f13.net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIRRt6mSMik

:drill: :drill: :drill: :drill: :drill: :drill: :drill:

Directed by Matthew Vaughan who directed X-Men: First Class.

<SQUEE>

Can I get a Hell Yeah!

Well, this was unexpected. It will be interesting to see how much it ties in with the other films.

This story line with no Wolverine or Shadowcat?

Rachel Summers? Yes please.

Seems a basically good idea to me--time to bring the Sentinels in, for sure, and it's a story that works fine regardless of who your X-Men of the moment are. The baseline idea is, "Show the X-Men what's ahead and let them decide what to do about--and what will cause or not cause that future to come into being". Imagine showing Zionists and Jewish businessmen living in early Weimar Germany what's coming circa 1939 and then let them debate what they can do about it, same basic idea.

If they bring in wolverine strictly to kill him from what is probably the most famous pane from that comic, I'd be down.

Random question: What is that poster of in the background during the interview?

the Hudson Hawk remake. Very different tone this time around.

Realistically, it's probably this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1730523/


Also the cover, as I recall, but to be perfectly fair, that was an alternate timeline.

Also the cover, as I recall, but to be perfectly fair, that was an alternate timeline.

Very good news!  May have to break out my comics and re-read this. 

In other news why in the WORLD would anyone remake Hudson Hawk?  Is Hollywood so out of ideas they are remaking bombs now?

You know that was a joke, right?

With the abundance of shitty remakes, it could very well be a reality soon.

I do now. :)  Reading comprehension 4tw

Amen. I loved Jackman's Wolverine but hate the character so much now. Seeing him skragged would be a highlight of this movie.

Aren't these movies supposed to be in the same timeline as Singer's movies though?

It may have been a commercial flop, but the movie itself is fucking awesome.

Also, people who are excited about this movie are wrong. You should all be making a sad face. A sad fugee face.

Just adding my support for the Hudson Hawk movie.  Loved it!  That does not mean they should be remaking it..

Only Willis and Aeillo (sp?) made it work.  I know it bombed but I liked it.

Hudson Hawk.. there's a film I haven't watched in forever.

Loved the candy bar brigade.  It's also the only movie where Sandra Bernhard didn't ruin it with being an overt-the-top attention whore because that WAS the character.

I'm cautiously optimistic about this movie.

And +1 for Hudson Hawk. It's got a shitty rep but frankly I love that movie. The Candy Bar Brigade. The nun/secret agent. Singing songs to time heists. It's got so much...charm.

"How's my driving? Dial 1-800-I'm gonna fuckin' die!"

One of my favorite lines ever.

It's a better movie than cut throat island. Actually I think it did better in the theatres too.

Indeed. Hudson Hawk made $17m (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hudsonhawk.htm), while Cutthroat Island made $10m (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=cutthroatisland.htm).

Christ, that's a pittance.

A few of those $17 million are mine. Add me to the list of people who actually kind of enjoyed it. I've seen FAR worse movies in the theater.

Hudson Hawk was #70 at the BO in 1991. Cutthroat Island was #117.  :awesome_for_real:

No details but apparently Matthew Vaughn is out as Director, replaced by Bryan Singer.

It's a switcheroo! Singer bowed out of directing First Class for Vaughn and then produced.  Now Vaughn is producing on Days and Singer is directing. 

Ugh. While I was one of the few that did not dislike Superman Returns, I'm hoping we get something more like X2. But First Class was just so well done, that I'm apprehensive.

Apparently this is turning into a real "Days of Future Past" project rather than a based-on kinda thing.

http://www.slashfilm.com/ian-mckellen-and-patrick-stewart-return-for-x-men-days-of-future-past/

Meh, I think Ian McKellen is a great actor but I hate him as Magneto.  Other than that though -  :drillf:

Your wrongness has been noted in the building.

Actually, the problem with McKellen as Magneto (and with the writing as well) in the X-men movies was illustrated in the third one, when he just goes douche-tastic on Mystique because she's no longer a mutant. I have no idea if that was based on some scene in the comics or not, but in the movie it was so...blatant, heavy-handed, and utterly dickish that I'm pretty sure it was inserted entirely to keep McKellen's Magneto from sucking in the audience.

He was, at least to me, way the hell too compelling. I mean, I know shades of grey villians and all are in and that's what they were going for, but in the movies I couldn't help but think McKellen was making a better case than Stewart -- he was certainly the more compelling personality. (And I'm a big Stewart fan).

Writing in some pointedly dickish moves just to remind audiences "Don't root for Gandalf" does not seem unreasonable.

Magento, in the context of that time period, hated humans. So, it's not entirely out of character. Heavy handed, but it definitely has context.

How much clearer does it have to be ?  We are the Future Charles.  Not them.

Mystique became Them.

Tho it was interesting to watch First Class with that in mind.  Hey little Blue Girl, just discovering your sexuality;  That guy is going to fuck you up.

It made sense for Magneto.  He fights for the cause, not the people.  He has a pretty strict code, but it's important to understand he will do just about anything if it furthers the cause.  He isn't concerned with circumstances or cause and effect, only the ends.  If you're a mutant, he's a messiah.  If you're a human, you're naught but an amoeba.

Later in his life he mellows a bit, but he never loses that Mutants First philosophy.

Wait, there was a third X-Men movie? Between X2 and First Class?

You're making this up.

He'd mellowed well before then, but yeah.

The thing I hated the most about Magneto in the first three films was the scene in the second film where he's mocking Rogue's hair. Really? that was just petty for his character and IMO out of character for both the movie and comic book version.

All of this being said, Fassbender is a much superior Magneto in almost every way.

Yes. Because the First Class movie understands: this is a debate between philosophies. The Singer X-Men movies almost got that but by 3 (Ratner!) they obviously felt the need to douche Magneto up even more. I do not buy that he would just throw over Mystique that harshly--he might sideline her, keep her from the inner counsel, but not just say see ya. It's a bad flick, no need to try and square it with the larger mythology or other movies.

So am I to understand in days that alternate futures will be shown? Perhaps showcasing both philosophies taken to extremes and equally shit?

In the comic there was just a single future.

Yeah, though later on the comics portrayed a dizzying array of possible futures (almost all of them really, really bad). They're doing one right now that involves Apocalypse. So they could arguably do exactly that--a bad Professor X future and a bad Magneto future. It's kind of a cool idea.

This is a fairly minor spoiler

That's just the original story, though, Palmer. Since then there are about eighty quadrillion 'possible futures' some of which seem to have not much to do with either Professor X or Magneto's ideals.

Magneto pitied her for what happened, but she was no longer on his team. He thought she'd gone fully human, so what was the point of having her around? Her use was in infiltration and she's no longer able to do that.

Also, that 'douchey' guy had just murdered a bunch of humans with a gesture. He let Mystique live because of their prior relationship. If he'd thought that she'd betray him, he might have killed her there and then.

X3 had its flaws, but how it made Magneto look isn't one of them. He's fighting a war for mutant survival (in his eyes) and he's perfectly happy to make sacrifices along the way.

Jackman is in talks to be in Days now too.  Nice!

He'd better be, it just wouldn't be the same.

Official now:

https://twitter.com/BryanSinger/status/281256660025081857

"Don't you people ever die?"

Filming is underway and Bryan Singer, like the good social media aficionado he is, keeps posting pics of stuff like SIR Jean-Luc Picard and SIR Gandalf the Grey being awesome and Halle Berry being less so. Today he posted a Vine picture thing that gave away the names of a couple of new mutants on the block.

https://vine.co/v/bPXUHdHMwnm (https://vine.co/v/bPXUHdHMwnm)

My inner fanboi is all the excite about this but otherwise I'm also concerned there are going to be far too many mutants to make this watchable.

Bishop. UGH. Hated that fucking character.

Good.  Thought I was the only one.

No, I pretty much always thought he was a loud, obnoxious, utterly one-dimensional character with a silly look. And then his look kept changing, and it seemed like writers always had to find some way to shoehorn a story around him but there just wasn't ever enough there there to make a book last.

I think you pretty much described every Xman character and individual story arcs.  For me X-men was always about the grandiose story arcs. I'd always be a little bit embarrassed by the lame soap opera stuff in between.

Bishop's problem was that he existed for one reason, and after that storyline wrapped up he really didn't have any real point as a character.

Let me help you with that.

Woo, Blink!

I like that they have Warpath too.

Too many characters, no Matthew Vaughn, Singer's X-Men movies had about 25 minutes of good material total and he's only gotten worse since then. Not really keeping my hopes high for this one.

No, neither am I.

Which is odd, since the latest raft of Marvel Hero Movies have been pretty much exceptional for what they are.

And yet, I really am not excited about this at all when I should be.

I think XMen 3 really did kill it for me.  Jesus Christ, that film....

It may be a Marvel film but it's still not under their control.  I wish they would get the X-Men properties back.  I'd love to see what would happen under Disney. 

They did something interesting with Bishop in a recent (ie 2007) storyline which I am going to spoil because I am sure none of you will ever read it.

It turns out Bishop comes from a future dystopian timeline where a mutant called Hope - a baby in our time - murdered millions of people and made mutants even more hated.

While Cable comes from a future nicer timeline where she brings peace and unity (in what I think is a massive retcon for Cable).

So Bishop wants to kill the baby while Cable wants to save it. It was an interesting concept for a story.

Apart from that, I always hated Bishop too, yes. And Cable. But then I always liked the Claremont-esque soap operas more than the big guns and big muscles stuff that we got in the 1990s.

Did Hope(Bishop) kill all those mutants before or after Apocalypse hunted them all down?

Bishop still sucks.

She killed humans not mutants. And as for Apocalypse, I just pretend all the stories involving him don't exist and it makes things much easier.

Though actually I get annoyed at the way mutants are presented as something separate to humans in many of the books now, and the movies. In God Loves, Man Kills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men:_God_Loves,_Man_Kills) there's a scene where Wolverine points out that they are humans, just humans that might be different to the majority in some way. The X-Men used to be about the way we treat each other, now it's about how humans would react if a genuinely new species appeared (with superpowers) which threatened to make us extinct.

Actually Rick Remender has done great work with Apocalypse in the recent X-Force series that he's now carried over to Uncanny Avengers. First time I've found the character really interesting.

Ah I did catch some of the X-Force stuff - with Angel going evil and Psylocke actually being an interesting character? They were good comics.

Yeah but Logan is just a mutated wolverine, so he's not really human!   :why_so_serious:

Oh, no you didn't...

All mutants and superheroes are just proto-dieties evolved from earths original life to be powerful protectors of the godseed of an eternal lying at the center of the earth, duh.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/868747/tumblr_mewk84z1rK1rlqx9io1_r1_500.gif)

Celestial, not Eternal.

When you really go deep into marvel lore it gets so fuckstupid that only the most meth-addled brain would find it interesting.

The cool kids on this board may not like her, but I am a fanboi...

Ellen Page is Kitty Pryde again.
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a483168/x-men-days-of-future-past-ellen-page-didnt-expect-kitty-return.html (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a483168/x-men-days-of-future-past-ellen-page-didnt-expect-kitty-return.html)

Just because:  :drillf:  :why_so_serious:   :drillf:
(http://i.imgur.com/SekMRUv.jpg)

Anyways, this movie jumped up several notches in my expectations.
It seems that all the important leads from X-Men: First Class is in it and all the important leads from the previous other three X-Men movies (including the Brett Ratner one) is going to be in this one. It feels like Fox is doing their own "mini-Avengers" mega gathering with their X-men franchise.

Tyrion Lannister Peter Dingklage is also in it. The easy guess is that he's playing Alpha Flight's Puck but rumor has it that he would be a baddie,playing the creator of the Sentinels - Bolivar Trask.

I'm not entirely sure how "contains 20 main characters who will each get two lines of dialogue" is a selling point.

Spiderman had two supers
Spiderman 2 had three supers
Spiderman 3 had four supers
So if X-Men has 20 supers that means it's 10x better than Spiderman 2 and furthermore Romney is President.

I'm guessing they won't be focusing on everyone extensively.  But they let the old team reprise their roles as the future X-men and the new guys as the First Class alumni who have to deal with the future creeping into the present.

Yeah, I'm guessing from Kitty's costume that the modern day X-Men as they appeared in the first three films, or I suppose seven years older, are going to be living in the dystopian nightmare future. (As opposed to the comics where Kitty is all growed up in the bad future and a teenager in the present world - to do it that way you'd need another actress for middle-aged Kitty, or at least some aging makeup on Ellen Page, who looks about 12).


Can't speak for the cool kids but for me, Kitty is the best X-Person. Unless it's Ellen Page who's meant to be uncool?

She's also the real star of Whedon's Astonishing X-Men run, which are probably my favourite X-Men comics.

Yeah.  That was a really good run.

So they've thrown up a Trask Industries website (http://www.trask-industries.com/#/home), which included a picture of Dinklage as Bolivar Trask (http://www.trask-industries.com/uploads/img/list-trask.jpg).

It was missing something. I have added this. http://imgur.com/gallery/urJwFRy

The more I think about the casting of Dinklage the more I love it. It's so dripping with comic irony and symbolism to have someone with a "normal" genetic mutation condemning others who through no fault of their own are born different.

It's a bit too on the nose for most other movies but when we are dealing with comics and x-men in particular it fits so well.

Yeah, X-Men has always been a bit on the nose.

Plus Dinklage is just awesome.

Trask Industries Advert (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq0iV18rCAk)

So the fact that they are only using Quicksilver in Days, and not Scarlet Witch as well, makes me think that they are just trying to fuck with Marvel.

Marvel doesn't have the rights to Scarlet Witch? Too bad cuz she was one of my fave Avengers.

No, they do... apparently they have shared rights to Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch.  They are to both be in Avengers 2.

The current plan is to 'Marvel' the rights for X-men and Fantastic Four, making movies for pretty much everything to which they have the rights to make movies.  I expect 10 movies in this shared universe between 2015 and 2020.

X-Men and Fantastic Four could open up the rights to a lot of characters: Silver Surfer, X-force, Doctor Doom (Emperor Doom would make a good movie), etc...

The thing I find interesting in all of this: Fox has the rights to the Fantastic Four on screen.  However, Marvel has the rights to put the Fantastic Four on animated TV.  And they also have the rights to put Wolverine on animated TV.  Both have shown up on Marvel animated shows recently. Do they also have the TV rights to the Fantastic Four and X-men for live shows?  Could they put Reed Richards on Agents of SHIELD?

The speculation has been that this is also why Marvel is doing stuff like Superior Spider-Man and Miles Morales as Ultimate Spider-Man--trying to see if they can't open up a big enough hole in the rights to shake some characters loose or at least threaten to do so.

I really would love to see a good version of Fantastic Four and in some ways I think they can live in their own self-contained universe pretty well--I'm not sure they work so well with the "realistic" presentation of the Avengers' films, maybe only with Thor. FF should really be full of crazy Lee/Kirby looking shit. So if Fox wants to go that way it'll be ok.

Spider-Universe I'm not so sure about. It seems to me he works well in a more inhabited universe.

X-Men do really well in an isolated universe--you can have fucktons of mutants and then you don't have the distraction of trying to explain why the public reacts differently to "mutant guys in spandex" and "not-mutant guys in spandex".

You don't think the Fantastic Four were good ?

If you look carefully, you can see the Bones of a good approach under a ton of crap. I've always been curious if there was a draft of the script that would have been much better.

Comics have always done weird shit. I don't buy this as a ploy to get the rights to anything. There's simple enough reasons without going into conspiracy crap.

I thought the Four were Ok, it was just Doom that sucked balls.

I buy this theory.  Look at what they've done in the Avengers comics and cartoons and tell me they're not tryling to cross-market witht e movies.  If they're doing that, it makes sense that they'd try to do the opposite with the other characters that are in the hands of other studios.  I'm betting the terms of the contracts Marvel, Fox, Sony and any other studio signs prohibit revealing the details of how the rights change hands.  Based upon Marvel's apparent lack of effort in terms of getting Spider-man, the X-men, etc... back, I've been wondering for quite some time if the rights have a firm expiration date and Marvel is just waiting for that date to come.  I can see them letting the X-men rights stay out of their hands, but Spider-man is the most iconic Marvel character - I'd think they'd have done everything possible to get the rights back.

These deals always have expiration dates. They HAVE been trying to get Spidey back but Sony is clutching on to that with all they are worth. Not only did Spidey make a ton of money, but the success of the other Marvel movies have really only made Sony clutch harder onto those rights.

Agree.

Captain America was John Walker for a while, the Hulk has been green, red and grey, Spider-Man was a clone, Superman got replaced by 5 imposters, Batman has been played by Robin and Azrael. If you mess with a character it can make things interesting then when you inevitably return to the status quo everyone can be happy and nostalgic.

Hell, the whole FAKE PETER PARKER shit happened before the Sony movies hit.

Look at the percentage of time the characters have been 'out of their skin' during their existence.  It is pretty small.  Peter was a clone for a short period of time, they 'killed' Peter and had Kraven replace him for a short period of time, they sent Xavier off to live with aliens for a short period of time, etc... However, the vast majority of their lives they've been kicking and fighting in the pages of their books. 

It is just too much of a coincidence that the current deaths/disruptions are occuring all at once and all at the same time the movie rights issues are at issue.  If it looks like a duck, and smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck... you've got Howard.

I can't believe we have to use Occam's Razor for fucking comics. There is no evidence that leans towards conspiracy over the same old comic shit.

The Ultimate line is also running into the problem that it has no reason to exist.

It was introduced to juice sales and attract new readers by offering stories not weighed down by decades of continuity. But now that the Ultimate line has been around for a while it has its own continuity. The world doesn't need another Peter Parker Spider-Man book.

Superior Spider-Man is one character Sony has the rights to inside the mind of another character Sony has the rights to. No holes are being created.

The razor is the evidence.  It may not be bullet proof, but it is there.

In terms of Superior Spider-man and the theory that this is intended to undermine the Spider-man film value, the theory is that having no Peter Parker driving Spider-man in the comcis makes the movies seem 'out of date' with the current continuity.  If Sony were to introduce Doc Ock in AM 2 or 3 and put him in Garfield's body in AS 4, Marvel would have plenty of time to put Peter back in his body before the movie came out, again keeping the movies out of step with the major developments of the character in the comics.

The big problem in analyzing this who situation is that we, the fans, can't read the Marvel/Sony/Fox contracts.  We don't know how the terms under which a character can be used by a studio, and under what situations the rights revert.  We've had a few brief comments on the way it all works, but it is all shrouded in mystery when it comes to the details.  AFAIK, they've never confirmed or denied that there is a calendar date on which the rights revert regardless of whether the studio keeps making movies. 

Regardless, being able to put a Disney controlled Spider-man into the Avengers universe would be a HUGE financial win for Disney.  You can bet that they're looking at every option possible to get those rights back and are not above poisoning the well to do it.

I hate to tell you this, but the only ones who give two rat fucks about the current continuity are the people writing and editing the comics. The Marvel Studios guys? Don't really give a fuck. Sony? They SURE don't give a fuck, because they are selling an iconic brand, not peddling monthly funny books for manchildren.

No one is arguing that Disney/Marvel aren't trying to do everything they can to get Spidey back. Of fucking course they are. Don't build that strawman.

But that doesn't fuel any sort of weird conspiracy on storyline. Because it wouldn't even fucking matter for the movies. The movies are their own damn continuity anyway.

Seriously, the whole Spiderman Conspiracy is starting to drive me more insane than chemtrails.

Man, you guys make it hard not to poke the bear.  When it is so easy to get people riled up, you kind of just want to do it for fun.

Regardless, I would be shocked if the potential impact on the movies was not discussed when the death of Parker in the Ultimate universe was discussed and the Ockifying of the Superior Spider-man was pitched.  There was likely a lot of things going into the discussion, but the movie rights had to be part of the conversation.

I'm not even remotely worked up. The Spiderman Conspiracy stuff is just DUMB and so is creating a strawman argument where people not on your side are suddenly somehow not thinking Marvel wants Spidey back in the fold.

More to the point, I'm not sure there's really anything Marvel can do to get Spider-man back short of Kevin Feige going Phantom of the Opera on the set of the next movie. They made their deals with Fox and Sony and for now pretty much have to wait it out.

I missed something: When did I accuse people of believing that Marvel didn't want Spider-man back?  

Explicitly? You didn't. Passively creating a strawman via:



Everyone would agree Marvel/Disney would want Spidey back in the fold. That was never in dispute. Most sane people just don't see a conspiracy. Most people just see it as normal legal contract bullshit.

Yeah, this.  99.9% of film audiences give absolutely zero fucks about what's happening in the comics.  I mean, I can nerdrage about organic webshooters with the best of them, but even I give zero fucks about what's going on in the comics right now.

(http://i.imgur.com/cLDqWAR.jpg)

Well, on the 'suspicious' side, it's been pretty near documented that Superboy's appearances and disappearances from DC properties had a lot to do with the ups and downs of their legal case over the rights to the character. Stranger things have happened.

On the other hand, yeah, all this kind of stuff is just normal comic-books.

The Ultimate universe, at any rate, is about to be a non-issue as it's going to be destroyed completely.

It is ?  Good.

It was interesting at the very start, but got retarded quickly.

Let me guess this straight: I passively misrepresented someone else's argument, which you previously said nobody even made, by noting the presense of a couple pretty obvious incentives without attributing anything to anyone?  Wow.  I'm so good I can't even follow what I'm doing.

On the other note: Ultimate Universe is the heavier influence on the Marvel movies.  Even if they totally ended everything associated with it in terms of new comics, it will not be a 'non-issue' as they'll continue to borrow from the stories told there, especially from the era before they jumped the shark.

I'm not too versed in the Ultimate Universe, other than it became a trap for casting Nick Fury.

Beyond the regressiveness of having to cast Sam Jax as Nick Fury and the Chitauri being used instead of the Skrulls, what are the other things that lean towards the Ultimate universe being the focal point? Mind you both of those things are major things in the flagship of the marvel universe, but I'm mostly curious.

Edit: Seriously, I'm asking. I'm not trolling or starting an argument.

Toby Mcguire spiderman with the organic web shooters?

I'm far from an expert these days, but in general: Banner working on a Super Soldier serum, Avengers/Ultimates come together to fight the Chitauri, Hawkeye/Black Widow as agents of SHIELD, Cap's uni, Cap using a gun, Hawkeye's gun use (limited as it was), Hawkeye's look, Samuel L. Fucking Jackson, and the look of SHIELD.  The Thanos depicted in Avengers appears to be heavily based upon the Ultimate version of Thanos.  I say that primarily because of spoilers from a future movie, so I won't go into details.

In general, there are a lot of things in the main Marvel continuity that look dated because they were dreamed up on acid in the 60s and 70s.  The Ultimate universe reimagined a lot of these things rather than repeating them, giving us modern looks that were used as the starting point when they were redesgned for the movies. 

There is also a lot pulled from the 616 (main) universe, of course.  If I were to guess the attribution between the universes, I'd say that the elements of the movie universe that come from the comics come 60% from the main universe and 40% from the Ultimate universe.

The general mood of the first Ultimate version of the Avengers is pretty much closer to the 'realism' of the films, yeah. Cap is a great example: they just plain dropped the entire idea that Captain America was so ridiculously noble that he never killed anybody ever without making a big fuss about it, which in the end has boomeranged back into the "standard" version via Ed Brubaker so that now it's a given that Cap killed during World War II and is maybe willing to do so now if the circumstances warrant.

So in that sense the Ultimate universe was a pretty strong test bed for the Marvel films and will continue to influence the films. I think the curdling of the Ultimate universe under Jeph Loeb's management also helped the producers to understand where to pull back and keep the films a bit more like the 'original' Marvel, to not overplay the 'realism' to the point of losing the fun or being ashamed of the fantastic elements and classic comic-book tropes.

New trailer. I haven't watched this with sound yet, but I'm going to set it down here anyway.  :grin:

X Men Trailer On The YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK2zYHWDZKo)

Bryan Singer. Wolverine. Jean Luc Picard. Gandalf.

What's not to fucking love.

I'm in.

I was 100% in until the trailer... I'm not feeling the young pissed off Xavier and the tender old Xavier issues.  I gt why they make sense, but it just didn't sit right with me in the trailer.

Clearly you're a broken person who hates fun. I was on the fence until that trailer.

I was not impressed by trailer.

Isn't Picard dead already?

He came back at the end of Last Stand.  Also, different timeline probably.

And how can you not show a Sentinel going to town in that trailer?

Because once again we're given a drama in x-men skin rather then just a good ol' x-men mutant-superhero movie.  So it seems.  Hopefully it's a different story come release, but I've just about had enough of "origin" this, backstory that.  I'd very much just like to see X-Men (as a team) regularly using their powers to kick ass.

This is trailer #1 - the one you release before special effects are ready to go.  When they include effects in trailer one, they're often replaced by better looking stuff in the final movie.  I wasn't expecting to see Sentinels, major mutant on mutant fight scenes, etc...

The drama from trailer 1 will be in the movie, but there will be Mutant vs. Sentinel bad-assdom in between.  We have a long road to travel before release.

As for continuity: This movie is very much tied to what went down in X-Men 3.  They're not doing the Highlander 'ignore that last movie' approach here - the 'future' events of this movie take place after The Wolverine, which takes place (mostly) after X-Men 3.  They've said they really liked the DoFP storyline because it lets them embrace, and then fix, the pile that was X-Men 3.

If this movie is a success, we're supposed to see a whole bunch of X-related projects.  My prediction:

1.) More solo Wolverine (with or without Jackman - I know he is on the fence)
2.) More 'present day' X-men (Storm, Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Cyclops, etc...)
3.) More First Class (Banshee, Havok, Beast, etc...)
4.) Deadpool films
5.) X-force Films
etc...

Aye, I'll agree;  even though it's not the best teaser in the world, that's pretty much what it is.  The other two will bring the action and probably a lot more of Jackman stabbing folk.

I'm just happy to see Singer back.

I feel like all this connecting continuity is going to bog it down.

I think if anything bogs it down it's going to be all the characters that are around now.. are they all just gonna get like a line of dialogue?

That too. Really its dropped from a must see to wait for Rotten Tomatoes score.

I like that Singer's back.  I like that the supers are decorating their black leather suits a little bit.  Hopefully Singer's learned a lesson or two from Superman Returns.  The trailer was OK.

If this movie makes it so everything after 2 stops existing, I'm all for it.

I...still don't understand how you can cast Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool then make him a mute.

It's like someone shot the baby jesus.

If Hugh Jackman has to go back in time to give Deadpool back his ability to talk, then that's a price worth paying.

Here is the movie storyline I see (spoiler tag because part of it is based upon spoilers):

That all sounds pretty esoteric for an X-men movie though. As a comic plot, sure. But that's not the same as the general audience movie.

Just out of curiosity, are either of you familiar with the original story in the comics?

I'm vaguely familiar with it. It's been awhile and I don't think I read it all anyway. I know enough to be annoyed that they are using Logan and not Kitty, but whatevs. It looks like I have to resign myself to the fact that Wolverine is always going to squeeze screen time away from the other characters.

Long ass time ago, so all I really remember is what's on the wikipedia page  :grin:

I'm thinking that being involved somehow in the Cuban missile crisis is probably going to be enough to flip out both superpowers and make Bolivar Trask's Sentinels look like a great idea. The interesting question will be, "What's Trask's beef with mutants?"

I read it a long time ago and reviewed the wiki page when they announced the story - but I expect this movie to have as much in common with that DoFP as Avengers had to do with the Ultimates, as B vs. S will have to do with Dark Knight Returns, as IM III had to do with the Extremis comic books, as X-men 3 had to do with the Dark Pkoenix saga, etc... 

Inspired by, but massively reworked.  They'll hold the key elements: Time Travel, Sentinels, etc... but rework a lot to fit their continuity and to modernize it to play off the modern fears rather than the fears of the 80s.

I never saw X3. Was Kitty Pryde ever established as a movie character, with screen time and lines?

Yes, she was - by Ellen Page.  However, if you're thinking that the Kitty role from the comics will be repeated on screen - nope.  We have confirmation (which you can see in that trailer) that something else goes down in the movie (although Page is back as Kitty in this movie).

Right. I was asking because, in the original story, Kitty Pryde was a well-established character, and I didn't know if that was the case in the movie continuum.

That said, it's movie magic, luv. They could have probably written the tale so that Kitty is the time traveler. Ellen Page could carry it off. On the other hand, you have to write a movie that's going to mash together two already-established X teams, and give everyone enough to do so that they're not wasting their time. And, not need an intermission. More movie goers know who Logan/Wolverine is, so they put him in the central role. It probably simplified things.

That's a good idea, but wouldn't the logical thing be to send Logan back in time to stop Shaw? Not that I think he has a chance of success. Storm and Iceman would be the logical choices, but they would be too young or in Bobby's case nonexistent. Going by the trailer, Xavier and Magneto are at least partially responsible for what happens, and they send Logan to talk to their younger selves after the events of First Class, not before.

It also depends on who is left in the future to send back.  In the original story (iirc), Kitty is sent back because most of the other X-Men had already been killed in the future.  It's too bad the movie is going to miss out on future Wolverine getting his flesh incinerated off his bones, leaving just his adamantium skeleton.

Kitty was sent back cause it was felt her younger self would be most vulnerable to be taken over by her older self of the ones that were left.

It's been a long time since I saw that film but as I recall, she was only on-screen for maybe a minute or so?

She was in it for longer than a minute or two, but she was not featured in X-3.  Also, I seem to recall she was the third Kitty, with two different girls having 'blink and you'll miss it' role moments in the first 2 movies.

Wait, was she the chick who ran from Juggernaut, pulled him into the flow and then made him run into the wall? I didn't think she had mind/time-travel powers from that.

And I wouldn't think flying around the earth really, REALLY fast would make time go backwards but you know.....comics.

I don't remember the details but I thought it was Rachel Summers that sent her back? Not that that is an improvement heh.

That was her. Yeah, Kitty's never been able to travel in time or do anything similar on her own in any version, but in the comics someone else sent her mind back.

She was a major character in the comics at that time. This was after Jean Grey died  (Kitty was actually introduced shortly before Jean died but DoFP takes place later) and before Rogue joined the X-Men so she was one of the main female characters - arguably the main one as Storm didn't have much personality at that point.

She doesn't. She was new to the X-Men at the time and didn't have any training to protect against "psychic attacks" like the other X-Men had. So the future Kitty was sent back by Rachel Summers as Raguel mentioned as they thought her present self would be most vulnerable to be taken over as I mentioned.

Ah cool ok, good for context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByCY2UYLHG8

This is a pretty sweet piece of viral marketing.

aaand AWISE!

So, Empire magazine is doing a series of 25 covers with past and future versions of the cast.  (http://www.empireonline.com/xmen/)

I'm not enthralled with any of them, but maybe they'll look better in the film.

Interesting that Rogue is in a single scene, which Singer said was cut from the film, yet she still gets a cover.

I didn't know Blink was going to be in this. Kinda disappointed in Sunspot but whatevs. He'll probably just be in one scene anyway.

Also, Quicksilver gets a cover but not Scarlet Witch? I thought they were both in?

No. Scarlet Witch is only in Avengers. (Quicksilver is also in Avengers)

Wasn't Sunspot Japanese? They whitewash that actor or am I misremembering?

I kind of like how they're doing Quicksilver, because that silly bolt hairdo and silver longj ohns really don't translate well, do they?

That's too bad. I'd imagine they have the rights to Polaris and Cannonball as well. Here's to hoping they will be in Age of Apocalypse.

So I noticed that the covers sort of tell a story (or at least clue us in as to where the characters are going to be in the timeline). For some reason I thought there would only be 2 but the  Bishop, Iceman, and Colossus covers show futuristic buildings in the background. The Warpath/Blink covers are confusing. One would think that one of them is in the foreground and the other in the background but the buildings don't match, so I don't know what's up with that.

I have to agree with the "Spy-Kids", "Cory Feldman" complaints re: Quicksilver but we'll see how it works out.


Sunspot is "Afro-Brazilian" (not sure if that's a word lol). Also far as I know he's as vulnerable as any human, which makes no sense really. Why hit something hard if it turns your hand to paste?

eta: had to look it up cuz it was bothering me too: Sunfire is the name of the Japanese mutant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunfire_(comics)

New trailer.

http://youtu.be/6acRHWnfZAE

With Cap and GoTG coming this year I had just about forgotten about this. Good trailer.

Huh, was that Nimrod at the end there?

Yeah, looks pretty good.  Cool to see Iceman creating his slide move thingy, very comic-booky.  Has Sony stumbled onto the Marvel formula for success? 

The X-men movies were successful before the whole avengers thing.

That looks fantastic. And I've been glad Singer is back on it.

Another new trailer (final? Yeah right!) Potentially gives more away than the others so caution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGZ1ds_5q-E&list=PLzzoy4zJvvICCBiM9XnjYsDtt2sfgjJmC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGZ1ds_5q-E&list=PLzzoy4zJvvICCBiM9XnjYsDtt2sfgjJmC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsjtg7m1MMM - for those in the States...

Yeah, I almost wish I hadn't watched it.  I feel like I know the entire movie plot beginning to end now.

Eh, having read the comics though (years ago, but still), nothing in there surprised me.  I mean, the whole travel back in time plot was given away in the first trailer, and of course it's not going to be easy and smooth sailing, so nothing there seemed unusual in the second trailer.

Now I'm tempted to dig my comic boxes out and reread the original storyline.

Yeah, don't watch the trailer. I stopped halfway through--it's way way way too plot-centric.

Um, ok.  I guess if you don't know the whole thing off by heart from the comics, sure.

However, I will agree that it looks like it does what too many trailers do :  Nicks most of the good stuff from the film so that you're BORED by the time you see it on the screen.

I've read all the comics and such as well.  It's not like the movie is going to follow them verbatim frame by frame, seeing some of the scenes or effects for the first time in the theater instead of the trailer would still be nice.

The movie is only very loosely based on the comics.

Kinda off-topic, but the timing of this (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/x-men-director-accused-of-sexually-abusing-teenage-boy-1201158645/) could hurt the movie.  Not sure what to think, but who knows.

"Marc Collins-Rector, the former chairman of Digital Entertainment Network, an ambitious Internet startup that sputtered in the dotcom bust of 2000, is also cited in the Singer lawsuit"

Aaaand we're back to Brock Pierce.

Are there now two movie versions of Quicksilver? The one that appears in this movie, and Avengers 2 version?

Yup.

Caught a midnight screening. A-

Not as good as First Class, but still an easily enjoyable film.

I figured they would on both counts.

I actually liked it better than First Class. Quicksilver's character alone made it worth the price of admission for me.

Really ?  Trailers make him look like a douchenozzle, but I've always really liked the Actor - he does good work on those horror story shows, despite, er, being on those horror story shows.

Oh, he's a total douche, but likable as one.

Then he nailed the character.  :why_so_serious:

From what I hear the movie is ok if you ignore all the ridiculous explanations and suspend your disbelief a lot. 

It's a fucking superhero movie. That goes without saying.

Well that just makes it stupid.  What are you, all virgins living out your male power fantasies because you've never succeeded or moved out of your parents basements?

 :why_so_serious:

The genre of a film should not be an excuse for lack of quality.

However, if this movie manages to fix the train wrecks that came after X-2, I'll ignore all other defects and call it a success.

That's my stance on it as well. If it fixes and erases that third X-men movie, then it's all good!  :why_so_serious:

Just saw this. Enjoyable movie but I still like First Class better.  Always liked Singer  as a director and I appreciated the hoops the story jumped thru to make the X-Men universe somewhat coherent. 

It's interesting to me that the movie universes is a jumbled mess!  That's staying very faithful to the comics IMO.

Halle Berry had like two lines.  You can see her star fading right there on the screen. 

I just saw the movie and as an Xmen fan growing up as a young lad, I absolutely loved it.  This was the kind of Xmen movie I have been waiting for since they started bringing it to the silver screen.  Also I loved the stinger... its a must stay to see.

Yes. The post-credit sequence is necessary.

Saw this Friday night and loved it.  They did a good job with everything and it didn't make me scratch my head going "why would that have happened?"

Yeah, someone's going to need to explain that to me.  I've been out of active fandom long enough and apparently don't remember enough to get what's happening there.

Good flick, was happy to have gone and seen it and happier at the last 5 mins.  Nice wrap-up.

That Quicksilver scene. Amazing.  I particularly like the subtle use of the physics of his speed.

I'll have to rewatch the previous X-men movie incantations, but I thought this was the best X-men ever.

I was skeptical about the the dude playing young Professor X, but he excelled in the role and enjoyed the telepathic sequences.

Oh noes, the Spoils, the Spoils !

 :ye_gods: :grin:

My eyes!  Oh wait I've seen the movie.

I really liked this - the Quicksilver scene was worth the price of admission alone. The only complaint I have, and this is as someone who really stopped following the comics 20+ years ago is that the powers of Wolverine and Magneto specifically seemed like they were really too powerful.

I don't remember Wolverine being able to heal from pretty much ANYTHING being done to him and Magneto seemed too powerful to me.

I also wondered the same thing Abagadro did:
Best part? They basically wiped out X-Men 3 from ever happening and that's fantastic.

When Wolverine lost his metal in the comics, his healing factor skyrocketed.

He even reattached his own legs or something daft like that.

Maybe something similar there ?

Magneto's always been mentally powerful tho.  Insanely.

Liked the movie overall.  I think I agree with some here that First Class was more enjoyable, but only by a bit.  My only nerd-gripe was

He also did that in the comics.

The guy is the lord of magnetism.  Apparently you weren't paying attention in physics class and/or circuits 101.  Magnetism and Electricity go hand in hand; moreso if you're smart enough to physically manipulate the wiring/switching to your advantage.

Technically, Magneto can manipulate dataflow just as easily as lifting a car.

Quicksilver sequence was the best part of the entire movie. The movie did play fast and loose with its own rules. I noticed retconning of the end of The Wolverine (who had his metal claws back in the future).


I greatly enjoyed the film though, the ending, and how it feels like a capstone and finale on 14 years of X-Men. Onto the next phase.

Well, that and he stole the plans and knew what to do with them anyway.

considering that I am 100% positive that the Asian mutant on the plane with Logan at the end of The Wolverine had his severed metal claws in a briefcase, it isnt too far of a stretch to simply go "hey, sometime between then and doomsday they found someone who could re-attach them.  I mean, if you can melt through them, you can surely "weld" them back together using the same principle.

Native American looking dude, didn't catch his name, what powers did he have?

Warpath. A scout I guess.

Nope.  In the alternate ending included on the DVD, Logan opens the briefcase and inside is his goofy yellow costume.

Warpath. Strength and speed. Though the movie gave him some sort of scouting because : Native American.  :awesomeforreal:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warpath_(comics)

From your broken link (you left out a closing parentheses):


He just saw really far to see the incoming sentinels.

Velorath, there was more to it then that...

Hmm, I could have sworn that in the cinema version someone collected the severed claws.  Almost positive I remember seeing them somewhere at the end after everything had been resolved.

Bit silly to fuzz over the claws instead of the fact that sentinels were invented in the 70s and should've been in all movies imo :P.  I was surprised at how brutal the deaths of the future x-men were, i guess you can go all out when you know its not gonna count.

Sentinels are shown in X-men 3 in a Danger Room scenario. 

I think the idea was that in the original continuity, the Sentinels were designed and introduced in the 70s, but were ineffective.  They were dropped back on the drafting table, but without Trask to guide the effort, it took them 50 years to get the technology right to make the Sentinel versions we saw in the future.  A bit weak, but it worked enough for me.

The bigger continuity error would be Mystique being captured and vivisected to produce the super sentinels (Stryker was not going to let her live any more than Angel, Azazel and Banshee) but was still in the first 3 movies.

By the sound of it, it's quite clear we're dealing with a diverging and intersecting alternate timeline, so it's kinda pointless to worry about it.

Par for the course for X-Men, after all.

Marvel movies have this way of not being bound by historical facts found in previous iterations. It's like whatever the current / latest movie is the status quo, and all previous movies are susceptible to revision to fit the current movie's reality.

Here's another one, by the way.

Professor X in the 1970s: drug addict and drunk, no powers, being nursemaided by Beast.

Mutants being rounded up and experimented on. For some reason, Magneto not being experimented on despite being in captivity.

Mystique fightin' the power. Going to kill Trask. Supposedly ends up vivisected and the Sentinels come into being.

Which leads somehow to what? Allegedly X-Men 1, 2, 3 as we saw them? Folks are already pointing out how that doesn't make that much sense unless the 70s Sentinels get smeared all over by mutants of some kind and Trask Industries creeps away to keep experimenting on Mystique's DNA until they get it right.

So ok then: in the 'original' timeline, who showed up to fight the 1970s Sentinels? And how did Professor X stop being a drunk and addict and decide to reform the school considering that it took Wolverine's intervention due to time travel to get him to do it this time?

Counterpoints:

Mutants were being rounded up by unofficially by Trask, not by the government itself.  That kept Magneto out of reach, since he was being held by the government.

The 1970s sentinels were never activated in the original timeline.  Trask was dead and there was no big public mutant fight, so Nixon had no motivation to circumvent Congress and activate them.

Mystique was captured but where was it said she was killed and vivisected?  I assume it was Stryker who carried on for Trask, but it seems that Trask Industries itself went kaput without Trask.  Stryker got the samples from Mystique but she's awfully hard to hold so she clearly escaped before she was killed.

Obviously Xavier was able to get himself out of his funk eventually on his own, it just took much longer in the original timeline.  Wolverine had to speed things up because Mystique had to be stopped right then, not however many years later it took for Xavier to clean himself up.

The continuity in the X-Men movies has been pretty bad, but in this particular movie its not that hard to rationalize the inconsistencies.  It makes a lot more sense than a high school aged Cyclops showing up in Origins which is something like 10 to 20 years before the first X-Men movie, where he's not much older.

Uh, the whole point of time traveling to stop the murder was because killing Trask led to the aproval of the sentinel project.  And the sentinels were already built at that point.


The exact words were tortured and experimented on, people just assumed killed and vivisected because that's what happened to the other mutants.

It lead to the super sentinels being built in their future timeline, but nothing was said about those original sentinels being activated back in the 70s.

The other part leading to that conclusion was what Trask said to Stryker: "I need Tissue, marrow and organs."

It's feasible to get those while not killing the subject, but that wasn't where they were trying to lead you after her discovery of the Dead Mutant files.

Right, but the first quote came from the future when they would've said killed and vivisected if that's what had happened, but somehow it didn't.  Shrug, maybe they needed her alive to see how the power worked?

Just because he said he needed it doesn't mean he ended up getting it before she escaped.  Maybe that's why it took so long to make the super sentinels, because Trask wasn't able to get all the samples he wanted.

I believe they were intentionally vague to allow them to ignore some issues.  However, a few things were just odd.

Why was Xavier bald, walking and using his powers during the end of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which ended around 1981, when DoFP established he had a full head of hair, and could either walk or use powers in 1973?  Maybe they found a balnce in the medication.... or he was a projection in 1981.... or something.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine has Wolverine in the military in 1975 with his brother (who he has fought beside for about a century), but in 1973 he wakes up with a bimbo in DoFP and there is no reference to the brother.  Maybe they were on a break? 

In 1973, Stryker is portrayed by a 28 year old actor, but the 1975 version the character is portayed by a 47 year old.  Clearly, 1974 was a hard year for Willy Stryker.

Trask being alive to say that comment was already a timeline alteration. There is no evidence (but it doesn't mean it isn't there) that anyone else in his research organization would go to such lengths to dissect Mystique. When he was dead, there was a will to take the Sentinel program to its conclusion, but his presence and that level of access to her body could hyper-accelerate the development of the Sentinel technology, which seemed the point of Xavier's "an even darker future." line.

It probably took 50 years under the normal timeline because all they had to work with were more humane methods of acquiring samples -- blood, tissue, etc -- that would leave Mystique alive. Trask wanted to gut her and use every part of the body -- in the new timeline without further intervention, Mystique was probably kept in captivity, tortured, and experimented on for years on Trask's sadistic research methods. Trask even says "this could advance us years, decades!"

At this point I think the entire discussion just underscores why Marvel wanted to keep things in house.  We've found so many wtf moments (hey. Why did future Xavier still look like Patrick Stewart. His body was destroyed in x3) because Fox only cares about the revenue not the properties of wolverine and x-men.   Consistency and coherency are for dorks.

If you think this stuff is bad try reading some X-Men comics.  :awesome_for_real:

For sure. A thousand times worse in these respects, especially once you get into the 1990s.

Tons of incomprehensible time travel stories and characters whose basic premise requires reciting a ten-minute background to even begin to understand. (The movie handles Bishop very elegantly in this regard...)

Professor X's mind was transplanted at least once out of his Brood-infected body into a cloned body, I think. He walks and doesn't walk for all sorts of reasons.

Pouches. Tons of pouches. And big guns.

Tons of weird Chris Claremont fetish stuff about mind control and body-swapping and dominatrixes.

etc.

Fortunately I stopped reading comics around 1991.  :why_so_serious:

You picked a good time.

I listen to a podcast called "Rachel and Miles X-plain the X-men." At the start of every podcast they do a bit where they talk about some character or event, and it just gets crazier and crazier, until it ends with "WHAT IS GOING ON???"

It's worth listening to just for those opening bits. The X-Men as a whole make zero fucking sense. There are like 7 different alternate timelines that all factor in in major ways. Not just fun one-off stories that can get brought back once every 5 years as a lark, but actually important to the story as a whole.

http://comicsalliance.com/cable-comics-marvel-history/

Just one of many characters whose X-Men history is so fucking impossible to understand that you'd be better off doing the math for superstring symmetry with an abacus. Less frustrating.

Was Emma Frost mentioned at all? i thought i heard "Emma" when Magneto was throwing the dead mutants in Charles face but not 100% sure. She wasn't one of the mutants on the file Mystique found at least.

That doesn't even mention that not only is Nate Summers Cable but in a different timeline he is "Nate Grey", "X-Man", an alternate timeline version of Cable - who is already from a timeline that due to time travel became alternate itself!

Yeah, Cable is just Uber Retarded.  He's like a lesson in How Not To.

I think he did mention her as one of the dead mutants, yeah.

Bummer, really like that character.  You'd think she'd be pretty tough to capture/kill.

One of the ones that I thought was interesting, was that Havoc (Scott's brother) is one of the mutants Mystique saves in the army camp.  But then again, aren't they working on an X-Force movie, which if I am not mistaken, would have him in it?

Emma died, and they likely did not use her image because they did not pay for it.

I guess January Jones costs a bit more than the pile of randoms they got for the other mutants.

I wonder how much they paid Anna Paquin for her 2 seconds of screen time.  :awesome_for_real:

She was shown for 2 seconds, but they filmed a lot more.  

It would've been nice to see though, it's a better explanation for the sentinels copying powers than the one they used.

I don't know if it would have been used that way or not, but it would make more sense ...

Had they done this it would have really broken the urgency of what was going on.  In the future scenes they are trying to impress that "this is it, one last shot"  I like rogue and all but fucking off to go pick her up really would have killed momentum.

Just saw this today. After seeing comments on other sites suggesting this was better than CA2 and maybe the best comic book movie ever I guess I was expecting more than the movie delivered. I liked a lot of the performances, especially James McAvoy. The beginning was pretty fun and I enjoyed seeing the Xmen working together and Blink was pretty cool. I hope she's back in future films but that may not work for the next film.

It was decent but I still like X1, X2, and First Class better.  I think the movie could have used another half hour to flesh some characters out.  Non X-Men comic fans probably didn't know who the fuck most of these people were.

According to Fan Bingbing she signed a four X-men picture deal with Marvel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_Bingbing#2011.E2.80.93present)

They've said the next movie takes place in the 80s though so there is no way she is part of it.  Actually that sorta blows, i guess we already know everyone is going to live through the age of apocalypse.

Well they have also said they are still going to have patrick stewart era xmen actors as well so....more time travel? i dunno

The setting of the stinger from DoFP should give you some clue that the unfolding story of the next film is going to likely take place in different times.  I don't know if there will be time travel, but I could see the story taking place in two or more eras...

Note that Blink was shown as a young adult in the 2023 setting of DoFP.  That may indicate that the X-Men: AA is going to feature a 'current' setting, an 80s setting, and a future setting.

That'd just be the same fucking movie.

Time travelling to the 80s?

Will there be whales?

In fairness, it was acceptable in the eighties.

So was Liefeld.

There are different ways to do it.  Personally, I don't like the idea too much, but I think they're sort of screwed right now in that they've locked up characters that are of roughly the same age in the comics as being 50 years apart in age in the X-men movie-verse.  At some point they'll need to do a complete reboot - I just wish it would be in the MCU.

Well to be fair there is absolutely no reason they need to leave the 70's-80's any time soon.  Yes they might miss Patrick Stewart but you could easily skip right the fuck over cable and all the time traveling bullshit that accompanies him.  Apocalypse can simply wake up in the 80's as a new threat the newly formed xmen have to deal with.  They may not do this but it's really the simplest solution.

Cable was supposed to be in DofP but they didn't have time in the script to flesh him out.  It was him that was originally supposed to be sent back in time, not Wolverine.

I bet that he will be in AoA.  As they could also use him as a launching pad for their planned X-Force movie.

I personally would prefer that we dont see much of Apocalypse himself in AoA, and the movie is more about Four Horsemen Shinnanigans with Apoc in the background as the shadowy manipulator, allowing them to properly do an exposition for the character to use as the Main Big Bad in the movie after AoA.    That being said, I completely expect them to make AoA all about Apoc himself, and somehow manage to not do a good job of properly setting the character up while juggling everything else that is going on.

Went and saw this finally.  I was surprised by how good it was.  One of the best super hero movies in a while, and certainly the best X-Men movie to date.

Binbing was in Iron Man 3 as well. She was in the hospital when he goes to China to have them remove the shrapnel from his chest.  :awesome_for_real: Just because she's got a deal doesn't mean her character will make sense or that anyone outside of China will even see her.

We finally got to see this. First movie I've seen in a year--gosh being a mum is fun. I really enjoyed it. I don't think it was the best comic book movie ever made, but I'd put it as the top X-Men one. It managed to hit the level of epic without doing something stupid like killing half the cast.

I was 8 in 1973 and the anachronisms got on my nerves, particularly the winglets on the jet.

Just saw this, easily the best movie in the X-Men franchise, well worth seeing in the theater.  Yeah, you can pick it apart, but it did what it was trying to do.

--Dave

Her contract was with Fox, not with Marvel, which means she'll be back playing Blink in whatever X-men movies they continue to pump out while they still have the license.

Yet another forgettable movie.

Finally saw it and I enjoyed it.

Few nitpicks:

1) How the fuck is Xavier alive in the future when they acknowledge the existence of X-Men Last Stand, in which he got fucking dissolved?
2) During the White House ceremony scene, why are they searching for Mystique telepathically when Wolverine can FUCKING SMELL HER WITH HIS ENHANCED SENSES? Way to forget the character's powers there guys.
3) It's 1973, what the fuck is Quicksilver listening to music on and why are his headphones very much not 1970 style headphones? Also, how is he listening to music and it not sounding like slo-mo?
4) The Apocalypse end credit scene was disappointing. If you don't know the comics, it has NO relation whatsoever to the movie you just watched. None. It's just random nonsense. Considering the sentinel carriers looked like Apocalypse's ships from the comics, I thought there'd be some connection made but nope. Opportunity lost, IMO.

Still, I enjoyed it despite the nitpicks. Quicksilver was clearly the best part with Blink being second and neither got enough screen time. Both were FUCKING AWESOME. MORE BINGBING! Loved the '70's Sentinels (not so much the future ones).

X-Men continuity is indeed a fucking nightmare. Way too many alternate reality/timeline/time travel characters involved. Cable is the second worst example but Bishop isn't far behind. Stryfe is the actual worst example - a CLONE of Cable that turned evil instead of good, creating a mutant-killing virus, dying and somehow being reborn as Hope, the mutant messiah in the future. The '90's in particular just lost the fucking plot completely as hack writer after hack writer was given the task of trying to expound on all the hanging threads Claremont left with a continually rotating cast of bad pencillers, overdone crossovers and continuity nightmares. Grant Morrison did a lot of good work unfucking the X-Men when he got on it, and taking it a different direction, though there have been really varying levels of success with the books since. The Matt Fraction stuff was good right up until Schism, and the Wolverine and the X-Men book being written by Jason Aaron right now with Wolverine as the headmaster of the school is REALLY GOOD.

Xavier was alive at the end of X3, just in another body.  Which they then claimed was his brother.  The end scenes have usually been teases for the next movie.

I do not remember this at all. That's probably for the best. At least it wasn't his twin sister that he ate in the womb. That was the one bit of the Grant Morrison run that I could do without.

Also, I get that the end credits scene is meant to be a teaser, but usually that teaser has some connection to the movie that went before it. This didn't.

That was it! Thank you! I remembered there was one thing that really smacked me in the face at the time that I couldn't remember and it's been driving me crazy. The non-enclosed headphones came with the Walkman in the 80s and I don't think I saw behind the ears headphones until the late 90s? I know it's a nitpick, but it surprises me that a movie with that kind of budget and such was that sloppy on anachronisms.

Easy, the audience aren't even born in 80s.

(http://i.imgur.com/E0hknei.png)

So apparently Singer may not be directing AoA cuz he allegedly likes young boys.  Basically Fox is backing off him before they lose a lot of money.  All rumor, but understandable if it comes to light.

Wasn't Singer sort of maybe possibly involved with all that Brock Pierce stuff? That's been a rumor for a while now.