The #4 movie - which movie series will have it first?

[psylockolussus]

X-Men - Wolverine and First Class are prequels, so technically they aren't "X-Men 4"
Spider-Man - the fourth movie from Sony is a reboot
Blade - no news about Blade 4
The Avengers - too early to tell
Fantastic Four - the third movie from FOX will be a reboot
Iron Man - very possible unless Marvel Studios doesn't want to continue the Iron Man movie series after IR3.

I'm going with Iron Man.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

X-Men - Wolverine and First Class are prequels, so technically they aren't "X-Men 4"
Spider-Man - the fourth movie from Sony is a reboot
Blade - no news about Blade 4
The Avengers - too early to tell
Fantastic Four - the third movie from FOX will be a reboot
Iron Man - very possible unless Marvel Studios doesn't want to continue the Iron Man movie series after IR3.

I'm going with Iron Man.

I'm 50/50 that we'll see an Iron Man 4 in phase 3.

[bubbadoom]

THE WOLVERINE is said to take place after X3, so I guess X-Men wins...

[Edguy]

Technically, all the X-Men films are in canon, so technically they won 3 years ago

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Edguy

Technically, all the X-Men films are in canon, so technically they won 3 years ago

This.
Regardless of what order you put them in, XMFC: DOFP will be the fifth canonical installment in the team's saga.

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

This.
Regardless of what order you put them in, XMFC: DOFP will be the fifth canonical installment in the team's saga.

Seventh, by Edguy's definition, as he was referring to 2009's XMOW as technically the fourth X-movie.

[metaphysician]

If you put in the rule "no reboots", then its either going to be Iron Man or X-Men, depending on whether you count the X-Men movies as all being in continuity or not, what with the major retcons and divergences.

[Baramos]

Originally Posted by Edguy

Technically, all the X-Men films are in canon, so technically they won 3 years ago

How do they explain Emma Frost being 12 in Origins: Wolverine which takes place in the late '70s when she's an adult in First Class which took place in the early '60s? How do they explain that Xavier is crippled in First Class which took place in the early '60s but walking around at the end of Origins: Wolverine which took place in the late '70s? How do they explain Havok being in his 20s in First Class which takes place in the early '60s when he's the younger brother of Cyclops who was only in his 30s which took place in modern day? How do they explain that Cyclops is 12 in Origins: Wolverine which took place in the late '70s when he's the older brother of Havok who is in his 20s in First Class which took place in the early '60s?

First Class is a reboot, in my opinion, regarding these inconsistencies, thus it can't count as the fourth movie. Origins has been retconned into oblivion.

[JB-the-Hunter]

You guys are missing the point; either missing it or ignoring it that is. psylockolussus said nothing about the forth canonical installment, he said the NUMBER FOUR movie, as in a direct sequel to the third movie that was a direct sequel to the second movie that was a direct sequel to the first movie. Wolverine 1+2, First Class/DOFP and TASM don't count, The Hobbit doesn't count, Phantom Menace doesn't count. That said the most likely candidates are Iron Man and Thor

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by JB-the-Hunter

You guys are missing the point; either missing it or ignoring it that is. psylockolussus said nothing about the forth canonical installment, he said the NUMBER FOUR movie, as in a direct sequel to the third movie that was a direct sequel to the second movie that was a direct sequel to the first movie. Wolverine 1+2, First Class/DOFP and TASM don't count, The Hobbit doesn't count, Phantom Menace doesn't count. That said the most likely candidates are Iron Man and Thor

Just because a movie doesn't have the number/word "4/Four" in it doesn't mean it isn't a fourth movie...

The X-Men series already has four films, in sequence, period. XMOW doesn't count because it's a Wolverine solo movie (the same way that IM or Thor or Hulk or Cap movies don't count towards the Avengers total, and vice versa); but between the Singer/Ratner movies and XMFC, there's definitely four movies for the franchise already.

Originally Posted by Baramos

How do they explain Emma Frost being 12 in Origins: Wolverine which takes place in the late '70s when she's an adult in First Class which took place in the early '60s? How do they explain that Xavier is crippled in First Class which took place in the early '60s but walking around at the end of Origins: Wolverine which took place in the late '70s? How do they explain Havok being in his 20s in First Class which takes place in the early '60s when he's the younger brother of Cyclops who was only in his 30s which took place in modern day? How do they explain that Cyclops is 12 in Origins: Wolverine which took place in the late '70s when he's the older brother of Havok who is in his 20s in First Class which took place in the early '60s?


First Class is a reboot, in my opinion, regarding these inconsistencies, thus it can't count as the fourth movie. Origins has been retconned into oblivion.

Here's a better explanation, and one that is more generally accepted by fandom (and even, IIRC, Hugh Jackman himself): the Wolverine solo movies aren't in canon.

(As far as trying to compare film canon to comics canon: shyeah, good luck with that. Singer already ****ed all that up looooong before XMFC made Alex predate Scott.)

[BatsDC]

If Iron Man 3 does really well, I'm pretty sure they'll get Iron Man 4 into Phase 3.

[Baramos]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Just because a movie doesn't have the number/word "4/Four" in it doesn't mean it isn't a fourth movie...

The X-Men series already has four films, in sequence, period. XMOW doesn't count because it's a Wolverine solo movie (the same way that IM or Thor or Hulk or Cap movies don't count towards the Avengers total, and vice versa); but between the Singer/Ratner movies and XMFC, there's definitely four movies for the franchise already.



Here's a better explanation, and one that is more generally accepted by fandom (and even, IIRC, Hugh Jackman himself): the Wolverine solo movies aren't in canon.

(As far as trying to compare film canon to comics canon: shyeah, good luck with that. Singer already ****ed all that up looooong before XMFC made Alex predate Scott.)

He not only predates Scott in First Class, he's probably at least 20 something years old when Scott is born, unless I'm reading Cyclops as younger than he was supposed to be in the early X-Men movies or reading Havok as older in First Class than he is supposed to be...anyway, I guess you're right that nothing in First Class necessarily contradicts anything we know just from X-Men 1-3. But, still, it's a prequel. I think we're looking for the third sequel/fourth movie in a chronological sequence. And it will probably indeed be Iron Man 4.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Just because a movie doesn't have the number/word "4/Four" in it doesn't mean it isn't a fourth movie...

My post must have completely went over your head

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

The X-Men series already has four films, in sequence, period. XMOW doesn't count because it's a Wolverine solo movie (the same way that IM or Thor or Hulk or Cap movies don't count towards the Avengers total, and vice versa); but between the Singer/Ratner movies and XMFC, there's definitely four movies for the franchise already.

We're not talking about about the fourth film in the franchise here though, we're talking about the direct sequel to the third movie (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides), which is what the title implies, I don't see how that's not obvious to you. There has been no comic book movie that has had a "#4 movie" yet. Prequels don't count, spin-offs don't count, reboots don't count.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by JB-the-Hunter

My post must have completely went over your head


We're not talking about about the fourth film in the franchise here though, we're talking about the direct sequel to the third movie (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides), which is what the title implies, I don't see how that's not obvious to you. There has been no comic book movie that has had a "#4 movie" yet. Prequels don't count, spin-offs don't count, reboots don't count.

Why the hell wouldn't a prequel count as a sequel? Yes, chronologically, it comes *before* the previous movies, but it still creates an ongoing saga, just "in flashback," so to speak. "Star Wars: Episode One" came out after Ep. Six, and yet nobody out there would rationally claim that there aren't six movies in the Star Wars saga (....so far).

[bubbadoom]

How did I forget about Superman IV ?

Because I have been trying to for YEARS!

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Why the hell wouldn't a prequel count as a sequel? Yes, chronologically, it comes *before* the previous movies, but it still creates an ongoing saga, just "in flashback," so to speak. "Star Wars: Episode One" came out after Ep. Six, and yet nobody out there would rationally claim that there aren't six movies in the Star Wars saga (....so far).

Some of us would love to claim that there were only three Star Wars movies ever made, whether or not it's rational to do so.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

Why the hell wouldn't a prequel count as a sequel? Yes, chronologically, it comes *before* the previous movies, but it still creates an ongoing saga, just "in flashback," so to speak. "Star Wars: Episode One" came out after Ep. Six, and yet nobody out there would rationally claim that there aren't six movies in the Star Wars saga (....so far).

It doesn't count because of the context of which the OP is implying. If you actually read what the OP wrote, it's clear that he means a fourth film like X-Men 4, Spider-Man 4 or Iron Man 4 would be. Since X-Men was the first movie in its series, in the context of which this thread was made, any prequels should only count as -2, -1, and so on. The Star Wars prequels, in the context of which this thread was made, should only count as -3, -2 and -1, while the originals should count as 1, 2, and 3. So no, there has not yet been a true #4 Marvel movie yet.

[JB-the-Hunter]

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

How did I forget about Superman IV ?

Because I have been trying to for YEARS!

Good point, except this is the Marvel Films forum.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by JB-the-Hunter

You guys are missing the point; either missing it or ignoring it that is. psylockolussus said nothing about the forth canonical installment, he said the NUMBER FOUR movie, as in a direct sequel to the third movie that was a direct sequel to the second movie that was a direct sequel to the first movie. Wolverine 1+2, First Class/DOFP and TASM don't count, The Hobbit doesn't count, Phantom Menace doesn't count. That said the most likely candidates are Iron Man and Thor

This!

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by JB-the-Hunter

It doesn't count because of the context of which the OP is implying. If you actually read what the OP wrote, it's clear that he means a fourth film like X-Men 4, Spider-Man 4 or Iron Man 4 would be. Since X-Men was the first movie in its series, in the context of which this thread was made, any prequels should only count as -2, -1, and so on. The Star Wars prequels, in the context of which this thread was made, should only count as -3, -2 and -1, while the originals should count as 1, 2, and 3. So no, there has not yet been a true #4 Marvel movie yet.

This is the most bizarre "method" of counting I've ever heard of. "Star Wars -3;" "X-Men -1."

Here in the real world, a "prequel" is still a sequel; it's just placed ahead of the others in chronology. But it still counts as an extension of the series.

But have fun with whatever exciting and new counting systems you and Psylockecolossus can come up with.

[DrCosmic]

Wait, what world is it that you live in where prequels are sequels??? On the planet I live on no one refers to any prequel as a sequel, and for good reason, the word sequel comes form the latin "sequi" meaning "to follow." And this "bizzare" method is called natural numbers. You may have forgotten it since you learned integers. The question is a valid one, and it highlights how none of the modern CBMs has ever continued the story forward after a Trilogy, and no CBM has done it with a movie that was not hated. (Thanks Quest for Peace and Batman & Robin!) That's an interesting observation.

I would say it's a toss up between X-Men and Iron Man... after DOFP, the X-Men franchise will probably be quite vibrant again, and if successful enough, they may go with an X-Men 4 instead of finishing a 'first class trilogy' so to speak. If for no other reason that to continue to explore Wolverine as he takes care of a bunch of young students as in the comics. Oy.

Iron Man, however, is most ripe, and may be X-Men as all it needs is RDJ to continue on as Tony Stark, something he's probably inclined to do. Additionally, it's possible that they can continue it with RDJ in a cameo capacity doing 'demon in a bottle' stuff while Rhodey rides the red and gold rocket, with RDJ simply reprising his Iron Man role in Avengers films. It all depends on how they do it.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Wait, what world is it that you live in where prequels are sequels??? On the planet I live on no one refers to any prequel as a sequel, and for good reason, the word sequel comes form the latin "sequi" meaning "to follow." And this "bizzare" method is called natural numbers. You may have forgotten it since you learned integers. The question is a valid one, and it highlights how none of the modern CBMs has ever continued the story forward after a Trilogy, and no CBM has done it with a movie that was not hated. (Thanks Quest for Peace and Batman & Robin!) That's an interesting observation.

I would say it's a toss up between X-Men and Iron Man... after DOFP, the X-Men franchise will probably be quite vibrant again, and if successful enough, they may go with an X-Men 4 instead of finishing a 'first class trilogy' so to speak. If for no other reason that to continue to explore Wolverine as he takes care of a bunch of young students as in the comics. Oy.

Iron Man, however, is most ripe, and may be X-Men as all it needs is RDJ to continue on as Tony Stark, something he's probably inclined to do. Additionally, it's possible that they can continue it with RDJ in a cameo capacity doing 'demon in a bottle' stuff while Rhodey rides the red and gold rocket, with RDJ simply reprising his Iron Man role in Avengers films. It all depends on how they do it.

A "prequel" is a sequel because it follows the prior films in the series in terms of having been produced after them. Prequels follow the original films because of the order in which they were produced, which of course fits the Latin origin of the word "sequel" perfectly. Most prequels would not have existed without the films that were made first and established the characters and their universe. For example, had there been no Star Wars, there would never have been a Phantom Menace. The same with that Wolverine movie, XFC, Prometheus, and a slew of other movies made to capitalize upon the success of established franchises.


About the only instance in which this is not the case is The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings, because of course TH was written years in advance of LOTR.

[DrCosmic]

Um, no sir. Prequels have never been referred to as sequels. Not in publications, not in public discourse not even in your posts before this thread. Sequel doesn't mean "another installment" however you want to word that, sequel means follows the original in both narrative and production. That's why when someone says a sequel is coming, absolutely no one asks "Is it a prequel?" or "Is it a spinoff?" That's why the words prequel and spinoff were created, to say that they're not sequels.

And why is this the discussion? The OP was very explicitly in what he meant by #4 movie with lots and lots of examples. It's a legitimate question, even if you don't think it's important.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Wait, what world is it that you live in where prequels are sequels??? On the planet I live on no one refers to any prequel as a sequel, and for good reason, the word sequel comes form the latin "sequi" meaning "to follow." And this "bizzare" method is called natural numbers. You may have forgotten it since you learned integers. The question is a valid one, and it highlights how none of the modern CBMs has ever continued the story forward after a Trilogy, and no CBM has done it with a movie that was not hated. (Thanks Quest for Peace and Batman & Robin!) That's an interesting observation.

You...lecturing me....on grammar and usage. Ooooh, that's rich.

Son: "prequel" is a portmanteau. It *combines* the prefix "pre-" with, uh, what's that word again? Oh, yeah: "sequel." It matters precisely not one iota that a prequel precedes an existing story chronologically; it matters only that *sequentially,* the prequel was created AFTER the original. Ergo: it is still a type of *sequel.*

And since there's no way in hell you're ever going to take my word for anything or ever agree with me on anything, then allow me to present to you a more objective definition from Wiki:

Rather than being a concept distinct from that of a sequel, a prequel still adheres to the general principle of serialization, defined only by its internal chronology and publication order. For example, the Star Wars episodes were released in the order IV-VI followed by I-III; Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) is a prequel to Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983) but, under the dictionary definition, is only a predecessor rather than a prequel of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002) due to release order.

Cappice? Regardless of what order the movies were released, there are SIX movies in the Star Wars series. Just as there are FOUR movies in the X-Men series (XMOW notwithstanding, since it's about a solo character instead of the team).

Ergo: X-Men already has four movies in sequence. By your/Psylocke's definition, the "#4 movie" was X-Men: The Last Stand.

Also: "bizarre" is still the proper spelling, not "bizzare." But thanks for trying to spell-check me. Nice try.

[DrCosmic]

Hmm... interesting. Prequels are a type of sequel. Hilarious. Well done.
Also, I wasn't spell checking you, I was pointing out how calling the first X-Men movie "X-Men 1" instead of "X-Men 2" because it's the second chronologically isn't actually bizarre at all. It's very natural.

Similarly, X-Men the Last Stand isn't called X-Men 4 by me, Psyclocke or anyone's definition. It's called X-Men 3. It doesn't get numbered as 4 by anyone. The question is will we see "X-Men 4" before "Iron Man 4" or "Avengers 4." That's the question...

And Psylocke was pretty explicit about what they meant by "X-Men 4" so why you think X-Men 3 or XMFC is X-Men 4 in their eyes shows you're not really reading for comprehension.