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

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well one thing that I can say about is, the X-Men movies will never get a chance to stay true to the comics because they are limited. 1 movie is less than 2hr/30 mins and the comics have been going for like 60 years. There will always be characters that won't get much introduction and backstory. The comics can retell every great X-Men story in like 50 issues and give the characters their own series for a much needed back story, but the movies? They don't have the luxury for that.

Even in the other CBM, they are still limited and only a handful of characters got enough development.

I couldn't disagree with you more psylockolussus. Hell, the various X-Men animated series do a better job of capturing the essence of these characters in 30 minute episodes than the many hours of film footage we have.

That...is pathetic.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Can we just close this ****ing thread already? Absolutely nothing is getting "discussed" around here, and it's just constantly going around and around in a big circle of insults and repeated arguments where no one is listening to another. It's pointless for this to even exist by now.

It's called a debate.

And to be frank, Nell, The Guard, psylockolussus, Ryudoz, marvelrobbins and I are discussing this topic--and we are debating it just fine. There are no insults being thrown at all...and everyone here are big boys and girls.

Do you have something to contribute to the discussion?

 

[The Guard]

That is why I believe they are being invalidated.

The past movies absolutely did not have to happen for X-Men: Days Of Future Past to happen. Despite the common cast from the main trilogy, this movie has absolutely nothing to do with the past movies. The events of the past movies are not what led to Days Of Future Past, an isolated event in 1973 did. The main trilogy do not lead into Days Of Future Past, and Days Of Future Past is wiping out the main trilogy, and all the other movies that came before it, and saying they don't count anymore.

Two things.

I don't think you quite grasp how much of the franchise and its past storylines is going to be included in DAYS OF FUTURE PAST. No one knows.


Two, I don't think you understand what I mean about the characters and stories not being invalidated. And you're still missing the point.

How can they somehow "not count"? They're part of the franchise. For it to MATTER that DAYS OF FUTURE PAST changed something, that something HAS to exist in the story timeline at some point.

I'm not talking about how those events appear to the characters themselves...I'm talking about how they appear to US, looking from the outside in, as the audience.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Why am I defending it? Because while X-Men: The Last Stand took a few bad turns, it also did many things better than the original 2 movies did. It took the series to new places that it hadn't been previously, for better and for worse. That's why I defend it. It may not have been my ideal film, but it's still a valid part of the canon. And I've grown quite tired of people who are upset with a few things about it dismissing the entire film as if there is absolutely nothing good that came from it.

But three core characters died senselessly in the film Nell. And for no real reason except to advance one character to the forefront and to have him engage "the love of his life". But in the end, it shortchanged what could've been a brilliant battle between the X-Men and the Brotherhood. Key people i.e. Cyclops, Jean, Xavier, etc., were not on the X-Men front lines. Huge opportunity missed. How is that good story-telling?

I think it's more faithful than people are willing to acknowledge, and I think that many aspects of it are a much preferred direction than what happened in the comics.

I think that is where we'll have to agree to disagree. The birth of the Phoenix was meant to be a visually glorious event that would spawn an emotional tug of war for SCOTT. Instead, all we saw was the lake belch and Scott's face ripple.

I also don't believe that that interpretation was anything close to what Bryan Singer had imagined as a follow up to X2.

 

[Ryudoz]

I personally believe that Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan were brilliant in their roles. And ditto for Hugh Jackman. I don't recognize anyone else in FOX's X-Men. Not because of the way they look--but due to the way their characters were consistently (or, in Halle's case, inconsistently) written and directed.

I agree that Patrick Steward and Ian McKellan had fine performances and are probably closest in terms of characters than others I would say. Jackman and Wolverine are another subject entirely.

Wolverine throughout the media (comics aside) seem to be taking nods from Jackman's performance (e.g. Wolverine and the X-Men; a fairly "on the nose" interpretation I'd say), whereas many other forms of the media have taken their cues of other characters more from the comics. Jackman's version in the movies also has had to pick up for other character's (arguably Scott's in the whole series as an example, rumors of him being more of a mentor in DoFP being a more classic role reversal with Charles) so Wolverine's characterization feels all over the place to me. In essence it feels like Logan is there to be whatever the plot needs him to be given his role as lead protagonist of the majority of the movies.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I personally never said you weren't a fan. I said you were obviously more devoted to the movie-verse's depiction of these characters than the comic versions. And I'm saying that because you are defending certain studio decisions that are universally despised by diehard readers of the comics.

And there is nothing wrong with that at all Nell. I know of fans who believe that Halle Berry's Storm is spot-on (even though I know you personally do not believe that at all). But I think it's important that you own it.

But you are 100% wrong. You want me to "own" something that isn't true, and what your motives are for that, I don't know. I have my theories, but I know you too well for that also, Caleb, and I know you're better than that, so for right now I'll pretend that's not the angle you're taking.

Your thinking is, quite simply, flawed and wrong.

You seem to think that because I have a positive opinion of X-Men: The Last Stand or X-Men Origins: Wolverine that I am defending everything that happened in it. But I am not, and I think you know better than that even if you are purposefully choosing to not acknowledge it. You were here with me in 2006, Caleb, we've had the conversations and discussions. I think you should know pretty well that the things that are so universally disliked by the fans are things that I dislike as well. I see no valid excuse whatsoever for killing Cyclops or curing Rogue. I never did, and I still don't. Those were awful decisions then and they are awful decisions now.

My point is that you don't fix bad storytelling with... bad storytelling. Which is exactly what "TIME TRAVEL HERP DERP IT NEVER HAPPENED HERP DERP" is: bad storytelling. Worse storytelling than the original killing and curing because now the franchise doesn't even have the integrity to maintain and follow it's own continuity anymore, removing consequence from any choice.

(And yes, I realize that X-Men 3 did it's own fair share of that itself, which is another knock I have against that film).

I can think positively of the film, and still disagree with specific choices and directions. And I can disagree with specific choices and directions, and still think positively of the film. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.

I would agree with you that Halle Berry's depiction of Storm has never been good, nor accurate to the comic book version of the character. I would agree with you that Halle Berry as Storm is one of the biggest knocks the franchise has.

I would also agree with you that we never got a very accurate portrayal of Iceman, and I would agree that what we had isn't as good as the comic version.

More devoted to the film version than the comics? Hardly. Again, it's you trying to justify whatever it is you're trying to justify, but couldn't be further from the truth.

It is true that there are things about the movies that I prefer over the comics. It is also true that there are many things that I prefer from the comics than in the movies. Nearly all of my most beloved X-Men moments come from the comics or the cartoons, so I don't know how you can say I am more devoted to the films. Outside of only a few exceptions, I prefer the comic versions of the characters to the movie versions of the characters. There are many tones and styles from the comics that I prefer over the movies. All of this adds up to certain disappointments that I have about the film series because there are so many areas that don't add up to what the comics did and why I love them so much.

My point isn't, and never has been, that the movies are somehow better than the comics.

My point is that a reboot is going to **** it's own **** up as well. A reboot is not going to be perfect. It's going to have it's own problems, and it's not even guaranteed to be better than the current series. So instead of scrapping all the good stuff because some things were wrong, why not just continue to build off of what we have, make improvements where they can be made (and there is PLENTY of room to improve the characters and stories without tossing out the continuity) and keep pressing forward, instead of looking backwards and rehashing the same **** we've already seen?

Just because I'm happy with the current version of the movies as is doesn't mean I'm more devoted to them than the comics. But just because things could be better is no valid reason to just throw everything out like it never happened. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[psylockolussus]

Hell, the various X-Men animated series do a better job of capturing the essence of these characters in 30 minute episodes than the many hours of film footage we have. That...is pathetic.

And yet the X-Men movies are more critically-acclaimed than the any of the X-Men cartoons. They might have captured the essence of the X-Men characters in a shorter period of time (20 minutes per episode), but the movies did a better job with story-telling.

And I'm sure if Fox has the option to do a series with 13 to 20 episodes per season and with the right amount of budget, we would have gotten more backstory/development for characters like Cyclops, Storm, Rogue and Iceman. But no they are limited to options. They can't do live-action TV shows because they don't have the rights for it and as for the movies, they had to focus on certain characters for the sake of story of the movie.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

And yet the X-Men movies are more critically-acclaimed than the any of the X-Men cartoons. They might have captured the essence of the X-Men characters in a shorter period of time (20 minutes per episode), but the movies did a better job with story-telling.

That is not my point. My point is that stating that 2 hours is not enough to capture these characters' essences consistently is not fair. It CAN be done. It HAS been done.

 

[The Guard]

I don't see why using time travel to undo a horrible event or a series of horrible events is somehow "bad storytelling". In the context of the X-Men mythology, it's fair game. Especially in a movie that heavily features time travel and such concepts.

And it's only lazy if it's executed in a lazy manner, which we don't know yet.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

But you are 100% wrong. You want me to "own" something that isn't true, and what your motives are for that, I don't know. I have my theories, but I know you too well for that also, Caleb, and I know you're better than that, so for right now I'll pretend that's not the angle you're taking.

Your thinking is, quite simply, flawed and wrong.

You seem to think that because I have a positive opinion of X-Men: The Last Stand or X-Men Origins: Wolverine that I am defending everything that happened in it. But I am not, and I think you know better than that even if you are purposefully choosing to not acknowledge it. You were here with me in 2006, Caleb, we've had the conversations and discussions. I think you should know pretty well that the things that are so universally disliked by the fans are things that I dislike as well. I see no valid excuse whatsoever for killing Cyclops or curing Rogue. I never did, and I still don't. Those were awful decisions then and they are awful decisions now.

My point is that you don't fix bad storytelling with... bad storytelling. Which is exactly what "TIME TRAVEL HERP DERP IT NEVER HAPPENED HERP DERP" is: bad storytelling. Worse storytelling than the original killing and curing because now the franchise doesn't even have the integrity to maintain and follow it's own continuity anymore, removing consequence from any choice.

(And yes, I realize that X-Men 3 did it's own fair share of that itself, which is another knock I have against that film).

I can think positively of the film, and still disagree with specific choices and directions. And I can disagree with specific choices and directions, and still think positively of the film. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.

I would agree with you that Halle Berry's depiction of Storm has never been good, nor accurate to the comic book version of the character. I would agree with you that Halle Berry as Storm is one of the biggest knocks the franchise has.

I would also agree with you that we never got a very accurate portrayal of Iceman, and I would agree that what we had isn't as good as the comic version.

More devoted to the film version than the comics? Hardly. Again, it's you trying to justify whatever it is you're trying to justify, but couldn't be further from the truth.

It is true that there are things about the movies that I prefer over the comics. It is also true that there are many things that I prefer from the comics than in the movies. Nearly all of my most beloved X-Men moments come from the comics or the cartoons, so I don't know how you can say I am more devoted to the films. Outside of only a few exceptions, I prefer the comic versions of the characters to the movie versions of the characters. There are many tones and styles from the comics that I prefer over the movies. All of this adds up to certain disappointments that I have about the film series because there are so many areas that don't add up to what the comics did and why I love them so much.

My point isn't, and never has been, that the movies are somehow better than the comics.

My point is that a reboot is going to **** it's own **** up as well. A reboot is not going to be perfect. It's going to have it's own problems, and it's not even guaranteed to be better than the current series. So instead of scrapping all the good stuff because some things were wrong, why not just continue to build off of what we have, make improvements where they can be made (and there is PLENTY of room to improve the characters and stories without tossing out the continuity) and keep pressing forward, instead of looking backwards and rehashing the same **** we've already seen?

Just because I'm happy with the current version of the movies as is doesn't mean I'm more devoted to them than the comics. But just because things could be better is no valid reason to just throw everything out like it never happened. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I have never said that you were defending "everything" that happened in TLS. But you have certainly been going to bat for some of the worst elements of that film. For example, you seem to be willing to let a bad studio decision stand (the death of Cyclops) simply because "it's already happened". Why? It shouldn't have happened at all. And it took place because of studio politics involving Bryan, James Marsden, Thom Rothman, FOX and WB. That is a documented fact Nell.

If there's an opportunity to right that wrong, it should be taken for the sake of the Cyclops character. And that's the crux of my point.

And it's Caliph, by the way.

 

[def28]

I don't see why using time travel to undo a horrible event or a series of horrible events is somehow "bad storytelling". In the context of the X-Men mythology, it's fair game. Especially in a movie that heavily features time travel and such concepts.

And it's only lazy if it's executed in a lazy manner, which we don't know yet.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I don't see why using time travel to undo a horrible event or a series of horrible events is somehow "bad storytelling". In the context of the X-Men mythology, it's fair game. Especially in a movie that heavily features time travel and such concepts.

And it's only lazy if it's executed in a lazy manner, which we don't know yet.

Exactly. We may all be surprised by how this is handled. I may end up hating this franchise even more after DoFP depending on how the time travel is depicted. For example, what if it erases Halle Berry's Storm from existence entirely?

Actually, that might not be a bad thing.

 

[Ryudoz]

I think it's more faithful than people are willing to acknowledge, and I think that many aspects of it are a much preferred direction than what happened in the comics.

I think that acknowledgement would come from if people think it's faithful enough. How faithful is faithful enough though? Given the subjective nature of opinion, I think it's hard to determine the line in which many would draw and say, "This is a faithful interpretation of this medium," or "They nailed it," and know for sure where it should be. Even in this series there is a large divide between opinions on what is or isn't the appropriate adaptation of these characters and stories. And even with people who agree there are layers of argument about which specific aspects were "given their due." So I think it's very hard to imply people aren't giving their full opinions on things when it seems like people are very passionate about saying what exactly they want from this series (both for and against any included changes).

 

[Ryudoz]

I don't see why using time travel to undo a horrible event or a series of horrible events is somehow "bad storytelling". In the context of the X-Men mythology, it's fair game. Especially in a movie that heavily features time travel and such concepts.

And it's only lazy if it's executed in a lazy manner, which we don't know yet.

I would also wager that the entire point of DoFP to stop the events of 1973 that allowed the future to be in its current state is an example of trying to undo a horrible event or series of horrible events.

 

[psylockolussus]

That is not my point. My point is that stating that 2 hours is not enough to capture these characters' essences consistently is not fair. It CAN be done. It HAS been done.

And you think this can only be done in a reboot? There's no guarantee for that. Fox could reboot the film series and Wolverine is still the lead character and the rest are still secondary characters. Who knows in the reboot, we might not get characters such as Storm and Rogue. Instead we would be getting characters like Husk and Sage as members of the X-Men. And instead of Jean/Cyclops, its Emma/Cyclops.

At this point, Fox should milk the return of the original cast and at the same time, make quality movies and avoid mistakes that happened in the previous movies.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I think that acknowledgement would come from if people think it's faithful enough. How faithful is faithful enough though? Given the subjective nature of opinion, I think it's hard to determine the line in which many would draw and say, "This is a faithful interpretation of this medium," or "They nailed it," and know for sure where it should be. Even in this series there is a large divide between opinions on what is or isn't the appropriate adaptation of these characters and stories. And even with people who agree there are layers of argument about which specific aspects were "given their due." So I think it's very hard to imply people aren't giving their full opinions on things when it seems like people are very passionate about saying what exactly they want from this series (both for and against any included changes).

That scene of Jean's return as the Phoenix could be deemed "faithful" by a few simple earmarks...and without the "I'm no longer the woman you knew!" corny speech of doom:

1.) First, a phoenix raptor display wouldn't exactly hurt. And we know that Bryan was probably headed down that path from the conclusion of X2. But...anyway.

2.) How about not vaporizing the man you love upon arrival?

and finally,

3.) Not vaporizing the man you love upon arrival.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

And you think this can only be done in a reboot? There's no guarantee for that. Fox could reboot the film series and Wolverine is still the lead character and the rest are still secondary characters. Who knows in the reboot, we might not get characters such as Storm and Rogue. Instead we would be getting characters like Husk and Sage as members of the X-Men. And instead of Jean/Cyclops, its Emma/Cyclops.

At this point, Fox should milk the return of the original cast and at the same time, make quality movies and avoid mistakes that happened in the previous movies.

I seriously doubt that FOX would make a tentpole X-Men film without the classic X-Men characters. To feature 2nd and 3rd tier characters like Husk and Sage would simply not be a financially sound decision.

They tried it with First Class. We all saw how that turned out.

 

[Ryudoz]

And you think this can only be done in a reboot? There's no guarantee for that. Fox could reboot the film series and Wolverine is still the lead character and the rest are still secondary characters. Who knows in the reboot, we might not get characters such as Storm and Rogue. Instead we would be getting characters like Husk and Sage as members of the X-Men. And instead of Jean/Cyclops, its Emma/Cyclops.

At this point, Fox should milk the return of the original cast and at the same time, make quality movies and avoid mistakes that happened in the previous movies.

I think it wouldn't matter so much WHICH characters may be involved so long as the characters themselves are adapted as well as possible from the materials they came from. I'm sure there are fans out there that would love to see Husk or Sage in a movie, portrayed how they imagine them to be in the comics. Same goes with an Emma/Scott pairing particularly for those that would prefer to see the dynamics between Jean and Logan more *ahem* fleshed out.

 

[Ryudoz]

That scene of Jean's return as the Phoenix could be deemed "faithful" by a few simple earmarks...and without the "I'm no longer the woman you knew!" corny speech of doom:

1.) First, a phoenix raptor display wouldn't exactly hurt. And we know that Bryan was probably headed down that path from the conclusion of X2. But...anyway.

2.) How about not vaporizing the man you love upon arrival?

and finally,

3.) Not vaporizing the man you love upon arrival.

Outside of blinking Scott out of existence, that line from Jean was the worst decision of the movie for me.

At the same time I can acknowledge your point. Though I was merely trying to challenge the idea that people were resistant to accepting the material as faithful when there are varying degrees with which people would likely accept it.

 

[Naji Assan]

Ten years ago we're begging for a movie like this, for sentinels, for Apocalypse, for Wolverine's costume, for an adaptation closer to the comics and a shared universe. Now that we're getting it, [some] people are upset. The irony is astonishing.

 

[psylockolussus]

I seriously doubt that FOX would make a tentpole X-Men film without the classic X-Men characters. To feature 2nd and 3rd tier characters like Husk and Sage would simply not be a financially sound decision.

They tried it with First Class. We all saw how that turned out.

Who knows they might want to use different characters to separate the reboot/the new series from the original series?

But with the characters that we already have in this on-going series, there's no need to introduce them again, they could just develop them more, reveal more things about them, make them more powerful or stronger and hopefully that would help them be closer to their comic-book counterpart.

 

[def28]

Ten years ago we're begging for a movie like this, for sentinels, for Apocalypse, for Wolverine's costume, for an adaptation closer to the comics and a shared universe. Now that we're getting it, [some] people are upset. The irony is astonishing.

Yeah, its always gonna be there regardless...on every board to some degree. Just remember the first reaction of the films announcement haha. People will be stoked when May hits.

 

[marvelrobbins]

ANd considering the Increidible Hulk,The Amazing SPider-man,and apparently Fantastic four a complete reboot of X-Men might be based more on ultimate X-Men than Classic X-men.

 

[Naji Assan]

Yeah, its always gonna be there regardless...on every board to some degree. Just remember the first reaction of the films announcement haha. People will be stoked when May hits.

I don't really hope for anyone to be "converted". People who want the franchise to stay in 2006 can live watching the trilogy on bluray. I only desire the awareness of people with Trank's FF reboot because we've never had a great FF film before and I think Trank can serve it on a platter, so I hate hearing people dismissing it already because of the Marvel vs. Fox feud.

Uninformed people I can forgive, but not people that want a close-minded franchise.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Not wanting most films In series being erased Is not living In 2006.Especilly if you weren't a big fan of Last Stand.

The FF film Is being dismissed because of those not wanting a film to be made at Fox because of their bias.Like i have said It could suck but it could also turn out good.
If your going to dismiss it because of the apparent ultimate connection you have to dismiss most marvel films.