Apocalypse Archangel - the Horseman Death

[Super Jim]

As I've been reading some of the other Horseman related threads I started I got thinking about how it's too bad that Angel was effectively ruined in X-Men 3.

I mean, truth be told, as much as I would love to see Wolverine as the Horseman Death, what I, and I believe most fans would really like to see is the transformation of Angel into Archangel, the Horseman Death.

Of course the problem with this is the timeline and age of Warren, based on Last Stand. Let's take a closer look at what we know...

Last stand starts with "20 years ago" and we see Erik and Charles visit Jean Grey.

It then goes to "10 years ago" and we see a young Warren cutting his wing nubs off in a bathroom and his father bursting in to find his son is a mutant.

One website I checked for the X-Men Movie Timeline has the visit to the Grey household as 1986, which would make Warren's bathroom scene in 1996.

The easy question is, how old is Warren in that scene?



So his age is what, maybe 12 or 13?

Anyway, all that matters for this idea of mine is whether or not Warren was alive in 1983, when Apocalypse will be taking place.

If the Grey visit took place in 1986 (which is still open to debate) and ten years later Warren was say, 12 or 13 years old, that means he would have been a newborn in 1983. In many ways this works perfectly for my idea...

Simply put, what if Apocalypse (or an agent of his) stole newborn baby Warren and transformed him, including an aging process (that would be shown), resulting in a fully aged Archangel, as the Horseman Death, in 1983?

Many of us fans want to see Archangel as Death very badly, but we have just accepted that this can't be because of the timeline. Well, now that many things are retconned due to DOFP, and with what will obviously be the new events of Apocalypse, we can get the Archangel we all want.

The explaination is simple...

In the original timeline Apocalypse slumbered. But in this new timeline someone (maybe Ororo and Gambit) woke Apocalypse early. Apocalypse takes baby Warren and turns him into Archangel.

Simple and sweet! We would get Archangel.

What do you think of this possibility?

 

[HIA]

I preffer they keep Archangel for a present time sequel, with Apocalypse in his second appearance.
No need to rush all the great stuff just into one movie, when they can still do more.

What Id do is to show Alan and Ben in the future portion of Apocalypse, even if just cameos, to let the audience know they are still alive and at the manssion, so if Fox does a present time sequel next, they will appear again in bigger roles, and the audience will be a bit more familiar with them, since they appeared in Apocalypse, same way the audience is now a bit familiar with newcomers as Bishop and Blink, and with James and Famke after their cameos at the end. Its better to show the adult versions even by 30seconds than not showing them. So, thats the route Id take.

 

[pavlov]

For me I would do away with the "10 years ago" caption and instead use JG's "20 years ago". In my fanfiction, it is Apocalypse who finds him in the bathroom as a child and convinces him to go with him. He is genetically modified and aged into adulthood as a zombie-like, mind-controlled Archangel.

 

[Super Jim]

The "10 years ago" and even the "20 years ago" were just references to the starting scenes in X-Men 3 Last Stand.

All I was trying to do was prove that Warren was/could be alive in 1983, when the Apocalypse movie is reported to be taking place.

Since the movie will be taking place in 1983, the bathroom scene doesn't apply (since it takes place in the estimated year of 1996, or so).

In 1983 (Apocalypse movie year) Warren should be a baby, so it makes a lot of sense for them to show new born baby Warren being taken by either Apocalypse, or one of his henchmen (Sinister, or maybe Mystique).

Actually, now that I think about it, having Mystique do it would be interesting as it could apply to her memories of how she gave away her baby Kurt...

Anyway, having an innocent baby go through both an aging process (stopping at say 20 years of age or so), along with the Archangel transformation, turning Warren into Archangel in the 1980 timeline, has so much appeal.

It would show just how evil Apocalypse is, doing that to an innocent, and most importantly it would give the audience Archangel.

In many ways I'm torn now between wanting to see Wolverine as the Horseman Death and seeing Archangel, using the storyline I just came up with, including an aging process, as the Horseman Death, in this 1983 Apocalypse story!

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I'd like it if Apocalypse cherry picked his horseman from the time stream.

I like the OPs idea of him kidnapping warren and his transformation into Archangel simple advanced his aging.

If we can but him being mutated and wings turned to Metal they could easily make us buy him aging at the same time.

 

[pavlov]

The "10 years ago" and even the "20 years ago" were just references to the starting scenes in X-Men 3 Last Stand.

All I was trying to do was prove that Warren was/could be alive in 1983, when the Apocalypse movie is reported to be taking place.

Since the movie will be taking place in 1983, the bathroom scene doesn't apply (since it takes place in the estimated year of 1996, or so).

In 1983 (Apocalypse movie year) Warren should be a baby, so it makes a lot of sense for them to show new born baby Warren being taken by either Apocalypse, or one of his henchmen (Sinister, or maybe Mystique).

Actually, now that I think about it, having Mystique do it would be interesting as it could apply to her memories of how she gave away her baby Kurt...

Anyway, having an innocent baby go through both an aging process (stopping at say 20 years of age or so), along with the Archangel transformation, turning Warren into Archangel in the 1980 timeline, has so much appeal.

It would show just how evil Apocalypse is, doing that to an innocent, and most importantly it would give the audience Archangel.

In many ways I'm torn now between wanting to see Wolverine as the Horseman Death and seeing Archangel, using the storyline I just came up with, including an aging process, as the Horseman Death, in this 1983 Apocalypse story!

Im saying that the bathroom scene could take place in 1983 as well.

 

[Super Jim]

^ I'm saying that doesn't work.

The bathroom scene, best guess, took place in 1996, not 1983.

In 1983 Warren would be a baby, not a 12 or 13 year old boy whose mutation just started to manifest.

If they want to use Warren in 1983 it will have to either be another time travel plot device (please no) or my idea of having baby Warren taken and put through the process that both ages him and transforms him into Archangel.

 

[henzINNIT]

I would love to see Archangel but I don't see a place for him in this film. There's no time to create any emotional resonance for his transformation as we barely saw him before. He'd be better off in a future sequel, where he's at least an established character, and his age wouldn't need to be fudged.

 

[ciscostudent561]

I would love to see Archangel but I don't see a place for him in this film. There's no time to create any emotional resonance for his transformation as we barely saw him before. He'd be better off in a future sequel, where he's at least an established character, and his age wouldn't need to be fudged.

Ahhhh sensibility and logic.
I'm with you man

 

[The Guard]

Eh...I would think that even a character who is just sort of being introduced could have at least some emotional resonance if his wings are ripped off, he is broken mentally and physically, and then transformed into something evil.

The whole "aging a baby" thing is a bit...much. I don't mind the idea of Apocalypse pulling Horsemen from across the timestream so much, though.

 

[CyclopsSummers]

I preffer they keep Archangel for a present time sequel, with Apocalypse in his second appearance.
No need to rush all the great stuff just into one movie, when they can still do more.

What Id do is to show Alan and Ben in the future portion of Apocalypse, even if just cameos, to let the audience know they are still alive and at the manssion, so if Fox does a present time sequel next, they will appear again in bigger roles, and the audience will be a bit more familiar with them, since they appeared in Apocalypse

Yes I'd rather like to see Archangel in a future x-men movie : Apocalypse's Revenge.

About Cayden Boyd, he played a 12 years old Angel.

 

[Majik1387]

As much as I like Ben Foster, Archangel isn't happening this movie.
Only movie it would work in would be a true Age of Apocalypse movie, which might be too soon after DoFP already showed an apocalyptic future.
And his transformation would only work if he had any sort of character for the audience to resonate with otherwise it's just a cheap ploy with no emotional weight.


None of the ideas in the thread would make sense.
Super Jim, you seriously need to get over all these supposed time frames as they do not exist anymore.

I'd also avoid timestream hopping simply because it opens a can of worms that was fixed with DoFP; plus I wouldn't want the X-Men series to turn into the time-traveling super hero movie series.

And let's keep Cayden Boyd away unless he learned how to act. Bring back Foster, he's willing and wants to come back. He was open to returning for DoFP as well; I was kind of hoping he'd cameo in the end.

 

[psylockolussus]

I'd rather see Angel/Warren Worthington III or Archangel in a film with the original cast than appear in 1983.

 

[Super Jim]

As much as I like Ben Foster, Archangel isn't happening this movie.
Only movie it would work in would be a true Age of Apocalypse movie, which might be too soon after DoFP already showed an apocalyptic future.
And his transformation would only work if he had any sort of character for the audience to resonate with otherwise it's just a cheap ploy with no emotional weight.


None of the ideas in the thread would make sense.
Super Jim, you seriously need to get over all these supposed time frames as they do not exist anymore.

I'd also avoid timestream hopping simply because it opens a can of worms that was fixed with DoFP; plus I wouldn't want the X-Men series to turn into the time-traveling super hero movie series.

And let's keep Cayden Boyd away unless he learned how to act. Bring back Foster, he's willing and wants to come back. He was open to returning for DoFP as well; I was kind of hoping he'd cameo in the end.

I'm not saying that I believe Archangel is going to happen in the Apocalypse movie, just that I've come up with a way where he could happen.

What I do know is that there is a big fan base that would love to see Archangel. Archangel means Apocalypse. Is it possible that Apocalypse will get away and then come back in a future flick? Sure, possible, but if they go that route it would likely be Age of Apocalypse and they would need to have one or two X-movies inbetween. That would put this possibility out to, at a minimum, 2022 or so. That means, don't count on it.

Yes, it would be tough to get the audience to resonate with a "new" character, even if they were introduced (albeit poorly) way back in Last Stand. But if they use this stolen as a baby and aged/transformed concept of mine, at least the general audience would feel the injustice of that act. There would be some feeling for this character, especially if we were shown the stages of aging and transformation.

Majik, you say none of the ideas I've defined in this thread can work, why not? Your argument for why not comes up short. Of course baby Warren being stolen by Apocalypse and aged/transformed into Archangel could work. You may not like the idea, but to say it couldn't work is not correct...

As far as my using the exisiting movies for what is possible in upcoming movies, it's all about character ages. Even if the events of a movie, like X1 through X3, Origins and the Wolverine, now didn't happen, the characters age is still finite. If we knew that Gambit was 25 years old in Origins (which we don't), and we knew the specific year for the events of that movie (which we don't), then we'd know when he was born and how old he would be in earlier movies, like a 1983 Apocalypse. Some may feel that anything goes and they should be allowed to use whatever character they want in any timeline they want, but that will make this whole X-Men Movie-verse worse than it already is. Would having Warpath as a teenager is 1983 make sense? Of course not. Would making Nightcrawler 15 years old in 1983 make sense? Of course not.

There has to be some continuity!

 

[marvelrobbins]

Using the nutrek model Angel could be In Apocalypse even if I don't like the idea.

Any Character not seen In new future at end of DOFP that wasn't In FC or 1973 parts of DOFP may be fair game for them to be used for Apocalypse.

 

[Super Jim]

^ That's not true.

Let's look at NuTrek...

Ok, a ship from the future comes back in time and changes the past. Great, everything from that moment on may or may not have happened. Same goes for the X-Men universe after the events of DOFP...

But, we were then shown James T. Kirk, and Spock, and McCoy, and Urhura, and Scotty, and Sulu, and Checkov. Guess what, they were all born at the same general time as they were in the original timeline. They were all conceived from the same egg and sperm.

The point is that their ages didn't change just because the original timeline doesn't exist now. They were still conceived and are now alive in this new timeline, just like they were in the original.

So, no, you can't just do whatever you want with the characters just because the original timeline has been altered. For example, you couldn't take Pickard and have him serving as Kirk's Executive Officer. That would make no sense, unless they had him travel back in time, which is not what we're talking about here.

Just like they couldn't have Pickard on the original Enterprise with Kirk, they can't have Angel as a teenager in a 1983 Apocalypse movie, since he was shown as a twenty-something year old in a movie that took place in something like 2006.

yes, they can do what I suggested where Apocalypse ages baby Warren into Archangel in 1983, but they can't just arbitrarily forget about the original timeline as far as character's ages!

 

[marvelrobbins]

Your wrong.Kirk Is in his mid 20's In trek 2009.In original series Kirk Is in his early/30 yet Chekov goes from Young man from original series to 17 In trek 2009.

Pike was mentioned on original series to being only a few yers older than Kirk yet know he's much older.

If they want to use Angel or even blink for that matter I won't be shocked.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I doubt they will use archangel, I still think wolverine will take his place

 

[kasjan]

He was born in 1986. So no Warren in 1983.
His wings grew 10 years before TLS, around 1997. Why would Apocalypse change simple baby in 80's into mature person, stupid idea.

Only way, if Apocalypse is time traveller.

 

[Super Jim]

^ Not necessarily...

Yes, the Last Stand supposedly takes place in 2006.

And yes, there was an indication that the visit to the Grey household was "20 years earlier". Some have said that that doesn't really mean exactly 20 years, meaning the visit didn't have to be in 1986. Most of these people are wanting to see a 20 year old Jean in 1983, so they are making that argument.

And yes, we then see the "ten years earlier" scene with a 12 or 13 year old Warren cutting his wings off. Again, it could be argued that "10 years earlier" doesn't necessarily mean exactly ten years, but if it was it would be in 1996.

If he was say 13 in 1996, then in 1983 he could be a new born, just like I explained at the start of this thread. Some will try to argue that the actor (kid), Cayden Boyd, who played mutilated Warren in the bathroom was only 12 years old, so Warren had to be 12, but that's a lame argument. We all know that actors and actresses often play roles where they are slightly older or younger.

Easily the 11 or 12 year old Cayden Boyd could be playing a 13 year old Warren, which means it's absolutely in the realm of possibility that in 1983 Warren would be a new born and Apocalypse could take him and age him, as well as turn him into Archangel!

Believe me, I think these things out before I post them...

 

[kasjan]

Don't care he was born in 1986 or 1983, we don't need baby Warren without wings.

 

[CyclopsSummers]

He was born in 1986. So no Warren in 1983.
His wings grew 10 years before TLS, around 1997. Why would Apocalypse change simple baby in 80's into mature person, stupid idea.

Only way, if Apocalypse is time traveller.

Why was he born in 86 ? 10 years ago X3 he was 12.

 

[Super Jim]

^ You're not understanding my concept. This is how it would play out...

1. We would see Baby Warren, either being born or in his crib, whatever.
2. We would see Apocalypse or an agent of his (Sinister or maybe Mystique or Gambit) taking baby Warren.
3. The baby would be shown being experimented on, including an aging process.
4. During the aging process his feathery wings would be developed.
5. Part of the transformation would now be for those feathery wings to be amputated.
6. Angel, now a teenaged young man of say 17, 18, 19 or so, would then be transformed into Archangel, which would include the metal wings, bluish tint to his skin, the suit (could be the blue and purple one or the Uncanny X-Force Black and White colored one), etc.
7. Now you have a bad arse Archangel in an Apocalypse movie, and the events of how it was done actually makes sense as far as the timeline, and even better, they wouldn't have to use more time travel stuff to do it.

IF (and it's a big if) it was done right this would come off incredible...

 

[HIA]

Bryan wont give baby Warren a whole subplot in the movie, so to create these expectations would lead just to a dissapointment.

Bryan and writer more than likely will ignore Archangel in this movie and Id bet they wont even include Ben Foster in a cameo or something. Would be pretty cool to see him returning as a tease, but I dont expect it

 

[Super Jim]

^ I agree that it is unlikely that we'll see Archangel.

I believe that my Wolverine as the Horseman Death idea is much more likely, especially due to Wolverine's popularity and being known to the general audience.

This was really just a secondary concept that could give us what many would like to see, Archangel in an Apocalypse movie.

Ben Foster wouldn't make any sense for this movie, unless it's as a mid or post credit scene to set something up, but that's very unlikely. Really, at this point, the only thing he would be good for is as the Horseman Death (which would mean this movie) or in a future X-Force movie.

See, if they used this idea of mine and had Archangel as say a 17 year old Archangel in this 1983 set movie, then he would be available, as say a 40 year old member of X-Force, if they went forward with that movie, which could be set in say 2015 or 2016...

Having Archangel in an X-Force movie without first introducing him (meaning as Archangel, not as the lame Angel we got in X-Men 3) would be very difficult.

But again, I'm expecting Wolverine to be the Horseman Death in this Apocalypse movie, as I've surmised in my other thread on that subject. Too bad too cause Archangel would be kick arse!