Discussion in 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' started by Thread Manager, Nov 13, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]467833[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]467489[/split]
I don't think Dofp should be the end, it's just the end of one timeline. This is time travel, its not going to happen without some changes otherwise whats the point? The OT is relevant because it leads to the end, DOFP. BUT, in that end there is a new beginning.
If they make a new OT era movie afterwards, it will be a reminder of everything that happened originally because if the OT never happened it wouldn't have led to the Sentinels which led to the past altering that led to the new timeline.
This is better than a reboot IMO because these actors are the characters. At least some of them are finally grown into their roles like Paquin. And its cool because its time travel. The OT had to happen the way it did in order for DOFP to happen. So it still exists in the continuity as the glue that holds the whole universe together.
Also there is a difference with the comic because the future in the comic was brand new world where as the future in the movie is our classic characters and the past is a different animal entirely. In the comic they did alter the future because its 2013 now in the comics and its not days of future past
And the Trek 09 movie isn't relevant. That was a cop out to reboot the series without upsetting fans. It was all recasting... And the villain and time travel story were random and not based on anything from before. This on the other hand has been building since X1 and is based off a classic comic. And the younger characters already exist in their own movie. Its a brilliant move I think
I remain very very skeptical of doing anything with OT cast besides Hugh Jackman If rumors pan out
Magneto never being villain Is much more drastic.Except for FC sequels how can they be called sequels If films never happened
If rumors pan out this Is semi reboot keeping only FC and 1973 parts of DOFP.
Anything else Is mostly gone.Maybe the pre 1973 parts of Origins and the
wolverine might still exsist but that's It.
I don't think we have ever talked before, I don't really know anything about you, so can you answer a question for me......how old are you. This is not meant to be a joke or snide. I really want to know your age, because I feel things like that effect how people see things. Me....I'm old. I'm 56 years old. Been watching all kinds of movies and TV shows for decades. I've seen many many franchises get rebooted (most likely most of them you and others on here have never seen or heard of)....and rarely feel that the "reboot" is something to really get upset about.
I was introduced to TARZAN by the Weismuller films. He made 12 of them. The first six at MGM with a certain continuity and feel (basicly serious with humor thrown in). The last 6 at RKO with a different continuity and feel (lower budgets, less noteworthy supporting cast, less serious, more humor ect...) it was like a reboot, not as good (in my opinion) but still enjoyable. Then I discovered the 5 movie TARZAN series starring Lex Barker. A reboot with new Tarzan, Jane, and supporting cast. His son, named Boy, was now removed from the series and the series given an overall lighter tone. Then the next reboot with Gordon Scott. He made 6 movies which were all over the place. The first couple were serious fare where Tarzan was a loner getting into adventures, then the next 2 he now had Jane and Boy with him, and the last 2 he was again a loner in serious gritty films. This continued on with several actors making multiple Tarzan movies and a nice TV series and such. I have enjoyed all of them to some extent (even though after first discovering him in the movies, I then read the books and he is a totally different from anything filmed)....should I have given up on anything made after the Weismuller films? Afterall, I saw them first, they were originally my definative version....there were so many things I would have missed out on if I had given up.
The same with James Bond. I have seen every Bond movie at the theater on it's first run. Should I have never tried to watch Daniel Craig because I started with Sean Connery, and for years he was the best Bond you could imagine? There have been good and bad Bond films. They have made major changes in tone and content over the decades....but they are still worth going to see. He's changed over the years from spy, to gadget master, to gimmick of the moment guy, and now back to spy.
I won't even get into some of the other franchises I have watched over the decades like The Falcon, the Saint, Mr. Moto, the Mysterious Mr. Wong, Green Hornet, Superman, Batman, Captain America......
I have to question the "happiness" part. Anyone who excludes so many "fun" movies from their lives over petty reasons does not sound like a happy person.
To do something different. To do what actors like to do...act different parts with different motives and ambitions and reasons for doing things.
Why did you go see the first XMEN movie...they had no filmatic "history" for you to care about. To me.....you sound like you prefer to live in a time loop living the same thing over and over and over.....
I know some people who said the same thing about the recent STAR TREK movies...so they didn't see them...and they missed out on a really good time. I say this again as a giant STAR TREK fan who has been a fan of the franchise since I was introduced it on it's first run TV appearance back in the 60's. The history of the TREK I have loved for 46 some years is now changed/erased/evaporated....doesn't keep me from watching the old shows...doesn't keep me from watching the new shows. Doesn't keep me from loving STAR TREK.
Have you ever heard of a guy named SUPERMAN. There was a highly loved serial of the character made in the 40's. The story of his birth on Krypton and then coming to Earth and becoming a superpowered hero was told then. If people had thought like you did....then never would have been a six season run of a beloved Superman series in the 50's....or the beloved run of Chris Reeve Superman movies in the 70's and 80's....or any of the other multiple TV series and theatrical releases made about the character over the next few decades up to a recent hit movie about the character. Do you like BATMAN? Not Bale or Keaton or West or Kilmer or Clooney.....I'm talking about the first BATMAN, Lewis Wilson. He made a BATMAN serial back in 1943. There is no need to make any more Batman movies or TV shows...because he already did it. We don't need any reboots of the character. I sure hope you haven't watched any reboots of the character. As I think about it...your choices of comic book shows to watch is getting pretty thin....because most of the recent characters seen have been see before. You shouldn't watch the new THOR movie because THOR appeared in a HULK TV movie back in 1988....and of course DareDevil was in the 89' HULK TV movie, so he can't be watched again. Captain America....serial in the 40's, 2 TV movies in the 70's, limited theatrical release in the 90's....he's already been done 4 times, no need to see the new movie. Yep....things are getting slim.
At least you have the original XMEN DVDs you can watch......and rewatch.....and rewatch.....
Me....I try to watch all comic related movies ever made. But I'm an old grumpy man who has lost his sense of adventure and wonderment at new things....wait....who am I describing there......
I'm anti reboot too but only certain ones. Like rebooting Batman so soon is a no no for me. However Man of Steel makes sense because it's kind of the modern Superman. Singer wasn't doing Superman Returns Returns (which was a continuation of a 1970s series) so yeah we needed a reboot. which is why I'm anti Batman vs Superman, I think it should be Christian Bale. But that's because it's so close to TDK films.
Reboots like Casino Royale and Batman Begins are necessary because they were so so drastically different from what came before and closer to the source material so it was okay. This new Terminator reboot sounds ridiculous to me though. Because it's not taking something from a book or comic it's rebooting a movie. Though if they rebooted X-Men completely I'd be pretty upset because I like the actors and the tone and everything, which is why I like the idea of altering history. It's not like it's a foreign concept in X-Men lore, it happens all the damn time. So this isn't something out of left field. There are still stories to tell with these actors and characters.
And I'm a huge Star Trek fan. My reason for not liking Star Trek 09 wasn't exactly because it was a reboot of sorts...I just didn't like the movie. However Into Darkness I loved because it felt more like Star Trek and started reintroducing things from the shows. I still don't think it beats DS9 as far as darkness, action or characters so it doesn't matter to me... what bothers me most about it are the people who think it's the only good Star Trek because it's more moderny. That angers me. People need an excuse to get geeky so they wait for the modern movie adaptations instead of getting into the serious ****.
I just can't understand his mentality on this topic. A lot of films that I love are being remade but I'll still give them a chance. I loooove the original Dawn of the Dead and surprisingly found the remake to be pretty good as an example. Hell, some remakes turn out to be better than the original at times.
And that's the the thing - reboot doesn't automatically mean better. You can like them or hate them.
But you can't proclaim they're all terrible when you refuse to see any of them.
When I was little, Batman was Adam West, on TV in reruns. When I was in high school, he was Michael Keaton. In college, he was Val Kilmer and George Clooney. After that, he was Christian Bale, and in a few years he's going to be Ben Affleck.
And I've seen all of those movies. Some have been awful (looking at you, Batman & Robin), some have been great (hi, Batman Begins!), and I look forward to the next take on the character.
^ I would be excited for a new Batman if they let Christian Bale's era sit and breathe a little. They were already planning the reboot while making TDKR... when it gets to that point I can't exactly see it as anything other than "make as many movies as you can, we need to sell sell sell until every possible story has been told and everyone hates it now".
But X-Men being altered by time travel shouldn't be considered a reboot. By that logic, Back to the Future was rebooted 4 or 5 times in three movies.
This is going to be ignorant of me but I'm going to assume Nell got his first taste of the X-men from the movies. For those of us who grew up reading the comics, there are so many stories to tell that I actually look forward to a new series. Especially a new cast since I didn't like every portrayal in these films. Not because I'm some pretentious comic fan but I didn't like a few of the performances, lik Berry's Storm for example. Jackman is a lot taller than comic Wolverine but I didn't care because he is great in that role.
I'm looking forward to the remake of Annie next year. That was the very first musical I ever obsessed over as a kid - I still have the record and I own the movie on blu-ray.
But that movie is over 30 years old now. I saw the revival on Broadway this year, and I still love it...but it's dated. I'm hoping the updated version is great, and if it entertains a new generation of little girls the way me and my friends loved it as kids, then bring it on.
I can't speak for anyone else but when I talk about rebooting the series, I don't mean right after Days of Future Past. If they want to make one more film with the OT cast, I'm all for it. I just think they should reboot the series a ways down the line.
Wow, I haven't seen the Annie movie in a long time. You now just got the "sun will come out tomorrow" song stuck in my head. Hahaha
You're right. That is ignorant. And couldn't be further from the truth.
I've been an X-Men fan my entire life, and my entire childhood couldn't wait until an X-Men movie was made. When it finally came out in 2000, that made my life pretty much.
No, my first taste of the X-Men came from the '90's animated series when I was a kid. And then after that, I started collecting as many toys, cards, and comics as I could of the X-Men.
My fandom expanded around the time the movie came out, because by that point, I was old enough to have my own money and go out and buy a lot of back comics on my own, and really build a collection that I wasn't able to amass as a kid, but my first taste of the X-Men came from the cartoons and comics.
I don't think these movies are perfect. FAR from it. I prefer the movie medium over the comic medium, but I was speaking with my friend the other night about it, and going through and analyzing just how much when it comes down to it I do like the comics versions of the characters better than the movie versions, outside of a couple exceptions. In a lot of ways, I do prefer the film takes on particular stories (example: I prefer Dark Phoenix as a split personality rather than a cosmic entity), but I am an X-Men fan from well before the movies.
For C. Lee tossing out all of those obscure references, I have stated plenty of times that there are exceptions to every rule. Batman, which is probably America's biggest superhero in pop culture, and had (what I consider to be) 4 bad movies coming in, needed a presence during this comic book movie boom. Same goes for Superman. In the case of Superman, it had been something like 30 years since the original series with Christopher Reeves. Much different than pulling a Spiderman and rebooting it 4 years later, or what's being proposed with X-Men and rebooting it right in the middle of it's run. And I still hardly consider Casino Royale a "reboot". It was nothing more than a recasting, which has been done throughout the entirety of the franchise's run.
No, here's how I look at it. I can probably count on both hands the number of film franchises that have reached X-Men's longevity, in terms of installments (7). Bond, Star Trek, Star Wars (once the new trilogy begins), Harry Potter, bad horror movie franchises like Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday The 13th, Avengers (if you count that as one franchise), Batman, and that's all I can think of at the moment but I'm sure I'm blanking on a couple.
What I'm trying to say is - film series' come to an end. And that's OKAY. It is okay for things to come to an end. And I feel it's a sense of entitlement when people run around acting like they are OWED all these different versions of different characters. While some say they can't wait for new takes, I say I'd rather see NEW ideas and NEW stories being told.
C. Lee rattled off some old timey films from the 40's. That's obviously much different than rebooting a series in 2015 that started in 2000. Film making is much different today than in was in 1940. It was an entire generation ago of people who aren't even ALIVE today. Want to reboot X-Men in 30 years, when I'm 60 (to answer your other question, Lee, I'm 30), then that's a whole different story than rebooting it in 2020 only 6 years after Days Of Future Past.
But while people talk about new takes on the same stories, I also say I don't need to see the same stories redone over and over again. Back To The Future, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, The Godfather, RoboCop, Terminator, Lord Of The Rings, X-Men, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, E.T., Jurassic Park, I mean I can list movies until I'm out of breathe. Do we need to see these all again? They were incredible the first time around, and there's a reason for that. These movies captured levels of magic that won't be replicated. But the argument for reboots says we should just focus on remaking all of these movies because hey, we can have a new take and introduce them to a new audience!
If you want to introduce them to a new audience, then SHOW your E.T. DVD to your kids. Don't remake it and lose the magic of the original. There's a reason why these movies are wonderful, and someone coming in with a "new take" is not going to recapture that.
People keep throwing the words "necessary" around when it comes to superhero adaptions. I think they're thinking in the wrong terms. None of this stuff is "necessary". It's whether it's wanted and there's value to it as a piece of art and mythology exploration and cultural significance that should matter.
As far as "reboots" go, I think we'll see one more film designed to directly tie the FIRST CLASS and OT universes together before we get anywhere near that point.
And we may just see a quasi-reboot based on that film, with a new "first class" of sorts, a new cast in terms of Xavier and Magneto (maybe, a lot depends on the trajectory of McAvoy and Fassbender's careers and whether they want to stay on), and stories about the fledgling X-Men we know: Cyclops, Jean, Storm, etc, with some additional characters we haven't seen spotlighted yet.
I've had "You're Never Fully Dressed Without a Smile" stuck in my head since writing that. We could start a singalong.
I believe some classics shouldn't be touched, but it's ridiculous to claim that any new take on past films won't live up to the original, or recapture the magic. Um...maybe for little kids a remake would give them that same feeling we had when we were young and saw the original, in this case, E.T. for example. Once again, it is very possible for a remake to possibly surpass the original, it's stubborn people that want to turn on their blinders to that possibility. It reeks of something similar to the "Michael Bay raped my childhood" comments.
and on another note no I do not think these movies or this cast are perfect. I may have a higher opinion of this series than most here especially because I like X Men 3 & X Men Origins Wolverine, but this series is far from perfect and far from ideal in what I'd want from an X Men movie series.
I hate that Cyclops was killed I hate that rogue was cured I hate adamantium bullets I hate that Cyclops wasn't the first x-men, I don't like Halle Berry as Storm and I don't believe we ever got a proper Iceman. the list goes on and on of things that I think we're done wrong with this franchise.
but while there are so many things that I hate about it I also think that overall it was done really well and probably about as good as could be expected and I also recognize that any reboot is only going to come with problems of its own and is it going to be perfect either.
Cyclops dying didn't ruin X Men 3 for me and if the rumored ending is true it won't ruin Days of Future Past for me but just like X Men 3 is tainted Days of Future Past will also be tainted if this ending is true. and throwing everything away for a reboots will be such a waste of this cast and these great stories that have been told even if there were a couple mishaps along the way. and I would hate to see it all thrown away like nothing with a done such a great job up to this point and still have many places they can go with it.
That's not true AT ALL in my neck of the woods. None of my friends (nor my parents for that matter) are X-junkies like me, and they are way more excited for DOFP than the last three films because of the original cast coming back. They all seem to agree that FOX shouldn't do anymore prequels.
I certainly don't speak for everyone, but there certainly are general filmgoers clamoring for the return of the OT cast.
yeah... from what i've gathered... more people still like the OT cast over First Class... outside these fanboy bubbles First Class really isn't anywhere near as popularly celebrated as the OT films...
I'm one of those who welcome the element of "fixing stuff" via the time-travel story. If I was like Nell and liked X3 a lot, I could have a different mentality, I get that. Nevertheless, if it's done well and done with style, I can easily think of it as not just means to "fix" things, because everything that happened has lead to this. As long as the movie doesn't pretend X never happened, I'm fine with the concept.
And yes, I'd like to see Scott and Jean alive. I'd like to see Phoenix get another shot. Even if both would get killed again. And I realize that it would be somewhat cheap if that happens. I can only hope that whatever happens, it's done with a certain amount of respect. I trust Singer with this, but we'll see what happens.
As for the reboots in general, I'm usually pretty grumpy about them. I'm one of those throwing the word "unnecessary" around. If the movie happens to be good, like I thought TASM was, I'm back on board. If the movie happens to be a useless piece of foreskin without a soul like the new Total Recall, I'll continue to be a grumpy old bastard about it.
That's because McKellan and Stewart are the backbone of the franchise. Had you just brought back Wolverine, it would have come across as a Wolverine 3. If you just brought back a handful of OT actors, it would be a nice throwback, but forgettable. Getting the original Mags/Xavier back is what seals the deal as this epic reunion that is DoFP. Other than that, Jean/Cyke are dead from a GA standpoint and Berry isn't that popular anymore. Neither is Ashmore or Cudmore or Paquin and Page.
Without that glue, there is no X-Men. This continuity and timeline isn't even worth discussing and this series, or set of X-Men films, is for all intensive purposes, over. Sure they can continue with a FC 3 and bridge the two time periods. Will it be as popular as DoFP? No. No matter what storyline they do in the 70's and 80's, it's not going to top it. Moreso do to the fact that you are limited with what you can do then (X-Men are still kids, and it's too early to bring in a force like Apocalypse or future Sentinel models), but much so because it cannot match the epicness of the future segments in DoFP.
That's why they don't have a choice BUT to retell in the new timeline. They may add some stories to expand on the Singer continuity and timeline, so I disagree that we may see an end of the original timeline all together. I believe this to be the case so that they can "buy time" before rebooting. But any continuity adhered to will likely be pre-1973 if at all.
FC compared to a trilogy is something you can't compare, at least not yet, but yeah stewart,mckellen and jackman are the ones that stand out to audiences in the OT, infact i think mckellen and stewart are the actors i'm looking forward to seeing most in the OT
They would hardly be "limited" if they stuck to the 70's or 80's. They'd only be limited by their own imaginations as there are plenty of opportunities.
Not to mention, being in those timeframes would certainly give the movie character and help it stand out from the plethora of other modern day superhero stories out there. First Class being set in the 60's with the whole James Bond vibe was one of the biggest highlights for me. It was fun, unique and nostalgic.
I don't see how their ages limited them either. The team was relatively young in the comics when they went on their first mission(s) against Magneto himself in addition to the Brotherhood and other formidable villains.
I agree with all of this.