continuity is looking bad

[Deaths Head II]

That doesn't make any sense. Singer would pay attention to the fact that Professor X went to find Cyclops in Wolverine but not the fact that Xavier was walking around at the time? Is it a five second scene that Singer is capable of discarding or is it one worthy of him referencing to? It can't be both.

[FaT_tONle]

Again... we don't know what is going to happen between 1970-2000. I added a tidbit in my earlier post, but if you are going to give that much credence to a pair of 10 second walking scenes, then you can't discount the possibility, however far fetched, that he recovered for a period of time within those 30 years. We won't know until a sequel.

[samsnee]

It'll be a re-boot like Superman Returns. Clearly it referenced Superman I and II, but not III and IV. And even with II, it only referenced Lois and Superman doing it, not Lois remembering who Superman really is.

[The Original Bamfer]

I want it to stay within continuity of 'X-men' and 'X2', and no other film. Why? Because I want to see Singer's vision - not his vision mixed with someone else's interpretation of his vision. As I've said in the speculation thread, I'm more than willing to exclude 'Wolverine' and 'The Last Stand' if it meant getting some great films which lead us into 'X-Men'.

Would it maybe confuse some of the general audience? Probably, but that wouldn't stop them from seeing it.

But if those films are forgotten in Singer and Vaughn's mind when creating these flicks, I will be so happy. Hell, maybe they'll want to do their X-Men 3 someday.


Anyway, he's a post of mine in another thread regarding continuity and some ways to maybe determine if they are or aren't including 'Wolverine' and 'The Last Stand' in the mix.

Originally Posted by The Original Bamfer

No, but if it is good, and they're not making the continuity jive with 'Wolverine' or 'X3', you may be okay with forgetting the mentioned films.

Some may ask, "How do we know if they're ignoring the continuity of these films?"

Well, let's think of things they'd have to watch out for. All the mutant cameos seen in 'Wolverine' were of mutants that have yet to meet with Xavier. Though names may not have been mentioned, it was more than obvious that some of these cameos are a film counterpart to a character in the comics - Cyclops, Emma Frost, Quicksilver and Banshee.

Now, two of these characters are officially in the film - Emma Frost and Banshee. If the entire film does take place in the 60's, then it would be impossible for them to have their roles in 'Wolverine'. You can tell me all you want that, since Emma and Banshee weren't referred to by name, they're not those characters, but that would be utter bull. If the film does indeed take place entirely in the 60's, then they are flat-out ignoring the continuity of 'Wolverine'. If part of the film takes place fifteen-ish years prior to 'X-Men', then they may be within the continuity.

An example for 'X3' - in the origin scene for Jean, it was both Charles and Magneto. This would mean that they'd have to be allies/colleagues/friends for at least twenty-some years (starting from the the 60's) before going their separate ways. If Charles and Erik start to have major problems in 'First Class', then one may argue that they're ignoring the continuity of 'X3'.

And that's, as most of you will know, only the tip of the continuity iceberg.

[The Original Bamfer]

If Till is actually playing Havok, and Havok is seen as one of the students (say, 16 years old) in the 60's around the time of the Kennedy assassination (1963), that would put his birth year roughly around 1947. If we assume that 'X-Men' took place in the year 2000 (even though it states that's in the "near future") and Scott was around 30, this his birth year was roughly around 1970. I guess it's possible, but two brothers? Roughly 23 years apart?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by FaT_tONle

I don't recall the Three Mile accident ending with a tower collapsing.

I don't recall mutants being involved in the real-life incident either, but it's pretty clear being that it's on three mile island, and that it couldn't be that long after Vietnam that the end is three mile island.

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by The Original Bamfer

If Till is actually playing Havok, and Havok is seen as one of the students (say, 16 years old) in the 60's around the time of the Kennedy assassination (1963), that would put his birth year roughly around 1947. If we assume that 'X-Men' took place in the year 2000 (even though it states that's in the "near future") and Scott was around 30, this his birth year was roughly around 1970. I guess it's possible, but two brothers? Roughly 23 years apart?

It happens......

......but in general...in a world where people can develop powers we can't believe a large gap in age between brothers......

[The Original Bamfer]

Originally Posted by Hellion

It happens......

......but in general...in a world where people can develop powers we can't believe a large gap in age between brothers......

You just don't see many 43 year old women having children.

[Nathan]

Maybe they'll be step-brothers then?

[Deaths Head II]

I think it's more likely they're not related as characters, but we'll see.

[The Original Bamfer]

That'd be odd considering how very much Till looks like Marsden from the visor down...

[TNC9852002]

That's just a bonus..

[FaT_tONle]

Guess you guys know all the plot details. I doubt Havoc is going to be best buddy number 3 to Eric and Charles. These other mutants may be recruited years down the line. Late 60's or something.

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

I don't recall mutants being involved in the real-life incident either, but it's pretty clear being that it's on three mile island, and that it couldn't be that long after Vietnam that the end is three mile island.

Certainly was... doesn't mean that THAT was the three mile incident , which was really some kind of internal meltdown that led to no great structural calamity on the scale of what we saw in Origins. I also don't get why our time lines have to match with the Marvel Universes time lines. If they are depicting a historical event to give us a historical context, show case that with archive footage in a news reel. ACTUAL archive footage. Or hire actors portraying historical figures that really existed. Origins never specified any years or dates that I know of. It's all one loose mid 70's to possibly late 80's film.

[conan69]

My GF and her youngest brother are 16 years apart. She has 2 brothers and 3 sisters to the same parents. I think her parents married at age 18.
Just saying large gaps in years between siblings isnt unheard of.


They might explain by saying same father, different mothers. Its been established males carry the mutant gene. We dont know yet.

edit: Thinking about that, its very possible. Alex being born in say,the previously mentioned 1947 (for arguments sake) - Their father could be in the 40year old range by 1970.

Alot of men came back from the war and married at a very early age.

Its obvious their fathers role will be changed (for you everything has to be faithful to the comic books nuts)as I can pretty much be certain we're not gonna see them go into a long winded explaination of Corsair (even thats even still his father an dhasnt been revised in the 20 years since Ive read a Xmen comic book)

[Ziggyman]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Maybe they'll be step-brothers then?

Cyke and Wolvie are more alike then we thought...

[ReallyCoolGuy]

Originally Posted by GuestStar2004

continuity is looking bad

Good. Screw continuity.. maybe they'll make a decent film instead of focusing on explaining the continuity they created in the last few disasters...

well... maybe not. But "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" ...that's my new comic book movie motto...

[samsnee]

We don't even know if Havok is playing a major role. For all we know, they say it's Havok now, but two years down the line, they introduce "Havok" again, ala Emma Frost, and say the first guy was just called Alex, but he wasn't Alex Summers.

Let's be honest, this series hasn't been great with developing lesser known mutants. They're just there to show off a cool power and that's about it. But who knows, with Wolverine out of the way, maybe the others will actually get some screen time.

[Nathan]

You know, I actually didn't think about that fact at all. An X-Men Movie without Wolverine. Now I'm actually looking more forward to the Movie than before.

[EvilClareToo]

Originally Posted by Stripesy Strip

It's the conception of the X-Men. How they came to be. How Xavier created this thing.

And as far as I know they never refered to the girl in Wolverine as Emma Frost.

No, not in the movie, although her name was Emma, blonde and could turn into a diamond form (hmmmmm.....), but in the marketing campaign, including the US tv spots, she names herself as Emma Frost.

I was hoping for a reboot, but again, I'm not that enthusiastic about a film that doesn't feature members of the original five or the second generation team members. X Men are popular for a reason....

It seems that they are using this to have their version of "X Men: Origins Magneto and Charles Xavier-which could be cool, but again, weird cast of characters that I think don't really work.

[ReallyCoolGuy]

...was she credited as "Emma" in the ending credits.

...and then there's this: http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer...pot-emma-frost

but.. you know... whatever..

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by ReallyCoolGuy

...was she credited as "Emma" in the ending credits.

...and then there's this: http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer...pot-emma-frost

but.. you know... whatever..

I think she was credited as "Kaylah's Sister/Emma"...but I'm not 100% sure......I enjoyed X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But enjoyed the trailers and tv spots (especially those character spots) more than the film.

[ReallyCoolGuy]

Originally Posted by Hellion

I think she was credited as "Kaylah's Sister/Emma"...but I'm not 100% sure...

Yep. That's right... "Kayla's sister/Emma"

[Squidboy]

Originally Posted by FaT_tONle

Certainly was... doesn't mean that THAT was the three mile incident , which was really some kind of internal meltdown that led to no great structural calamity on the scale of what we saw in Origins. I also don't get why our time lines have to match with the Marvel Universes time lines. If they are depicting a historical event to give us a historical context, show case that with archive footage in a news reel. ACTUAL archive footage. Or hire actors portraying historical figures that really existed. Origins never specified any years or dates that I know of. It's all one loose mid 70's to possibly late 80's film.

Couldn't it be as simple as the events of the movie taking place AFTER the meltdown? Gambit mentions something about nobody wanting to go snooping around the island because they thought the radiation would mutate them, so maybe Stryker bought the island and started his experiments several years after the incident, placing Wolverine somewhere in the mid-to-late 80's. Or if he's capable of invading a school with his troops later in life, maybe he could've orchestrated a fake meltdown to keep people out of his hair.

[Spider-Fan83]

if you think about it... it being after the meltdown makes more sense.. I mean, do you really think Stryker and his team could or would set up a secret military operation, where they hold kids prisoner, in a fully functioning power plant, with out anyone noticing....? where were all the worker...?

I think the idea of setting up a secret military operation in an abandoned power plant, does make more sense

[Squidboy]

The power plant could've been a cover for their operations, though. I mean, I'm sure Stryker's prison wasn't called the Stryker Plastic Prison for the Genetically Insane. It was probably made to look like a waste treatment plant or something. I mean, the man used a dam as his base of operations, he obviously has enough pull to not only acquire numerous locations to further his mutant experimentation, but he's smart enough to put them below the radar from the general public.