hugh Jackman. Both create an outsized role for themselves purely by virtue of being better in their niche than their surrounding actors.


Do you have cites for that? I was just going off box office mojo. It says First class had a budget of $160m, and a global gross of $353 mil. Origins was $150 mil, with gross $373.

The Wolverine DID do better, with a $120m budget bringing in $405 mil.

The last stand had a budget of $210 million, with a worldwide gross of $460m.

But typically speaking, the first two X-men movies were the highest grossing. The first was $75:296 and the second $110:407.

If your goal is to build a franchise, and your first two movies are the only ones with decent returns, you have a problem. Wolverine was something of a recovery, but even their "reboot" attempt performed badly.

X-men had a solid cast. The writing was just mediocre and the direction weak. The second didn't really improve on that, but it definitely added talent. I think Ellen Page has proven that she could have easily carried Kitty Pryde into the spot light if they gave her the chance. The problems got worse with X-2. Then you have the third one, which sucked, and absolutely gutted the cast.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#26 Nov 01 2013 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Do you have cites for that? I was just going off box office mojo.

I was going off the Wiki for each film (I only looked at the X-Men ones though, not the stand alone films). That said, 160x2=320 which is less than the actual gross of $353 so I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Quote:
If your goal is to build a franchise, and your first two movies are the only ones with decent returns, you have a problem

Again, I think you're overestimating what is a "decent return". All of the X-Men films solidly made money. That's not a problem. Studios love films that solidly make money because most of them don't.

[Edit: This goes into the fuzzy world of film profitability. From what I've heard (and I'm no expert) big films need to gross 150% of their budget to be profitable, smaller films closer to 200%. So all of the X-Men films did well better than that mark. That's also theater gross and you add in video sales and all the rest of it. Point being, they were all profitable for the studio and enough so that they keep expanding the franchise.]

Quote:
X-men had a solid cast. [...] I think Ellen Page has proven that she could have easily carried Kitty Pryde into the spot light if they gave her the chance.

Disagree. They had a serviceable cast with a few above average performances. And two of those (Xavier/Magento) are already central to begin with. I would have zero interest, based on the previous films, in seeing Page in a stand alone or headlining role as a superhero. Neither her character nor her acting carried that sort of weight. That's not to say she sucked but she didn't break through any barriers either.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 11:28am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (57)