Days of Future Past Should DOFP be used to reboot the X-Men franchise?

[DigificWriter]

Oh okay.

But isn't there physical time travel in DOFP?

No; it's all mental/psychic.... at least as far as I know.

Time travel in the Star Trek universe works because of the 'multiverse principle', and it is that same principle that allowed Abrams and Co. to tell the story they told and reboot/revitalize the franchise in the manner they did.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Would Fox do their X-Men timeline like Universal does with the Fast and Furious?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No; it's all mental/psychic.... at least as far as I know.

Time travel in the Star Trek universe works because of the 'multiverse principle', and it is that same principle that allowed Abrams and Co. to tell the story they told and reboot/revitalize the franchise in the manner they did.

But if Wolverine succeeds in changing the future won't he create a new timeline/universe just as it was done in ST (09)?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Would Fox do their X-Men timeline like Universal does with the Fast and Furious?

How does Universal do it?

 

[Dr. Evil]

How does Universal do it?

They do it in this order based on storylines of the film and not year of release:

1. The Fast and the Furious (2001)
2. 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
3. Fast Five (2009)
4. Fast and Furious (2011)
5. Fast and Furious 6 (2013)
6. Tokyo Drift (2006)
7. Fast and Furious 7 (2014)

Maybe Fox can do the same with the X-Men timeline based on the storylines of the films?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

They do it in this order based on storylines of the film and not year of release:

1. The Fast and the Furious (2001)
2. 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
3. Fast Five (2009)
4. Fast and Furious (2011)
5. Fast and Furious 6 (2013)
6. Tokyo Drift (2006)
7. Fast and Furious 7 (2014)

Maybe Fox can do the same with the X-Men timeline based on the storylines of the films?

I don't see that working.

The X-movies are already written in a certain order.

 

[Dr. Evil]

I don't see that working.

The X-movies are already written in a certain order.

So it will basically be like other mega franchises: set in order of year of release.

 

[kedrell]

But if Wolverine succeeds in changing the future won't he create a new timeline/universe just as it was done in ST (09)?

I'd say so.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

but timeline changes mean the films are ebing erased.It's one thing to want them to ignore origins version of gambit and deadpool so them can be used In sequels or X-force or changing it so Cyclops can be alive In sequels with other OT cast

But it's another thing to suddenly turn Cyclops,Jean,Iceman,and angel as teens In 1970's.

I wouldn't sa the movies would be erased, they happened, just in a now alternate timeline.

 

[SuperT]

We already know Singer mentioned a long time ago that in addition to time travel, this movie would also be looking at the idea alternate timelines and realities.

That to me indicates there's a very good chance that the effects of changing actions in the past causes a new or split timeline.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I don't know how reboot became an ugly word but most reboots are successful (Star Trek, Batman Begins, Casino Royale).

You have to reboot eventually. Actors age, salaries get unreasonable, and continuities get stale or screwed up (SM3, X3).

I think they should do two more movies with the First Class cast, an X-Force Trilogy, and another Wolverine movie. That should all be done by 2020, then reboot the franchise in six years (2026) with the original line up (Cyclops, Iceman, Marvel Girl, Beast and Angel).

No you don't.

It is perfectly okay to let a series come to an end, and stand on it's own merits.

We don't need more Back To The Future movies, or E.T., or The Godfather, or what have you. Those stories have been told, and it's perfectly fine that Hollywood isn't releasing a "new take" on them.

 

[kedrell]

No you don't.

It is perfectly okay to let a series come to an end, and stand on it's own merits.

We don't need more Back To The Future movies, or E.T., or The Godfather, or what have you. Those stories have been told, and it's perfectly fine that Hollywood isn't releasing a "new take" on them.

And it'd be perfectly fine if/when Hollywood remakes those films. But those aren't superhero serialized properties. Or are you actually saying that when they are done with this franchise they should just stop permanently? Because that's never going to happen.

 

[danoyse]

No you don't.

It is perfectly okay to let a series come to an end, and stand on it's own merits.

We don't need more Back To The Future movies, or E.T., or The Godfather, or what have you. Those stories have been told, and it's perfectly fine that Hollywood isn't releasing a "new take" on them.

And it's perfectly okay to reboot series as well. Especially in the world of comics, which run for decades and have countless characters and story arcs to adapt.

I grew up with Christopher Reeve's Superman, but my folks grew up with George Reeves as Superman. It seems like every generation has their own Superman, which is a good thing.

I don't think X-Men needs to be (or should be) rebooted right now, but a few years down the road? Sure, why not? As long as the talent and stories are there to adapt, they should go for it.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Back to the future should never be remade.

 

[danoyse]

And it'd be perfectly fine if/when Hollywood remakes those films. But those aren't superhero serialized properties. Or are you actually saying that when they are done with this franchise they should just stop permanently? Because that's never going to happen.

Well, not those three films. C'mon now.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

And it'd be perfectly fine if/when Hollywood remakes those films. But those aren't superhero serialized properties. Or are you actually saying that when they are done with this franchise they should just stop permanently? Because that's never going to happen.

I would be perfectly fine watching the X-Men series come to a complete and permanent end at some point.

In fact, I would prefer it.

 

[DigificWriter]

But if Wolverine succeeds in changing the future won't he create a new timeline/universe just as it was done in ST (09)?

No. Star Trek 09 works both narratively and conceptually not because it's a time travel story, but because it's a STAR TREK time travel story.

 

[kedrell]

Well, not those three films. C'mon now.

Sure, why not? I always say this about remakes. THE OLD MOVIES STILL EXIST. They aren't being erased from the planet. And maybe, just maybe the remakes might actually be good films as well(probably not but you never know). So there really isn't a downside to a remake.

Jaws is my #1 favorite movie of all time and when they do a remake of it I'll give them maybe .00001% chance of being as good or better than the original. But I'm still not against them trying it. I've got nothing to lose. I still have my classic.

 

[Green Goblin]

pre·quel
ˈprēkwəl,-kwil/Submit
noun
1.
a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work.

With an older Spock (played by Leonard Nimoy) featured why wouldn't Star Trek (2009) fit into this description?

Because Star Trek 09 isn't canon to the events of the original series.

 

[SuperT]

I would be perfectly fine watching the X-Men series come to a complete and permanent end at some point.

In fact, I would prefer it.

That's never going to happen. The X-Men (and any other superhero) universe is way too big and has too much content to cover for them to just completely stop making them altogether.

I don't think it's going to be rebooted any time soon but in the next 20-30 years? Absolutely.

 

[danoyse]

I would be perfectly fine watching the X-Men series come to a complete and permanent end at some point.

In fact, I would prefer it.

That seems terribly unfair to the future of the franchise. There are a ton of comics stories left to adapt, and for sure plenty to come from here. Are you saying that if a writer comes along in ten years and writes a spectacular X-Men arc worthy of a movie adaptation, that it shouldn't happen because this current movie series ended?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Spock from the orginal series help cause the time change.

The OG Start Trek timeline runs up to the point that Nero goes back and changes it to the 2009 series.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Back to the future should never be remade.

It won't ever be. The two Bobs (Zemeckis and Gale) have said so. I believe that they have the rights in perpetuity.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No you don't.

It is perfectly okay to let a series come to an end, and stand on it's own merits.

We don't need more Back To The Future movies, or E.T., or The Godfather, or what have you. Those stories have been told, and it's perfectly fine that Hollywood isn't releasing a "new take" on them.

Back to the Future, ET and The Godfather didn't have thousands of self-contained stories to draw from.

Marvel/DC superheroes do.

It would be like ending Harry Potter movies after the second film. What a waste that would be.

and don't confuse remakes with reboots. Remakes are based only on previous movies and use the same story over and over. Reboots are based on source material outside of movies and cover mostly unexplored territory.

 

[kedrell]

I thought Universal had the BTTF rights. Oh well, once they've passed on it'll be remade anyway.