Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'X-Men: Dark Phoenix' started by Supperhero, Jun 21, 2019.
The mutants in X1-X3 were also cinematic mutants. This is excuse is 100% pure bullcrap.
In the original timeline? Not quite. "X-Men Origins" features a 18 years old Scott/Cyclops. "Origins" is set inbetween 1979 and 1983. "X-Men" 1 is set in 2004. Cyclops looks younger in X1, isn't it? I guess so.
Said that, if you pretend that there are ONLY 2 timelines, then Jean Grey is born in 1967. In 2004 (X-Men 1), she was supposed to be 37.
OR MAYBE, we can pretend that for the First Class universe, if you consider First Class as an alternate universe.
They look the proper age in X1. So once again, try and rationalize this anyway you want, it is 100% Grade A bullcrap.
Your opinions. I respect that.
I don't agree and I think you're wrong.
OKay but you’re just making stuff up to justify something that the filmmakers did not think about.
There’s really not that much behind this. They simply just didn’t bring it into account.
Personally, I’m indifferent about it, but you can’t say that there is some sort of intellectual reasoning behind it. There isn’t. If there was a reason for it, it would have been brought up in the films.
These characters are still meant to be the characters from the original films, regardless of what timeline they’re in.
None of this matters anymore.
This version of the X-Men is done. It was a good 19 years. I can honestly say that I've watched every X-Men movie on Theater. Every single movie. I remember like it was yesterday going out to go see X-Men (2000) in theater. Hope I live long enough to see what Marvel will do with the X-Men from now on.
I think it matters in the films how Beast in over the course of 30 years still looks like he's 25.
Gotta love Kinberg's producer-speak. He can spin anything. In one breath he'll admit his film didn't connect, and in another he'll say the baffling continuity hasn't "been a problem for the audience."
Just like he admitted "this one's on me" but then proceeded to enumerate all the other factors that contributed to the film's demise. What we call scapegoating. But don't get it twisted. This one's on him. He's so selfless, you guys.
yes, kinberg is the guy you wanna have in your corner. lmao.
Maybe Disney could reward him for his brilliant work by sending some shining letters of recommendation to, oh. . . Warner Brothers. *eg*
Well thank you Captain Obvious.
Also what was the point of this movie being in the 90s? There was not even a single remote reference to the time period. I don't even remember seeing the Nirvana t-shirt.
This film could have easily taken place right after Apocalypse. The space shuttle existed then too.
This is the real problem imho. First Class and DOFP were fairly realistic with how the characters aged. The DOFP versions of Erik and Charles, in particular, looked quite a bit older than in First Class. But why not have Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix set much shorter after the ending of DOFP? All it would've changed in Apocalypse is the clothes and hairstyle and I don't think there would've been any differences in Dark Phoenix.
And in case anyone forgets that, there's 1987. A key date to remember when the Challenger blew up.
After that tragedy, there were far fewer space shuttle launches for years. So it would be less likely we'd space shuttles in the 90s of all decades.
Maybe because... the Endeavour Shuttle is true history?
Space Shuttle Endeavour - Wikipedia
The stories of First Class and DOFP were tied to important historical events. The Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam War respectively.
Apocalypse also dealt with the Cold War and nuclear weapons which were big issues on the 80s. Plus it fed off 80s nostalgia which is popular right now.
But Dark Phoenix was a personal story that had absolutely nothing to do with any wider events. If it didn't have that 1992 title card at the beginning it would have made absolutely no difference.
I have no idea what your point is.
The Space Shuttle program began in 1981 and there were 4 flights in 1983 and 5 in 1984.
There was nothing special about Endeavor that would require them to jump to 1992.
I’m guessing they jumped a decade mainly because it became a prequel series gimmick. Like, I get why they did it in DoFP and even in Apocalypse (so they could bring in an age-appropriate Jean/Scott/Storm/Kurt,) but DPh? It just created more problems than anything else. There was almost nothing tying the film to the 90’s aside from time-appropriate TVs and cars.
It was a true history fact nonetheless and it was cool.
Uhhh, OK. You obviously don't understand what the point is which is that there was no reason for them to jump to the 90s since they didn't make use of any historical event from that decade.
More void and empty talk.
Space Shuttle Endeavour - Wikipedia
The 1992 setting was just cool and it also means that the X-Men became accomplished superheroes in a long span of 9 years.
I'm going to have to assume that English is not your first language and you are having miscommunication problems so I'll leave it there.
Well, it looks like Kinberg was right all along...
I mean, now we TRULY know why Moira ages slowly and better like any other cinematic mutant... LOL.
Just read "House of X".
She was never established to be a mutant in the film universe and they even poke fun at her lack of aging in Apocalypse because it’s ridiculous. And what explains Xavier, Magneto, Havok and Quicksilver? Just because they’re all mutants doesn’t mean they age more slowly (and subsequently rapidly when they get to the original trilogy.) Why try to make sense of it anymore? This series of films is dead. Or are you going to “fill in the blanks” to connect it all to the MCU’s version of the X-Men, too?