Days of Future Past Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellen Return for Days of Future Past

[M-2]

This looks amazing. That is some excellent work. Could you do one set in the future. that is if your taking requests. I love it looks amazing
I didn't realise how much I've missed Ian mckellen and Patrick Stewart. They're castings were truly inspired and I love the chemistry between the two. can't wait for X-Men Days of Future Past

Still getting the hang of Photoshop hey, only had for less then a month and i dont really get time to play around with it. I wanted to do a Manip set in the future but never really found the right pics for i wanted to do. So i made this one, thats sort of an amalgamation of Past, Future and Present.

Hope you like it:

Click Here for Larger image

 

[NanaT]

Still getting the hang of Photoshop hey, only had for less then a month and i dont really get time to play around with it. I wanted to do a Manip set in the future but never really found the right pics for i wanted to do. So i made this one, thats sort of an amalgamation of Past, Future and Present.

Hope you like it:

Click Here for Larger image

It looks incredible. I love the backdrop and the colours. And I think the X-Men logo looks really, really good. Wow I cannot wait for DoFP and I hope this time when it comes to promo posters they get much better people to create really epic posters. I mean the work I see on here looks so much better than the promo posters for First Class. Anyways great manip!

 

[danoyse]

I saw both Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart at the premiere for The Hobbit in NY tonight. t:

 

[psylockolussus]

The Wolverine could easily be in "2008" or so and Days of future in 2014.

Taking into account X3 could have been between 2004-2006.

The easiest route for this is the original trilogy was set in the 00s and Wolverine/Days of Future Past in the 10s.

 

[The Infernal]

I saw both Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart at the premiere for The Hobbit in NY tonight. t:

Nice. I once went to see Stewart's one man play version of 'A Christmas Carol'. Very good (even if I was in the cheap seats), he's quite different on stage to most of the film roles I've seen him in.

 

[blueserenity]

I think James looks a lot like the young McKellen photos I've seen, and he looks nothing like young Patrick Stewart, so I don't disagree completely. But I think that James' personality and ideals are much closer to Professor X, so it was a wise choice.

So what you're trying to say is that James McAvoy shameless flirt and partyboy who settles down to be a teacher, is a little arrogant in his methods, but wants to help the world understand that mutants and humans can coexist? Meanwhile Michael Fassbender is a serious, tragedy-ravaged man who picks the wrong team and isn't above killing people to get the job done and to ensure mutants are safe from humans?

Just because you've seen every interview a hundred times or bumped into them on the street does not mean you truly know an actor; they show us the sides they want us to see. Similarly, just because you hate one of them does not magically cause his ideals to be more in line with the "villain", or less in line with the "hero". And either way, who actors are when the cameras aren't rolling should have absolutely no bearing on their roles. And will never be something that dictates their fame.

Year 2016.

not so far from actual release date, so the actors dont have to look older than their current look

I don't think that's far enough. We need to be able to suspend disbelief and 2 years doesn't quite do it. But the benefit of only having used dates in the past (1962, 1944) is that they never need to specify when the future is. They can continue their habit of displaying "not too distant future" and the audience can make up their own minds about when it takes place. They'll need to be vague if they're bringing characters back from the dead. I do hope we don't see any of them back from the dead beyond Professor X though. If characters who die keep getting revived, there won't really be any severity to seeing them get killed by sentinels. "Oh it doesn't matter, they'll just pop up in the next movie safe and sound".

 

[Loganbabe]

Similarly, just because you hate one of them does not magically cause his ideals to be more in line with the "villain", or less in line with the "hero". And either way, who actors are when the cameras aren't rolling should have absolutely no bearing on their roles. And will never be something that dictates their fame.

Congratulations, you've just came up with the longest, most boring, pretentious phychological analysis of a simple, typical discussion forum comment. All the awards, you win them.

 

[danoyse]

Nice. I once went to see Stewart's one man play version of 'A Christmas Carol'. Very good (even if I was in the cheap seats), he's quite different on stage to most of the film roles I've seen him in.

I would have loved to have seen that! I'd love to see either of them on stage, actually. Did you see McKellen on SNL a few years back when he spoofed Stewart playing all of the roles in A Christmas Carol? It was hilarious.

 

[danoyse]

So what you're trying to say is that James McAvoy shameless flirt and partyboy who settles down to be a teacher, is a little arrogant in his methods, but wants to help the world understand that mutants and humans can coexist? Meanwhile Michael Fassbender is a serious, tragedy-ravaged man who picks the wrong team and isn't above killing people to get the job done and to ensure mutants are safe from humans?

Just because you've seen every interview a hundred times or bumped into them on the street does not mean you truly know an actor; they show us the sides they want us to see. Similarly, just because you hate one of them does not magically cause his ideals to be more in line with the "villain", or less in line with the "hero". And either way, who actors are when the cameras aren't rolling should have absolutely no bearing on their roles. And will never be something that dictates their fame.

I don't think that's far enough. We need to be able to suspend disbelief and 2 years doesn't quite do it. But the benefit of only having used dates in the past (1962, 1944) is that they never need to specify when the future is. They can continue their habit of displaying "not too distant future" and the audience can make up their own minds about when it takes place. They'll need to be vague if they're bringing characters back from the dead. I do hope we don't see any of them back from the dead beyond Professor X though. If characters who die keep getting revived, there won't really be any severity to seeing them get killed by sentinels. "Oh it doesn't matter, they'll just pop up in the next movie safe and sound".

Congratulations, you've just came up with the longest, most boring, pretentious phychological analysis of a simple, typical discussion forum comment. All the awards, you win them.

Discuss the movie without sniping at each other, or don't discuss the movie with each other at all.

 

[Angamb]

If characters who die keep getting revived, there won't really be any severity to seeing them get killed by sentinels. "Oh it doesn't matter, they'll just pop up in the next movie safe and sound".

I definetly agree with that.

Jean was Phoenix, and one resurrection was fine, but twice would be too much already, because none will care about her dead then.

Life is tragic and certain actions have consequences, and human being dont have other option than to deal with the death. The x-men movies, even if they are **************s, should adress that too. The X-men have to keep moving after the deaths of loved friends. But if those friends keep coming back, there wont be any dramatic sense anymore.

 

[psylockolussus]

They'll need to be vague if they're bringing characters back from the dead. I do hope we don't see any of them back from the dead beyond Professor X though. If characters who die keep getting revived, there won't really be any severity to seeing them get killed by sentinels. "Oh it doesn't matter, they'll just pop up in the next movie safe and sound".

I agree with that. Thats why I don't want all of the characters who died in X3 to come back in this big movie. Their death in X3 would just look really pointless and people wouldn't care anymore if they die again. Thats why I don't want Jean Grey and Cyclops to comeback. I also didn't want Professor X to comeback (even if his mind moved into a different body) but Bryan Singer already announced that he is coming back.

 

[Mrs Vimes]

Also, I wonder how many casual viewers actually remember the bit about Professor X coming back in a different body at the end of X3 anyway? That was just a post-credits sequence right? So if you didn't keep watching until then you'd basically have no clue.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

With the time travel premise they could in theory do whatever they want with the timeline of this movie and ignore X3 completely, and I would be fine with it.

 

[M-2]

Also, I wonder how many casual viewers actually remember the bit about Professor X coming back in a different body at the end of X3 anyway? That was just a post-credits sequence right? So if you didn't keep watching until then you'd basically have no clue.

I only learned about that post-credit scene a couple years back, I left the cinema as soon as the film ended and never watched it again, I was upset!!

 

[blueserenity]

I only learned about that post-credit scene a couple years back, I left the cinema as soon as the film ended and never watched it again, I was upset!!

Yup exactly, I was the same way and had to find out through the internetz about the Charles thing.

I do hope Bryan keeps X3 in canon, awful as it is, so audiences don't have to play more mental connect-the-dots (which is how I spent 95% of my time watching Superman Returns). But at the same time I hope he keeps the post-credits scene OUT of canon. Not many people saw it and it's too out of character to leave in anyway.

 

[X-Maniac]

Also, I wonder how many casual viewers actually remember the bit about Professor X coming back in a different body at the end of X3 anyway? That was just a post-credits sequence right? So if you didn't keep watching until then you'd basically have no clue.

Well, all the indications are that Patrick Stewart is back as Xavier, so how on earth are they going to handle that? An alternate future? If so, then Cyclops and Jean could be back too. It would seem odd to have an alternate future and only bring back Patrick Stewart's Xavier.

 

[psylockolussus]

I do hope Bryan keeps X3 in canon, awful as it is, so audiences don't have to play more mental connect-the-dots (which is how I spent 95% of my time watching Superman Returns).

LOL! t: I hope he doesn't repeat what he did on Superman Returns, because if DOFP turned out to be a not-so-great movie because of trying to ignore the bad films and trying to make the movie a homage sequel to the first two movies then it would be like, he didn't learn anything from the mistake that he did with Superman Returns.

I think if the 2006 Superman film was a reboot, it would have been more successful. People wouldn't be confused and have a reaction like "what? is this a sequel for Superman II, a movie that was released more than 20 years ago?". It would have given the movie a clean slate.

 

[The Infernal]

I would have loved to have seen that! I'd love to see either of them on stage, actually. Did you see McKellen on SNL a few years back when he spoofed Stewart playing all of the roles in A Christmas Carol? It was hilarious.

No, I didn't see that, sadly. I'm not sure we get SNL in the UK anymore. I'd have loved to have seen that.

 

[blueserenity]

LOL! t: I hope he doesn't repeat what he did on Superman Returns, because if DOFP turned out to be a not-so-great movie because of trying to ignore the bad films and trying to make the movie a homage sequel to the first two movies then it would be like, he didn't learn anything from the mistake that he did with Superman Returns.

I think if the 2006 Superman film was a reboot, it would have been more successful. People wouldn't be confused and have a reaction like "what? is this a sequel for Superman II, a movie that was released more than 20 years ago?". It would have given the movie a clean slate.

It would have had to have been a very different film if it was a reboot, I think. I went in thinking it was a whole new film with a couple of nods to the old movies so I was very confused as to how Lois got pregnant considering she didn't seem to even LIKE Clark or Superman let alone know they were the same person.... and if it was a sequel to SII, didn't she lose her memory of everything with the SuperKiss? So how would she remember sleeping with Superman but conveniently forgetting the part where he told her who he was.... aughh that movie.

 

[psylockolussus]

Superman Returns was a confusing film. And I think X-Men Days of Future Past would be confusing too if they bring up alternate universes or if they ignore X3 or if they make DOFP post-X2. So I think the best thing is to include X3 in the continuity. And I don't think its really that hard to build a story after X3.

 

[Mrs Vimes]

Well, all the indications are that Patrick Stewart is back as Xavier, so how on earth are they going to handle that? An alternate future? If so, then Cyclops and Jean could be back too. It would seem odd to have an alternate future and only bring back Patrick Stewart's Xavier.

I do think that the dystopian future will be an alternate timeline rather than a "sequel" to X3 or X2, especially since Singer actually mentioned an alternate timeline in an interview. So yeah, Cyclops and Jean could be in it.

As far as continuity issues go, if you take a view that this dystopian future is an aberration that should never have existed and should never have been a part of continuity in the first place, then it would in essence only exist for the sake of this one film. IMO you run into way, way many more problems and confusion if you try to somehow fit in the dystopian future into the same timeline with X1-X3.

 

[Cherry]

I do think that the dystopian future will be an alternate timeline rather than a "sequel" to X3 or X2, especially since Singer actually mentioned an alternate timeline in an interview. So yeah, Cyclops and Jean could be in it.

As far as continuity issues go, if you take a view that this dystopian future is an aberration that should never have existed and should never have been a part of continuity in the first place, then it would in essence only exist for the sake of this one film. IMO you run into way, way many more problems and confusion if you try to somehow fit in the dystopian future into the same timeline with X1-X3.

If that's the case, what is the point of doing The Wolverine as a sequel to X3 and leading into DOFP? Why bring back the X1-3 timeline as a lead-in to DOFP and not follow up on it? Do we just randomly retcon The Wolverine too once DOFP starts?

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

nvmd, wat was it anyway

 

[psylockolussus]

If that's the case, what is the point of doing The Wolverine as a sequel to X3 and leading into DOFP? Why bring back the X1-3 timeline as a lead-in to DOFP and not follow up on it? Do we just randomly retcon The Wolverine too once DOFP starts?

The Wolverine as a sequel to X3? Wolverine is the only major character in The Wolverine movie that came from X3. Jean Grey's role there is merely a cameo. So sequel isn't right word for it, but a spin-off.

 

[Cherry]

Regardless, we've been told it follows after X3, thus continuing that timeline. And it is still a setup for DOFP. I don't see why the term you use for it changes that? Are we using The Wolverine to set up that storyline but completely disregarding it two seconds later?