Actors from original trilogy on First Class sequel with Days of Future Past - Part 1

[henzINNIT]

Great news, Page returning is particularly surprising. A little disappointed that Singer's comment makes a Cyclps reappearance less likely, but happy Paquin is returning.

Calling it now: Future will be post TLS, with suprise cameo's with the fully restored team after the timeline has been altered.

[BMM]

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me.

[lordofthenerds]

Originally Posted by Angamb

there was another interview where he said they were related but in a different way or something like that

but if we we take that quote seriously, who the hell was that young boy on cerebro looking exactly like a young Scott?

they didnt have a ****ing clue about what they wanted with Alex and Scott around FC shoot. both were in the movie and then Singer says it wasnt possible, lol what a joke

This is what happens when you flip flop from wanting to do a prequel, to a reboot, then back to a prequel again. You end up with some kind of hybrid between the two. And yes, they did intend to do a reboot at one point:

Originally Posted by Matthew Vaughn

I sort of regretted that ever since, and when Fox rang me up and said, "Do you want a chance to reboot X-Men and put your stamp all over it?"

http://www.superherohype.com/feature...matthew-vaughn

[marvelrobbins]

That was part of Interview were he also said First Class was both prequel and reboot.
He said first Class was designed to be set before X-Men.

Matthew vaughn Is like J.J. Abrams.He will say different things depending on who he Is
talking to.

[DigificWriter]

Originally Posted by Angamb

there was another interview where he said they were related but in a different way or something like that

but if we we take that quote seriously, who the hell was that young boy on cerebro looking exactly like a young Scott?

they didnt have a ****ing clue about what they wanted with Alex and Scott around FC shoot. both were in the movie and then Singer says it wasnt possible, lol what a joke

How does that quote from Singer and later statements from him on the same subject invalidate the kid with sunglasses being Scott? Alex and Scott can be distant relatives, which would be supported by and consistent with both Singer's statements and the Cerebro montage.

[lordofthenerds]

Originally Posted by marvelrobbins

That was part of Interview were he also said First Class was both prequel and reboot.
He said first Class was designed to be set before X-Men.

That's exactly what I've been saying I think it looks like they were doing, and everyone gets all pissed at me. I don't get it.

It seems as though your hatred at the idea of any sort of a reboot is clouding your judgement.

Originally Posted by marvelrobbins

Matthew vaughn Is like J.J. Abrams.He will say different things depending on who he Is
talking to.

He was the director and writer of First Class, and he is a writer for DOFP. I think we should take what he says into account.

[DigificWriter]

Vaughn might say that FC is both a prequel and the reboot, but by the very nature of what a reboot is designed to do, you can't actually do both a prequel and a reboot.

[lordofthenerds]

Originally Posted by DigificWriter

Vaughn might say that FC is both a prequel and the reboot,but by the very nature of what a reboot is designed to do, you can't do both a prequel and a reboot.

While it can't be called a 'reboot' by the literal sense of the word (since it doesn't discard all previously established continuity completely), reboots are often done in order to revamp characters and open up new story opportunities. In this sense, First Class/DOFP could be called a reboot.

[EnDz0n3]

Originally Posted by DigificWriter

Let me prove you wrong, because I found one of the statements I referenced:


Here's a link to the article from which said statement was taken:
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/...-and-mystique/

Congratulations sir you just won the interwebs!

That quote does beg the question: Why use Havok? It's not like people were clamoring for the character.

[DigificWriter]

^ There's no law - written or unwritten - that says that you can't use a character and alter or excise certain aspects of said character, be it the relationships they have with certain other characters or certain aspects of their personality.

[EnDz0n3]

Originally Posted by DigificWriter

^ There's no law - written or unwritten - that says that you can't use a character and alter or excise certain aspects of said character, be it the relationships they have with certain other characters or certain aspects of their personality.

LOL of course there's no law about that. What kind of statement is that?

Doesn't change the fact that if it's shoddily executed in the film that the fans will surely complain (til the cows come home!) about said change.

[DigificWriter]

^ Your comment made it sound as if they shouldn't have used Havok for First Class since doing so meant he couldn't be directly related to Scott, and my point is that there is no reason why they had to avoid using the character.

[EnDz0n3]

But they should be prepared for the wrath if they execute the character poorly. So if they really didn't want backlash, why tempt fate? As I've said, *no one was clamoring for the character in the first place.

Which gets us back to the cameos of Cyclops and Storm (HA!). Why include the cameos if no one was asking for them? Especially if you know for a fact that showing said cameos will cause a fustercluck with your continuity! What gain did they get from that?

[DigificWriter]

^ Because they wanted to, and that's all that matters. You don't let potential backlash hamper your creativity; if you do, you've got the wrong mindset.

Also, it's a matter of subjective opinion as to whether the Scott and Storm cameos actually screwed up the continuity at all.

[EnDz0n3]

If you want to call Havok being shoehorned into the film, and needless cameos by Storm (and to some Scott) creativity then be my guest.

Ugh I'm done with this.

All I wanted to do was shed a light as to how that was a very questionable thing they did but you obviously don't (or don't want to) see the problem with it and it's not like we are going to get a definitive answer/reason why they came up with that through exchanges here that are going nowhere.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by DigificWriter

^ Because they wanted to, and that's all that matters. You don't let potential backlash hamper your creativity; if you do, you've got the wrong mindset.

Also, it's a matter of subjective opinion as to whether the Scott and Storm cameos actually screwed up the continuity at all.

That seems a rather sloppy and carefree approach. How is the studio going to have consistency, cohesion and continuity if they just do whatever they want each time? There's got to be some sort of structure behind the decisions.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

Love when posters make up bull****.

Nothing has ever been stated or insinuated that Scott and Alex aren't related. At most they just made Alex the older brother.

Hell Alex could be scott's father because lets face it.... Corsair ain't happening

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by JP

But it's not even 10 seconds! It's less than 3. And its generally not the focus of a scene, and usually a background thing.

It's just a nod/wink. And when people view it as anything more it's just silly.

It doesn't effect the single movie, but i do think it makes the franchise weaker if every other film in it ignores different parts of continuity. Those little bits do unfortunately add up

[Angamb]

Originally Posted by EnDz0n3

Which gets us back to the cameos of Cyclops and Storm (HA!). Why include the cameos if no one was asking for them? Especially if you know for a fact that showing said cameos will cause a fustercluck with your continuity! What gain did they get from that?

Lauren S-Donner actually gave the reason on the dvd. They added those cameos to show the fans that they (Fox and the producers) know the fans care about those characters, but since "they couldnt use them", they decided to show them as short cameos.

There u have it. Its Fox formula all over again.

This is how Fox works, since X3: lets add this character on X3 and this one and this one too, so the fans will be pleased, and we'll get more money.

Then on XO: Wolverine: hey, lets use young Scott, Emma, and lets use fan favourites Gambit and Deadpool, so more fans will go to theatre to see the prequel.

Then on FC, lets include a cameo of Scott and Storm, to surprise the fans and to show them that we care about them too, and we dont forget them, but they cant be used in full yet.

THIS is how Fox thinks, and this is how many decisions are made. Just to "please" fans and get "more" money.

And at the end of the day, ironically all those decisions ended hurting the movies.

Hopefully they wont do the same this time. Hopefully Millar does something positive to this franchise where the rest lacks.

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by lordofthenerds

So we're just ignoring "the not so distant future" caption these days?

You have to eventually.... 30 years from now it will still say "not too distant future" its very ambiguous

[spideyboy_1111]

Originally Posted by JP

Oops, I misread. Haha. But there was a debate about that little girl being Jean some time ago.

Yeah.... That wasn't jean. Nothing jean like about her

[lordofthenerds]

Originally Posted by spideyboy_1111

You have to eventually.... 30 years from now it will still say "not too distant future" its very ambiguous

Yeah, but since the original was made in 2000, it would make sense if we went from there. Anytime after the year 2000 could qualify, but anytime before it couldn't.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by lordofthenerds

Yeah, but since the original was made in 2000, it would make sense if we went from there. Anytime after the year 2000 could qualify, but anytime before it couldn't.

We've been over this topic so many times.

The solution to that 'not too distant future' caption is for it to mean the future in relation to the preceding scenes in the film (Auschwitz 1944).

If the first film really is 1994 (based on Logan being on the road for 15 years after the 1979 Three Mile Island incident at the end of XMO: Wolverine), then 1994 is the not too distant future from 1944.

[lordofthenerds]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

We've been over this topic so many times.

The solution to that 'not too distant future' caption is for it to mean the future in relation to the preceding scenes in the film (Auschwitz 1944).

If the first film really is 1994 (based on Logan being on the road for 15 years after the 1979 Three Mile Island incident at the end of XMO: Wolverine), then 1994 is the not too distant future from 1944.

I wasn't aware of that explanation. It sort of seems like a cop out, but I guess it works.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by magneto23

I know this is wishful thinking but now that Rogue/Paquin is confirmed, I hope some how we get to get to see her with super strength and flight. At the very least she's going to need some kind of new skill set. Otherwise what the hell is she going to contribute in a fight against sentinels?

I would love to see a scene from her taking the powers of her fellow X-men.

Originally Posted by M-2

I wonder if Singer would bring back someone like Liev Schreiber or Taylor Kitsch?? Bringing Ellen back signals that he wont be ignoring Last Stand... so maybe he might bringing back one or two guys from Origins.

They don't really have a place in this movie so I hope they don't come back in this movie. Though I would love tosee Gambit in X-Men 4!