Days of Future Past No Cyclops; Reaction Thread

[Squidboy]

I don't see Darwin and Havok being founders of the team, and considering the movie's called First Class, it leads me to believe that they're Xavier's first students.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I really don't think Cyclops works cinematically. I mean, his eyes are always closed. The greatest tool an actor has in his/her disposal. Why do you think Spider-man has to constantly remove his mask?

 

[Squidboy]

I think Marsden did fine with what he had - he was able to deliver the lines and emotion with that handicap, and he got a little bit of flexibility between his visor and the ruby sunglasses. I didn't need to see his eyes at the end of X2 to know that the character was hurting, so while the eye argument might be true in some cases, there are always ways around it. Look at Huge Weaving as 'V', we never saw his face, but he played the role brilliantly and he got people to really care about this character he brought to life.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Cyclops' glasses don't need to obscure his eyes as much as they did in X1-X3. The Cyclops glasses in Wolverine still let you see his eyes and I think a good enough actor could work with that.

V is a good example too. A great actor can work through an entire face mask, not just a visor or dark glasses.

 

[TheWatcher]

I had the same reaction until I found out the story. My only concerns now are with quality and continuity to the other films.

We might get first class , second class , third class and if that's the case we need Cyclops next time.

Agreed.

 

[Squidboy]

I think the discrepancy between the Wolverine version of Cyke, and the X-Men 1 version is that he went from using his own pair of glasses to one that was probably designed specifically for him. Essentially he went from using a dollar store pair of glasses to something Xavier had made to negate the effect of his powers.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I still think its ridiculous that Cyclops started wearing the one type of lens in the planet that could block his optic blasts out of sheer coincidence.

 

[Panthro]

I still think its ridiculous that Cyclops started wearing the one type of lens in the planet that could block his optic blasts out of sheer coincidence.

There were a lot of ridiculous things in that movie.

 

[MilkmanDan]

I still think its ridiculous that Cyclops started wearing the one type of lens in the planet that could block his optic blasts out of sheer coincidence.

I know. How hard would it have been to make Scott a "blind" homeless teenager or, say, make Stryker's experiments the cause of his inability to control his powers? I know it was just a small cameo, but that really was inexcusably lazy of them.

 

[Deaths Head II]

The theory running around these forums was that he had run into Sinister beforehand and he had given him the glasses. That would have made more sense. But of course that was back when rumors were circulating that Wolverine would have Sinister cameo due the appearance of Cyclops and Gambit and the set up for the original concept of First Class.

 

[Squidboy]

I'm pretty sure the only reason he had the glasses was so people knew who he was to begin with. His powers could've easily emerged because of the stress of being hunted by Sabretooth, but then we would've had five minutes or so of general moviegoers asking around "Who is that supposed to be? Is it Cyclops? Where are his glasses?", so they just cut to the chase.

 

[Manic X]

You guys forget that it was xmen origins: wolverine. NOT cyclops. They didn't have to explain where he got the glasses. We didn't see Gambit's origins of his powers either.

 

[Squidboy]

He obviously got those playing cards from Apocalypse, though. We see all four aces, which have what letter on them? A? Coincidence? I think knot!

 

[Deaths Head II]

I'm pretty sure the only reason he had the glasses was so people knew who he was to begin with. His powers could've easily emerged because of the stress of being hunted by Sabretooth, but then we would've had five minutes or so of general moviegoers asking around "Who is that supposed to be? Is it Cyclops? Where are his glasses?", so they just cut to the chase.

That explains why they did it, not why it makes sense within the plot.

You guys forget that it was xmen origins: wolverine. NOT cyclops. They didn't have to explain where he got the glasses. We didn't see Gambit's origins of his powers either.

If you're going to have a cameo, at least have it make sense. Cyclops' cameo was a stretch to begin with.

 

[Squidboy]

Scott had a headache, which some people wear sunglasses inside to counteract. It just so happened that red-tinted lenses helped his specific headache the best, so when he discovered that, he stuck with it.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Fine, I'll accept that.

 

[Squidboy]

Yeah, I'm not saying that's the real rationale, but the way my brain works is that if something is so obviously tacked on for a story's sake, I have to make up a realistic reason to make things work out for the story's continuity. The adamantium bullet, though, I still can't wrap my head around that issue.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I must admit i'm a bit gutted Cyclops isnt in this because it may have finally been time for the character to shine, but with the story and timeline they are going for it makes sense I suppose.

If Singer and Vaughn have a good reason for him not to be there i'm perfectly happy with that.

 

[Squidboy]

Yeah, at first it was bizarre not to have Cyclops (and it still kinda is), but I'm trusting everyone involved to make the right call for their story. If the movie does well, maybe the missing characters can get the star treatment in a sequel. And if Ghost Rider can get a sequel, I'm thinking it's not entirely impossible for this movie to bomb and still get a second shot.

 

[X-Maniac]

Yeah, at first it was bizarre not to have Cyclops (and it still kinda is), but I'm trusting everyone involved to make the right call for their story. If the movie does well, maybe the missing characters can get the star treatment in a sequel. And if Ghost Rider can get a sequel, I'm thinking it's not entirely impossible for this movie to bomb and still get a second shot.

Yes, that sounds logical...rare though that is on here!

 

[Panthro]

Yeah, at first it was bizarre not to have Cyclops (and it still kinda is), but I'm trusting everyone involved to make the right call for their story. If the movie does well, maybe the missing characters can get the star treatment in a sequel. And if Ghost Rider can get a sequel, I'm thinking it's not entirely impossible for this movie to bomb and still get a second shot.

At this point I'm guessing that even if the X-Men films stop making good money for Fox, Fox will still churn them out anyway just so they can hold on to the rights.

 

[Deaths Head II]

At this point I'm guessing that even if the X-Men films stop making good money for Fox, Fox will still churn them out anyway just so they can hold on to the rights.

Or they'll sit on them for a while and make up nonsense claims about making a reboot like they're doing with Daredevil and Fantastic Four.

 

[X-Maniac]

At this point I'm guessing that even if the X-Men films stop making good money for Fox, Fox will still churn them out anyway just so they can hold on to the rights.

Fox isn't trying to make a bad X-Men movie, nor is it trying to make fanboys melt down over their keyboards.

But some things end up working well, some less so. That applies to all studios and all adaptations. Warner Bros has had a mixed record with Superman and Batman, for example, and let's not mention Catwoman.

The first X-Men was made at a risky time before superhero movies were so mainstream, and as a result the franchise has stumbled along without a confident gameplan. In my view, it's held together pretty well considering.

But you are right that Fox will no doubt hold on to the franchise. It's shown it wants to do that by bringing Singer back into the fold.

 

[Panthro]

Or they'll sit on them for a while and make up nonsense claims about making a reboot like they're doing with Daredevil and Fantastic Four.

Yeah, or that. Letting the franchise rest for a few years and then doing a reboot might not be such a bad idea though.

Fox isn't trying to make a bad X-Men movie, nor is it trying to make fanboys melt down over their keyboards.

But some things end up working well, some less so. That applies to all studios and all adaptations. Warner Bros has had a mixed record with Superman and Batman, for example, and let's not mention Catwoman.

The first X-Men was made at a risky time before superhero movies were so mainstream, and as a result the franchise has stumbled along without a confident gameplan. In my view, it's held together pretty well considering.

But you are right that Fox will no doubt hold on to the franchise. It's shown it wants to do that by bringing Singer back into the fold.

I certainly don't think Fox is making intentional poor X-Men films, but sometimes you look at the decisions they make and it's hard not to scratch your head and go "What were they thinking?"

 

[FaT_tONle]

At this point I'm guessing that even if the X-Men films stop making good money for Fox, Fox will still churn them out anyway just so they can hold on to the rights.

They won't hold on to it if it stops being profitable. Why would that make sense from a business end? That's why if this movie flops, which I think it will, the watch will be on. It's unfortunate that it's the only major property that actually brings in money for them, even though it's a marginal prfit relative to some other blockbusters.