3 Reasons "Days Of Future Past" Is Actually X4

[Project862006]

people say that but rdj did still get majority of screen time imo thor did'nt do much in film and was least developed of the avengers

iron man and hulk got best scenes imo

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Project862006

people say that but rdj did still get majority of screen time imo thor did'nt do much in film and was least developed of the avengers

iron man and hulk got best scenes imo

I agree RDJ seemed to get most of screentime but it never felt like it was the expense of the others. It's especially notable that it was Captain America barking orders in the final battle.

I agree Thor didn't do much (he could have supercharged Iron Man's armour again in the climax battle but didn't) but it never felt wrong. I thought the division of screentime worked out fine, even though Hawkeye was shafted and Renner didn't seem too happy to being marginalised.

[BMM]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

And i have a feeling Wolverine will dominate DoFP too. He'll probably be the one to free the prisoners, take on Sentinels, jump in the time machine, stop the assassination, lead every team, be present in every conversation, take part in every action scene.

Why bother with the other X-Men at all? Why not hand them all back to Marvel and just keep Wolverine?

Eh, I'm not sure about that... not if Singer's recent comments about every character serving a purpose have any weight.

[marvelrobbins]

Can we stop every thread Into X-Men forum from turning Into kissing butt of the Avengers.
There are marvel films and avengers forums for that.

Since Hugh Jackman just wrapped the Wolverine In november he may not have committed for major focus for another X-Men film.Obviously he will play big role In future scenes
but majority of film takes place In 1973.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by marvelrobbins

Can we stop every thread Into X-Men forum from turning Into kissing butt of the Avengers.
There are marvel films and avengers forums for that.

Since Hugh Jackman just wrapped the Wolverine In november he may not have committed for major focus for another X-Men film.Obviously he will play big role In future scenes
but majority of film takes place In 1973.

Calm down, no one's 'kissing butt.'

But it's reasonable to use other recent superhero movie releases as points of reference. Studios will be doing exactly the same. Why do you think Warners is so keen to get a Justice League movie off the ground? Why do you think Millar/Singer/Fox are all talking about an 'expanded universe' for the X-Men and suddenly showing interest in continuity (when they've never bothered in the past).

It's perfectly natural for comparisons to be made between Fox's output and the output of rival studios, such as Marvel Studios and WB's Dark Knight trilogy. Especially when those two franchises have been mega-successful. Fans want the X-Men to achieve the same potential on screen.

[Angamb]

exactly.

And Avengers was more balanced that the whole x-men franchise to date.

Ironman had great scenes on the movie, but so had Hulk, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, Loki and Hawkeye had a decent role, with a good part on the final battle.

he even had a bigger presence on the action than Rogue, Cyclops or Angel on X3, so thats the point.

The x-men movies need a PERFECT balance, and each sequel will need more than the previous one, with new characters on board.

This right sequel shouldnt have an actual lead at all. In any case, Xavier on the 70's, with the rest having a similar role. Everyone need their moment to shine. everyone. Including Kitty, Iceman, Rogue and the x-men of the 70's, whoever they are. Wolverine will shine, but this time his role should be smaller than X3 and X2, thats for sure.

[marvelrobbins]

well recent news seem to indicate Justice League may not be getting off ground anytime soon.

There Is no doudt Fox Is doing DOFP to create a epic with casts of both trilagy and First Class.That and working on having X-Men and FF In fox marvel shared universe Is their
attempts to compete better with DIsney.It helps now that Tom Rothman Is gone.But,far too many want them to copy The Avengers of J.J. Abrams turning Star Trek Into Star
Wars.X-men Is totally different beast.

The Avengers wa smostly sold as Robert downey JR meeting other heroes and them fighting alien Invasion.X-Men has more depth to It than The Avengers ever did.

The Dark Knight trilogy was Chris Nolan's Interpetion of Batman.Nolan admitted quite publicly to not reading comic books but being a General audence fan of batman.He and Bryan Singer are far more honest than J.J. Abrams who at various times when he Is speaking to more trekker friendly audneces has tried to claim to have to being some kind of fan and he says different things when he's not.

The themes of X-men will always make It less sucessful than Avengers and Spider-Man.Post apocalypic future with Sentinles and an assassination plot are things you would
never see In most comic book films.

X-Menays o future past should be something true to X-Men,The storyline,and Bryan Singer's vision.Not trying to copy the Avengers or J.J. Abrams Star Trek

[Angamb]

you are totally missing the point here.

we're talking about balance and action, not about the themes of each franchise.

if Dark Knight had a 1 billion boxoffice twice, the x-men franchise CAN have that too easily.

Its about doing epic stuff and selling the movie the right way. No more no less.

the movies will always have deeper themes, again thats wasnt the point.

[marvelrobbins]

Originally Posted by Angamb

exactly.

And Avengers was more balanced that the whole x-men franchise to date.

Ironman had great scenes on the movie, but so had Hulk, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, Loki and Hawkeye had a decent role, with a good part on the final battle.

he even had a bigger presence on the action than Rogue, Cyclops or Angel on X3, so thats the point.

The x-men movies need a PERFECT balance, and each sequel will need more than the previous one, with new characters on board.

This right sequel shouldnt have an actual lead at all. In any case, Xavier on the 70's, with the rest having a similar role. Everyone need their moment to shine. everyone. Including Kitty, Iceman, Rogue and the x-men of the 70's, whoever they are. Wolverine will shine, but this time his role should be smaller than X3 and X2, thats for sure.

Again your proving my point by turing this Into a long kissing butt of marvel Studios and disney.

Comparing anything In DOPFP to last Stand Is stupid.Rothman Is gone and Bryan Singer Is In charge.

The Avengers didn't Introduce all their characters In one film.

With ensemble film you have to pick and choose which characters to use,and who to put focus on.Some characters will get the shift.

X-Men Is whole different beast.and people are letting the last Stand cloud their memorys of X-Men and X2.

I am primarly with comic books a X-Men fan from comics from 1963 to 2005.Spider-Man and Batman are only ones that come close to X-men.

And for those who want better balance they are never going to get It with flooding screen with characters as some advocate.

If I was fan of ultimates and ultimae universe I would probally like Avengers better but I'm not.

[marvelrobbins]

Originally Posted by Angamb

you are totally missing the point here.

we're talking about balance and action, not about the themes of each franchise.

if Dark Knight had a 1 billion boxoffice twice, the x-men franchise CAN have that too easily.

Its about doing epic stuff and selling the movie the right way. No more no less.

the movies will always have deeper themes, again thats wasnt the point.

Themes do matter.The empire strikes back was least sussessful of star Wars trilogy.The Phantom Menace most sucessful of prequel trilogy and It was most cwoad pleasing film of the prequels.

A case could be made the invasion In Avengers was a bit of michael Bay ripoff.

It's much easier for some to get Into what can be called crime dramas with
Chris Nolan's batman than getting Into wrold of prejudice allegory as X-Men
does.

The pure cwoad pleasing of the avengers with nothing deep Is not X-men.

Transformers are giant blockbusters.Are you trying to say you want X-Men to be like them or say you want Bryan Singer to copy Bay? I doudt anyone seriously wants Bryan to do X-men film like Bay would do.

X-Men needs to be It's own beast not try to be copy of The Avengers or transformers or J.J. Abrams Star Trek.

[def28]

No one was ass kissing Marvel movies. You just hate seeing them mentioned and had to go on a rant. You take low blows at Marvel every chance you get.

Most are not satisfied with Cyclops, Rogue, Iceman and Storm because nothing exciting was done with them or they had barely any action or development (minus Rogue X1). Thats nothing new and most agree more can be done regardless of what franchise people prefer. Sounds to me they want it more balanced screen wise, whats wrong with that? If they dont fix that and they leave that out people are gonna compare and knock X Men down for another 5 years. They gotta show these characters off cause they have been introduced three times now and obviously people know they can do more.

[marvelrobbins]

Your never going to get any balance if you threw in tons of characters as some are advocating here.

X-men Is not the avengers or Star Trek or Transformers.They are all different beasts.X-men should not try to copy them but be their own thing.

[def28]

We shall see next year...

[Lightning Strykez!]

There is no reason why X-Men can't be a billion dollar franchise. The only reason it hasn't reached those heights has been because of the studio holding out on big budgets and editing the hell out of what should be 2 hour-plus long films. The facts?

1.) The franchise has arguably the strongest and best cast EVER

2.) Bryan Singer and his writers are back

3.) We live in a world where gays and minorities are dominating every aspect of politics, entertainment and other subjects (let's be honest--the X-Men theme really speaks about acceptance of those who are different from the majority).

So now it's all about execution. They've got [most of] the big gun characters from the original trilogy back alongside some incredible young actors from the critically acclaimed First Class film. As long as FOX gives Bryan a chunky budget and doesn't try to slice the film down to their usual 90 minutes we could easily have a billion selling film here.

[Project862006]

^THIS the only thing x men films lack so far is big scale there is a reason x men 3 made so much because it was the biggest scale x men film

audiences want to see big ass action

[Lightning Strykez!]

Originally Posted by Project862006

^THIS the only thing x men films lack so far is big scale there is a reason x men 3 made so much because it was the biggest scale x men film

audiences want to see big ass action

Yep.

Fans can bash X3 all they want but NO ONE can say that film didn't kick ass when it came to actual fighting/action sequences. That movie played like a damn comic book and it was glorious to see.

Now imagine if Bryan Singer--with his directing skills and great writing team--could have access to that kind of budget for this film? It would be BANANAS.

And Marvelrobbins this is where studios comparing themselves to other big franchises like Marvel's The Avengers is actually a good thing. Competition is great because it forces lazy folks to up their antes and get their heads in the game. If FOX wants to compete with Marvel and other big CBM franchise producers they've got to evolve past their old weak approach with lame wigs, cheap budgets, short 75 minute "epic films" and other silliness that defined the first X-films, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and the other badness from the 2000s.

The old formulas don't work anymore and FOX is not the only game in town now!

[Doc Ock]

I can see DOFP being considered X4.

A apart of me kinda hopes that this is NOT X4 or First Class 2 but just a movie featuring some of the casts from both periods. Afterwards there can be a X4 with the original cast AND a First Class 2 and whatever else Fox wants to do like another Wolverine. Fox can forget about Fantastic Four and give it to Marvel and just make a X-Men Cinematic Universe.

[Great Mind(s)]

I don't want them to call X4 "X4" if they do make a sequel with only the future people. That would make DOFP seem like a side project and unimportant. X4 should just be X-Men: With A Subtitle.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Originally Posted by Great Mind(s)

X4 should just be X-Men: With A Subtitle.

It is. It's called X-Men: Days Of Future Past.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by Great Mind(s)

I don't want them to call X4 "X4" if they do make a sequel with only the future people. That would make DOFP seem like a side project and unimportant. X4 should just be X-Men: With A Subtitle.

They don't even have to include a number anymore. X3's movie title was X-Men: The Last Stand. After that, I doubt they would start including a number again for the movie title.

[Mrs Vimes]

Originally Posted by Angamb

And Avengers was more balanced that the whole x-men franchise to date.

This "balance" of The Avengers is IMO nothing that the X-Men movies should try to copy. It was so busy hopping from one character to another to another, it just made the movie feel like it was full of supporting characters with no real development to anyone.

If you tried to be "fair" to all the characters in X-Men movies, you wouldn't end up with a movie where every character is a Wolverine, you'd just have a movie where every character is a Banshee.

[def28]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

If you tried to be "fair" to all the characters in X-Men movies, you wouldn't end up with a movie where every character is a Wolverine, you'd just have a movie where every character is a Banshee.

These are team movies though, not solo character films. More can be done with spreading out time to characters on screen. Characters like Storm and Cyclops obviously could have had more development and screentime but you cant possibly give 20 X men all the development Wolverine or Magneto gets each film. 5 shouldnt be difficult. They all interact with eachohter for the most part anyways. There will always be characters who lose out, just how it goes. They just gotta make sure one character isnt taking up all the screen time at the expense of others.

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

This "balance" of The Avengers is IMO nothing that the X-Men movies should try to copy. It was so busy hopping from one character to another to another, it just made the movie feel like it was full of supporting characters with no real development to anyone.

I disagree, it worked fine for just about everyone who saw that film. To each their own though.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

This "balance" of The Avengers is IMO nothing that the X-Men movies should try to copy. It was so busy hopping from one character to another to another, it just made the movie feel like it was full of supporting characters with no real development to anyone.

If you tried to be "fair" to all the characters in X-Men movies, you wouldn't end up with a movie where every character is a Wolverine, you'd just have a movie where every character is a Banshee.

It's not a question of copying Avengers.

Avengers proved that a more even spread of character focus could work (and it also proved heroes with individual and colourful costumes could work on screen as a team).

What the X-Men could do is to shift the focus off Wolverine a little and give a bit more substance to some of the other characters. The same thing happened in First Class - it was all about Magneto and Xavier to such an extent that other characters (Banshee, Havok, etc) felt like filller who were just there to get X-Men fans to see the movie.

No one's asking for actors/characters to have a forced role like Halle/Storm in X3, that's going to the other extreme.

But all characters should have a good reason to be there - a motivation (indicated in dialogue, interaction and action). And it should be tied to the main plot, so that way it keeps the focus.

Just off the top of my head, and as an example, let's look at Storm and DoFP. If she is included, she shouldn't just be there for special effects. What's her purpose, why is she fighting?

We know she was headmistress of the school in X3 and has always had a 'mother goddess' aspect (spinning off from her elemental powers and their connection to the Earth and nature). It also fits in with her role as a protector of the tribes when back in her native Africa, where she was called on to bring rain for the crops and livestock.

In the films, that 'earth mother' aspect was shown in her being a teacher and in being concerned for the children's welfare (when at the dam in X2). It wasn't developed enough, but it's something.

So, if she were to be in DoFP, that angle could be expanded upon if that's the characterisation they choose. She could be the protector - of the surviving students, or of the young mutants at the prison camp, or whatever. They just need to make it tie into the main plot, so she feels an integral part of the story.

[DarthSkywalker]

It isn't about not having a focal point. It is about giving each character respect and a purpose. In the Avengers, though I don't find it perfect, it legitimatizes each character and gives them a role in the film. Whether it is Thor's connection to Loki, Hulk being the trump card, or Captain bringing the leadership and representing the best mankind has to offer, each character had a reason to be there. Even Black Widow, though I admit it is a bit if stretch.

There are beautiful character moments for everyone that fit them and does not devalue the others. Think Thor's reaction to the Hulk's punch or Hulk's reaction to that one shot with Mjolnir. After Tony's witty remark about being rich and a ladies man, Captain simply tells him to put on the "Suit". He is going to handle it 1940s style and it leaves each character with their awesomeness intact.

Did anyone ever feel like Scott actually got the upper hand on Wolverine in his relationship with Jean? Did anyone ever feel like she actually loved him?

[Mrs Vimes]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

The same thing happened in First Class - it was all about Magneto and Xavier to such an extent that other characters (Banshee, Havok, etc) felt like filller who were just there to get X-Men fans to see the movie.

If Magneto and Xavier didn't get the attention they had in FC, they simply wouldn't have been the rich characters that they were and IMO the film would have been much, much poorer for it. There's a good reason why most films don't try to juggle several protagonists.

It's a matter of preference I guess. I know many people were happy with it, but the way The Avengers handled its characters did nothing for me (as well as the movie itself really). I kinda felt like I got a little tidbit of every character but nothing of real substance. Also, the most interesting aspect of that team to me was the friction between Captain America and Tony Stark, but again that relationship just didn't get enough time because the movie would then race off to deal with other stuff.