X-Men: Days of Future PastFollow

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

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.

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...

Oh boy, I hope it has January Jones!

There's no outcome to "Will it have January Jones?" that wouldn't disappoint.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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...



Leave Cyclops out of it.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

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

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.

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.


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.]


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