Bryan Singer Directing X-Men: Days of Future Past

[Angamb]

I love Ben Foster. Im soo glad he was casted in the movie because thanks to that I watched many of his movies and he is a great actor, one of the best young actors Ive seen.

And Angel is my fave x-men, so I definetly would LOVE to see him again as Angel, specially playing a more mature Warren.

[Llama_Shepherd]

Originally Posted by Project862006

problem with alot of x men outfits is they are way too colorful to be adapted to screen without looking goofy alot of x men where some sort of bright yellow,green,and red

but i could see it working if they use spandex like material of Prometheus suits tho

I think this material would work well with costume designs similar to the Ultimate X-Men:

[EnDz0n3]

Originally Posted by JP

That WOULD be pretty hilarious if the future mutants are Scott, Jean, Angel, Iceman, and Beast. . .

And Storm..

And then kill off Iceman and Angel? *maniacal laughter*

[Mulholland '49]

Still suprised Singer got to sign on. Thought WB was going to pull some crap with Jack the Giant Slayer post production.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by BMM

Huh. I always thought Foster was miscast as Angel.

Well, for the sake of consistency and continuity and cohesiveness, it'd be better if he was brought back, should the character feature in the story.

[MarvelKnight]

For me, Foster never really had a big enough part to consider him being miscast or not haha. The few brief moments he was in the movie he seemed fine as all he did was speak four or five words before breaking out of restraints and fly around a few times lol.

[Great Mind(s)]

Originally Posted by MarvelKnight

For me, Foster never really had a big enough part to consider him being miscast or not haha. The few brief moments he was in the movie he seemed fine as all he did was speak four or five words before breaking out of restraints and fly around a few times lol.

Yeah he really served no purpose to the plot. I would have liked more scenes to give him some more characterization at least.
For DOFP, I wouldn't mind seeing Foster as Archangel with blue skin and longer hair. Imagine him flying with his metal wings at a Sentinel. That would be shweeet.

[Mulholland '49]

Shame too. His opening scene was actually pretty good. Why they decided to put him in the opening scene only for him to serve no actual purpose is baffling.

[Angamb]

Originally Posted by Mulholland '49

Shame too. His opening scene was actually pretty good. Why they decided to put him in the opening scene only for him to serve no actual purpose is baffling.

thanks Ratner for that and all the other mistakes he made.

The movie should have lasted more than 2 hours, not just 1 hour and 45 minutes or so.

but back to Angel and Ben... yes, would be sweet to see him as Archangel in the near future. would be such a badass mutant

[ThePowerCosmic]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

And even Ben Foster was fine as Angel. He looked the part, the wings were good. Okay, so he didn't have a big enough role in the story, and a lot of people on here hate the film, but there's nothing terribly wrong with the actor or the portrayal.

My problem with Angel is that they showed him in a suit for the posters like he was actually going to get in on the action. Such a disappointment.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by Angamb

I love Ben Foster. Im soo glad he was casted in the movie because thanks to that I watched many of his movies and he is a great actor, one of the best young actors Ive seen.

And Angel is my fave x-men, so I definetly would LOVE to see him again as Angel, specially playing a more mature Warren.

X3's Angel was like a random addition to the movie. Yeah he was related to the cure and I thought his first scene was really good and I liked the scene where to refused to take the cure but they didn't really use him. If I was the editor of the movie, I could easily remove his scenes from the movie and it wouldn't affect the story. It would have been better if he interacted with the X-Men more (not just 1 scene) and if he fought with the X-Men at Alcatraz (not just save his dad).

But I still think he could still have his second chance with X-Men 4 and they don't need to recast Ben Foster. And he could have a cameo in DOFP as one of the members of Future X-Men and they don't even need to explain why he's with the X-Men. Its a given that he went to Xavier's school in X3.

[blueserenity]

Originally Posted by josh8

You're completely right that I want them dropped to have Cyke and Jean introduced. But it's not that I care for comic book accuracy, I just like the idea in order to have the A-team around. I completely disagree with what you said about the general audience's opinion. The cartoon and first set of movies have made most general fans well aware of the premiere X-Men characters. It's not just fanboys. Sorry to make this a box office discussion, but it's obvious that there weren't many "draw" characters in FC. Your example about Sandra the housekeeper and "as long as it's good" does not describe the general audience... unfortunately quality alone has never been enough to bring in the masses. And just to clarify, I was never one of those fans that cared that the "First Class" wasn't the real first class. But I think now there is an opportunity to please a whole lot of people and bring in more fans.

If you want to talk about what the general audiences care for... sorry, but it sure as hell isn't Banshee and Havok getting more development.

I don't mean to sound so argumentative and cynical, because it is just a selfish side of me wanting Cyclops and Jean around. But I really do think overall it would be better to bring them in now. You mention them not even being born in the 70s, but the first trilogy never really specified a date so I don't really mind smearing those lines. And no, they could be late 30s in the first trilogy. None of them looked to me like they were in their 20s.

But anyways, I'll drop it for now!

The first trilogy's dates were in the 2000s at the earliest, based on the date card of the "Not so distant future" and how old Magneto looks vs how old he was in 1944. Not to mention the basic technology (by that I mean plot-unaffecting things such as television) and fashion would put the storyline of the films no earlier than the late 90s, and even that's a stretch.

The GA may not specifically want more development of Havok and Banshee but they would definitely notice (and probably be something along the lines of "disappointed") if they weren't there. They weren't just cameo mutants like half the kids in X2, they had solid parts and speaking lines and personality and are important if only because they were among the first of Xavier's mutant family-school thing. I'm neither a Banshee nor Havok fan from the comics or cartoons or even the film but I would be annoyed if they just wrote them out of the second movie. If they want to firmly establish a FC continuity and a trilogy one for the purpose of time travel in this movie, they're going to need to hold onto as many familiar FC faces as they can get, and expand on them. This is really not the time to introduce Jean or Cyclops. Neither character has anything to add to the plot at this point.

And again, reminder: Jean as a child has ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED. And during a time when Erik and Charles were still together and Charles was WALKING and also they were both old and not played by Fassbender and McAvoy. If you want to talk about REALLY mucking up continuity and alienating fans and GA worse than ever before, bring Jean in at ANY point during the FC trilogy.

And I disagree with your line of thought that lack of oldschool classic X-Men will disuade the general audience from seeing this movie. People didn't see FC because its 2 preceding movies were two of the worst superhero movies of all time. I will concede that lack of Wolverine and big name stars probably didn't help initially. But positive word of mouth from critics and GA alike is what helped this movie make enough money to go on to make a sequel. At this point, the majority of GA people going to see this movie will be going because 1) "it looks cool" , 2) its predecessor was so fantastic or 3) because of Fassbender and Lawrence (and McAvoy though he is he's not in the spotlight the way the other two are). Announcing that a young Jean or young Scott will be featured in the past timeline is not going to sell that many extra tickets. TBH I'm not sure how popular those two even are with GA who aren't comic fans. Among my generation of 90s-cartoon watchers, Gambit, Rogue, Wolverine and Nightcrawler were always the favorites.

It's hard to think of because we're all so into the movies (and a lot of people are into the comics or cartoons as well) but people really don't care that much about what is done or who shows up in these movies as long as it's good. The majority of moviegoers out there are unaware (and don't give a crap) who's directing or what this sequel will be about as long as it's good. Just look at Avengers. A LOT of people who saw that movie weren't comic fans. A lot of them hadn't even seen the individual films leading up to it. It was a hit because it was a really fun movie. Very few are begging for "Superhero so-and-so" to be in Avengers 2. They just want another fun romp come 2015. The same is true for GA and DOFP.

[Angamb]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

X3's Angel was like a random addition to the movie.

His introduction made perfect sense to me. Its just the way Brett treated the character what is random. It started well, with the flashback and his first scene being older, but after that is was a poor use of the character, but as we all know, he wasnt the only poor character. So its not about the characters but the script or more specific, the director decisions regarding the runtime and developtment of characters.

[PhoenixRogue]

What kind of way do you guys think we could introduce Jean Rogue etc etc ?

[josh8]

Originally Posted by blueserenity

The first trilogy's dates were in the 2000s at the earliest, based on the date card of the "Not so distant future" and how old Magneto looks vs how old he was in 1944. Not to mention the basic technology (by that I mean plot-unaffecting things such as television) and fashion would put the storyline of the films no earlier than the late 90s, and even that's a stretch.

The GA may not specifically want more development of Havok and Banshee but they would definitely notice (and probably be something along the lines of "disappointed") if they weren't there. They weren't just cameo mutants like half the kids in X2, they had solid parts and speaking lines and personality and are important if only because they were among the first of Xavier's mutant family-school thing. I'm neither a Banshee nor Havok fan from the comics or cartoons or even the film but I would be annoyed if they just wrote them out of the second movie. If they want to firmly establish a FC continuity and a trilogy one for the purpose of time travel in this movie, they're going to need to hold onto as many familiar FC faces as they can get, and expand on them. This is really not the time to introduce Jean or Cyclops. Neither character has anything to add to the plot at this point.

And again, reminder: Jean as a child has ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED. And during a time when Erik and Charles were still together and Charles was WALKING and also they were both old and not played by Fassbender and McAvoy. If you want to talk about REALLY mucking up continuity and alienating fans and GA worse than ever before, bring Jean in at ANY point during the FC trilogy.

And I disagree with your line of thought that lack of oldschool classic X-Men will disuade the general audience from seeing this movie. People didn't see FC because its 2 preceding movies were two of the worst superhero movies of all time. I will concede that lack of Wolverine and big name stars probably didn't help initially. But positive word of mouth from critics and GA alike is what helped this movie make enough money to go on to make a sequel. At this point, the majority of GA people going to see this movie will be going because 1) "it looks cool" , 2) its predecessor was so fantastic or 3) because of Fassbender and Lawrence (and McAvoy though he is he's not in the spotlight the way the other two are). Announcing that a young Jean or young Scott will be featured in the past timeline is not going to sell that many extra tickets. TBH I'm not sure how popular those two even are with GA who aren't comic fans. Among my generation of 90s-cartoon watchers, Gambit, Rogue, Wolverine and Nightcrawler were always the favorites.

It's hard to think of because we're all so into the movies (and a lot of people are into the comics or cartoons as well) but people really don't care that much about what is done or who shows up in these movies as long as it's good. The majority of moviegoers out there are unaware (and don't give a crap) who's directing or what this sequel will be about as long as it's good. Just look at Avengers. A LOT of people who saw that movie weren't comic fans. A lot of them hadn't even seen the individual films leading up to it. It was a hit because it was a really fun movie. Very few are begging for "Superhero so-and-so" to be in Avengers 2. They just want another fun romp come 2015. The same is true for GA and DOFP.

I'm sorry, but I pretty much disagree with most of your main points. I'm not even arguing that they need to introduce Jean and Scott, because I think that's just opinion and I'm sure everyone is sick of that. But I do want to talk about the other stuff.

Yes the first trilogy's date was initially set to be sometime after 2000, but I think they purposefully didn't state a year and this will prove to be in their favor because it's movable. Even the costume designer (whom I hate) said she designed the wardrobe to be timeless so that the movie couldn't be nailed down to any era. I just thought it was all ugly. But you are right that there are a few other things that can date a movie (for instance that stupid NSYNC song being added to that car scene).

As for the general audience possibly being irritated with the dropping of characters... they were so insignificant that I'm sure they would be completely forgotten if the more well-known characters were added in. General audiences are never good at remembering smaller characters. I'm also so sick of the argument that Xavier was shown walking. I'm a huge fan who's seen the movies a million times and even I don't care. I also don't care that it was Patrick Stewart recruiting Jean... I mean Xavier was played in a WHOLE movie by James McAvoy. James McAvoy isn't young Patrick Stewart... OMG the whole FC movie is not in continuity!!!!

I think FOX is switching gears a bit. Instead of expanding the current FC universe in a standalone way, they're supporting it with the older trilogy after seeing that they didn't completely succeed in refreshing the franchise. And I don't think I said the lack of known characters would dissuade anyone from seeing the movie... only that their presence would PERSUADE people to see it. Two different things.

Lastly, I just cannot agree with you at all about audiences not caring about what is done or who shows up in movies as long as it's good. Audiences respond to about hype. And then hype is bolstered by good reviews. The reviews help, but it's always the hype and awareness that are stronger. The Avengers was successful because it managed to make people think it was an event movie. Whether they had seen the previous year's tie-in movies or not, many had definitely seen Iron Man, everyone knows who the Hulk is, and it had that stereotypical destroy-big-city blockbuster-look that is often very stupidly successful (Transformers) even though they're usually s--t movies. Which again, re-illustrates my point that the movie doesn't necessarily have to be good to get the masses to flood to theaters.

[magneto23]

Originally Posted by josh8

As for the general audience possibly being irritated with the dropping of characters... they were so insignificant that I'm sure they would be completely forgotten if the more well-known characters were added in. General audiences are never good at remembering smaller characters.

Anyone with half a brain, let alone general audiences, would notice the dropping of those characters. I think your argument would work better with a character like Riptide not Banshee/Havoc.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by josh8

As for the general audience possibly being irritated with the dropping of characters... they were so insignificant that I'm sure they would be completely forgotten if the more well-known characters were added in. General audiences are never good at remembering smaller characters. I'm also so sick of the argument that Xavier was shown walking. I'm a huge fan who's seen the movies a million times and even I don't care. I also don't care that it was Patrick Stewart recruiting Jean... I mean Xavier was played in a WHOLE movie by James McAvoy. James McAvoy isn't young Patrick Stewart... OMG the whole FC movie is not in continuity!!!!

I just don't want Banshee and Havok to disappear without explanation. That would be bad.

They are trying to create a unified saga, a single cinematic universe with more continuity and consistency - and just getting rid of characters goes against that.

It would be like Hawkeye just disappearing in Avengers 2.

It was good to see an acknowledgement of earlier members of the team (ie Havok and Banshee) who weren't present in the original trilogy. I want to know what became of them, why they were absent later.

Also, with Angel and Riptide, I don't think they have much more to offer, and they are not significant characters within the X-Men mythos. But, even so, I don't want to see them disappear without explanation. If they are captured or killed, that would be better.

I want to follow this franchise, and for them to allow us to follow it, so getting rid of people randomly is not an option, in my opinion.

[ThePowerCosmic]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

I just don't want Banshee and Havok to disappear without explanation. That would be bad.

They are trying to create a unified saga, a single cinematic universe with more continuity and consistency - and just getting rid of characters goes against that.

It would be like Hawkeye just disappearing in Avengers 2.

It was good to see an acknowledgement of earlier members of the team (ie Havok and Banshee) who weren't present in the original trilogy. I want to know what became of them, why they were absent later.

Also, with Angel and Riptide, I don't think they have much more to offer, and they are not significant characters within the X-Men mythos. But, even so, I don't want to see them disappear without explanation. If they are captured or killed, that would be better.

I want to follow this franchise, and for them to allow us to follow it, so getting rid of people randomly is not an option, in my opinion.

I really want to know what happened to Banshee, since his daughter was in X2.

[Angamb]

I want to see Banshee too, and in two more sequels.

I really cant understand how some fans dont appreciate having Havok and Banshee on the franchise, two well known x-men from the comics, and both of them from the 60's.

This is a big franchise, its cool to have new members from time to time. And both Alex and Sean bring fresh air to the series, so why not?

If they keep moving forward with the First Class series, there will be time for young Scott and Jean, so lets have patience with them and enjoy the fresh mutants.

[JP]

I hope we get quotes from Singer soon.

[Mulholland '49]

Originally Posted by ThePowerCosmic

My problem with Angel is that they showed him in a suit for the posters like he was actually going to get in on the action. Such a disappointment.

Ugh. They did the same with Rogue too. Do they have no shame?

[ThePowerCosmic]

Originally Posted by Mulholland '49

Ugh. They did the same with Rogue too. Do they have no shame?

Right? I didn't even remember Rogue, good call. Toward the end of X3 when Angel saved his dad, I was like, "wtf?". I was expecting him to suit up and fight in the last battle.

[Angamb]

but Rogue was in the Danger room with uniform. Its not the same case.

I would have loved to see Angel really working with the x-men on the final battle, but about the uniform, it wouldnt have made sense for him to have an uniform when he has just arrived to the school. He cant be an x-man yet. In any case, for a future mision, but not for Alcatraz event.

[ThePowerCosmic]

Originally Posted by Angamb

but Rogue was in the Danger room with uniform. Its not the same case.

I would have loved to see Angel really working with the x-men on the final battle, but about the uniform, it wouldnt have made sense for him to have an uniform when he has just arrived to the school. He cant be an x-man yet. In any case, for a future mision, but not for Alcatraz event.

Oh yeah, you're right about Rogue.

I wouldn't have had a problem with it if they hadn't advertised Angel in an X-Suit like he was a full-blown X-Man. That's why I was so surprised he wasn't given much to do in X3, because I expected him to interact with them long enough to earn the title of X-Man. I was even more surprised when he didn't get action scenes.

Nightcrawler wasn't really a full-blown X-Man, but at least he got sufficient character time and an action scene.

[Angamb]

yeah, Nightcrawler had the perfect screentime for a newcomer. would wish Angel would have had that level of attention and quality, regarding his scenes.

Singer would have done something special with Warren

I wanted a scene with Rogue, like 90's series, specially since both are key characters on the cure plot of the movie.