Sequels Simon Kinberg Says We May See Character Born Earlier In New Timeline

[Spider-Fan83]

]Nightcrawler is fine since he looked as old as James/Halle/Famke/Hugh.
[/B]
But Angel? Not only he looked as young as Anna Paquin/Shawn Ashmore/Daniel Cudmore, in X3 it was shown that he's at least 10 years younger than Jean since after kid Jean scene in X3, a scene of kid Angel was shown with a label of "10 years later". Finger cross that they don't use Angel but instead just reintroduce Nightcrawler.

I was about to say I remember their was a deleted scene from x2, where Mystique looks up Nightcrawler file, an it said May 22/84 (which I always assume was a DOB) meaning that he was suppose to be in his 20's

but, just looked it up again...

and reading it now, I don't think its his DOB its the date of the x-ray suggesting he got caught and x-rayed in 1984

 

[psylockolussus]

That scene never made the final cut, so it doesn't matter in my opinion.

 

[psylockolussus]

Could it be some of the more obscure characters, like Juggernaught, Psylocke or Callisto?

Sure, that's possible, though I can't see them trying to use Juggy again (he's almost ruined) and I have a feeling they're saving Psylocke for another movie. Callisto is a possibility, but that statement seems to apply to an X-Men, not an X-Men villain.

Logically, the one it seems to apply to the most, especially for this Apocalypse movie, is obviously Angel, and if they do that, have Warren born 20 years earlier with no explanation, well I'll lost a lot of respect for Kinberg and Singer!

Psylocke and Juggernaut are not obscure characters.

In my opinion, leave out Juggernaut and Callisto, they already had their chance. There's so many characters that have yet to appear in the films, the members of Marauders, the members of Acolytes, Avalanche, Spiral, Omega Red, Selene. However, Psylocke should get a chance since her role in X3 was very minor and she didn't even interact with the X-Men.

 

[Super Jim]

^ What I meant by "obscure" was, in these X-Men movies.

Juggernaught was not a main villain (and he sucked!), and Callisto wasn't a main villain (and she sucked! and her powers were wrong!) and Psylocke wasn't a main villain (first, she shouldn't be a villain, second, and she sucked! and her powers were what, hiding in shadows or something?).

So what I meant was that Kinberg's statement seemed to apply to a "main" hero (and yes, for the purpose of this discussion, I would include X3's Angel as "main") and less so to a "minor" villain like Callisto or Psylocke (minor, meaning from what was shown in X3).

 

[psylockolussus]

Juggernaut was pretty memorable in X3. He also had a fight scene with Wolverine. Callisto had fight scenes with Storm in X3 and she was the tracker for Magneto. Just because someone sucked in the films, it doesn't mean, they should be all reintroduced in the next films and I just don't agree with that even if they now exist in a new timeline. Some casual viewers won't get that and they would just be confused with different version popping out again and again. And like I said, they aren't running out of characters to choose from, so why keep coming back to the ones they already used?

 

[Super Jim]

^ Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with what you're saying about not reusing most previously used characters (though I'm not in agreement with your positive view of Juggernaught in X3).

I indicated that I can't see Kinberg's statements appying to Juggernaught, Callisto or Psylocke. That it was more likely associated with an X-Man (hero) and not a "villain".

I really do hate what they did with certain characters in X3, like Juggy and Callisto, but I kind of feel those characters are ruined now. I was thinking maybe they could reinvent Callisto, but that was only because I want to see the Morlock Massacre story as part of the Apocalypse story, but she's not necessarily needed for that story, plus I don't think that that is what we're going to get in the Apocalyopse movie...

But again, I totally agree with you that there are many X-Men characters that can be used, and here is hoping that any new characters introduced are done so in the best way possible. I just don't want to see a character forced into a movie when they are not needed. But for this movie, based on what we know, I really would like to see them bring back a younger Nightcrawler, which would mean a recast. Yes, there are other characters out there, but bringing Kurt into the mix, along with Scott, Jean, Ororo, Beast and Professor X makes a lot of sense!

 

[psylockolussus]

Im not a fan of X3's Juggernaut but he was memorable in the film especially the chase Kitty scene.

And instead of using Callisto again, why not use Marrow?

 

[Super Jim]

^ I agree, the idea of Tatum's Gambit saving Marrow from the Mutant Massacre is appealing to me, but that would require that story (maybe it's a good option for a late 1980's to 1990's Gambit solo flick?). Marrow is a young girl, so the Morlock's need a leader. If they didn't go with Callisto (and they could, just very different than what we saw in X3) then they could go with Masque, who in the comics became the leader after Callisto and the events of the Mutant Massacre.

I know that the Mutant Massacre story is normally tied with Apocalypse, but I believe they could be told separate. Instead of focusing on Apocalypse's involvement with that story (saving Plague, Angel losing his wings, Dark Beast's involvement, etc.) they could focus on Sinister and Gambit. That would make a great solo film!!!!!

 

[Loki882]

Juggernaut was a joke in X3, a total insult to the character. They could easily ignore PINO from X3 and do a more comic book accurate version of Psylocke. And was Callisto ever actually called Callisto in X3? I know that PINO was never actually called Psylocke, or Betsy Braddock for that matter, in the movie.

 

[Super Jim]

^ I agree, re-doing Psylocke would be easy, but like I explained earlier I think they are saving her for a different movie/team.

Dania Ramirez was/is listed as Callisto, but that doesn't mean they couldn't redo the character if it was pertinent to the story, as Callisto could be in a Mutant Massacre story.

Simply have her in the sewers with the Morlocks and have her wearing leather with the eye patch instead of having the weird tatoos on her face and chest. They wouldn't even need to get into her powers, which are supposed to be simply tactics related.

Juggernaught was the real crime of X3 and I think they ruined the character.

 

[Da-Scribe]

^ Although I'm torn between wanting to see Archangel and Wolverine as the Horseman Death, to me they need to stop mucking with the timeline. They've done what they've done and let's be honest, it's mucked up!

But, that doesn't mean they should continue to just ignore stuff. Kinberg's statement is actually (partially) kind of stupid...

“I would say in terms of making any character decisions on ‘Apocalypse’ is, we set back the clock on ‘Days of Future Past,’ so a lot could have changed from that point in 1973 forward, meaning people could have been born earlier,” Kinberg said. “The whole world changed after those events. Things that were represented even ‘X1′ and ‘X2′ and ‘X3′ wouldn’t have happened in quite the same way.”

That is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo stupid! Things don't work that way (as far as the birth of a character)!

Yes, no one can argue that "Things that were represented in ‘X1′ and ‘X2′ and ‘X3′ wouldn’t have happened in quite the same way", but births don't change. Either the character will be born (around the same time) or not. I guess it can be argued that things work however the writer wants them to, but that's not the argument (or at least not a good one). This X-Men timeline is so screwed up already, can't they just keep things as they are/should be, and deal with the consequences.

See, I agree with many that his comments likely have to do with Angel/Archangel. But I've already come up with a viable way where they could maintain the birth of the existing Angel and transform him into Archangel in a 1983 timeline.

As I've explained in another thread, simply have baby Warren "stolen" by Apocalypse or one of his agents (like Gambit, Sinister or Mystique) and have baby Warren go through the tranformation process, which includes aging. We'd see his wings grow in and then we'd see them being amputated. At the end we'd have exactly what I'm guessing they want... Archangel in 1983.

See, there is no reason to just pretend it's ok for Warren to be born 20 years earlier than he's supposed to be!

Wait, why is that?

 

[Super Jim]

^ Just because the events between 1973 and 2026 have been altered, most of the events, the smaller ones in the greater scheme of things, are likely to stay the same.

The birth of a character, for example, is one of those things. In the end, either the character was born, or due to the butterfly effect of the changes Wolverine made the the past the character was not born. The same character, with the same name, powers, etc., can not be born earlier.

So, for example, we saw Angel in say his early 20's in Last Stand. So even though the events of X3 may not have happened now due to the changes to the timeline, Warren Worthington III, if he still exists, would have had to have been born around the same time. Yes, maybe his mom went into labor a day earlier, or something happened so he was born prematurely, but he is still the product of the same egg and sperm. That is finate and can't change. And for Kinberg to suggest that he may just disregard the age/birth of existing characters is, IMO, stupid!

 

[X-Maniac]

^ Just because the events between 1973 and 2026 have been altered, most of the events, the smaller ones in the greater scheme of things, are likely to stay the same.

The birth of a character, for example, is one of those things. In the end, either the character was born, or due to the butterfly effect of the changes Wolverine made the the past the character was not born. The same character, with the same name, powers, etc., can not be born earlier.

So, for example, we saw Angel in say his early 20's in Last Stand. So even though the events of X3 may not have happened now due to the changes to the timeline, Warren Worthington III, if he still exists, would have had to have been born around the same time. Yes, maybe his mom went into labor a day earlier, or something happened so he was born prematurely, but he is still the product of the same egg and sperm. That is finate and can't change. And for Kinberg to suggest that he may just disregard the age/birth of existing characters is, IMO, stupid!

I don't agree with this.

The only certainties are with regard to the characters we saw in the altered future.

Everything else could have changed. Characters might never even exist, let alone be born earlier/later. Scenarios might never have happened.

The butterfly effect of the changes made in 1973 could cause any number of variations.

 

[SuperT]

Exactly. The idea that these major changes in the past don't have any sort of ripple effect on future events moving forward is absurd.

Of course a lot of things would change, especially subtle things we probably wouldn't even notice.

 

[Super Jim]

^ You guys aren't understanding what I'm saying.

Yes, I totally agree that "major changes in the past" will/can have a "ripple effect on future events". I'm also saying that it is quite possible that a character that we've previously seen now, in this changed timeline, might not exist, as long as we didn't see the person post Wolverine waking up in the future at the end of DOFP.

But what I am simply saying is:

IF a character that we've previously seen (for example, Angel, Callisto, Juggernaught, Leech, etc.) still exists in this new timeline, then they must have been born at least around the same time as when they were in the original timeline.

Yes, it is possible that the character no longer exists due to the ripple effect, but that character could not have, instead, been born ten or twenty years earlier due to the ripple effect. It's all quite simple due to the fact that the original timeline character was conceived at a certain point and would have to have been conceived at the identical time, assuming they still exist.

My point is that just because Wolverine stopped Mystique from killing Nixon doesn't now mean that Warren Worthington III could have been born twenty years earlier. Things just don't work that way!

 

[X-Maniac]

^ You guys aren't understanding what I'm saying.

Yes, I totally agree that "major changes in the past" will/can have a "ripple effect on future events". I'm also saying that it is quite possible that a character that we've previously seen now, in this changed timeline, might not exist, as long as we didn't see the person post Wolverine waking up in the future at the end of DOFP.

But what I am simply saying is:

IF a character that we've previously seen (for example, Angel, Callisto, Juggernaught, Leech, etc.) still exists in this new timeline, then they must have been born at least around the same time as when they were in the original timeline.

Yes, it is possible that the character no longer exists due to the ripple effect, but that character could not have, instead, been born ten or twenty years earlier due to the ripple effect. It's all quite simple due to the fact that the original timeline character was conceived at a certain point and would have to have been conceived at the identical time, assuming they still exist.

My point is that just because Wolverine stopped Mystique from killing Nixon doesn't now mean that Warren Worthington III could have been born twenty years earlier. Things just don't work that way!

But how do you know things don't work that way?

Where is this factual textbook of time travel butterfly effect rules you are quoting from?

This film is sci-fi. And so is time travel at the moment - it's only a concept with various theories.

The butterfly effect might cause any number of changes. Angel might be born earlier through any number of little ripples that might mean the Worthingtons meet and marry earlier, and Angel might even look different (such as a different sperm meeting the same egg or a different egg).

 

[x-er]

Technically, It would be possible but highly unlikely.
You'd just have to get the same two parents together at an earlier time and hope to God that the resulting genetic combination will be the same again. I don't know the stats but I'm sure it'd be nearly impossible to have the same genes match up again (identically).

 

[Dasher10]

Apocalypse wasn't involved in Mutant Massacre. That was Sinister.

 

[psylockolussus]

Technically, It would be possible but highly unlikely.
You'd just have to get the same two parents together at an earlier time and hope to God that the resulting genetic combination will be the same again. I don't know the stats but I'm sure it'd be nearly impossible to have the same genes match up again (identically).

Agreed!

 

[Super Jim]

Apocalypse wasn't involved in Mutant Massacre. That was Sinister.

I believe I indicated that Apocalypse is "tied" to the Mutant Massacre story. I agree, he wasn't directly involved, but his story definitely is related.

For example, Angel lost his wings because of the events of the Mutant Massacre and this led to Apocalypse saving him from a plane crash and turning him into his Horseman Death (Archangel).

He also saved Plaguefrom the Massacre and turned her into his first Horseman, Pestilence.



Also during the mutant massacre story Apocalypse was shown recruiting others, including Abraham Kieros, his Horseman War.

And then, of course, we have the fact that Dark Beast genetically created the Morlocks in the first place, and he came from a future dystopian world ruled by Apocalypse. And it was because he used some of Mr. Sinister's research to do this why Sinister sent the Marauders in the first place...

So with out a doubt Apocalypse is tied to the Mutant Massacre.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Technically, It would be possible but highly unlikely.
You'd just have to get the same two parents together at an earlier time and hope to God that the resulting genetic combination will be the same again. I don't know the stats but I'm sure it'd be nearly impossible to have the same genes match up again (identically).

Meh, it's a matter of suspension of disbelief. For me at least, that's easy to accept. Mainly because, those odds are going to exist even if the character is born at the same time. If we can accept that, under a new timeline, all of these characters will be born looking exactly the same despite the various biological differences that may occur by changing time itself, then the idea of that happening earlier on isn't that hard to swallow.

 

[Super Jim]

^ Totally disagree. It's a genetics thing...

The fact that we've been shown Piotr, Kitty, Rogue and Bobby; and they were the correct age and the identical actor/actress, proves that if a character still exists in this altered timeline then they were conceived at the same time as they were in the original timeline.

Yes, suspension of disbelief, but someone once wrote if they do something that causes a viewer to focus on the incontinuity and miss out on what's happening in the story, they've done a dis-service to the audience and to the story. So if all of a sudden say Angel is born 20 years earlier, well there would be plenty of people thinking, 'wait a second, wasn't he like 23 in that X-Men 3 movie, so how could he be 20 in 1983?'...

 

[x-er]

After all the complants about contunity I hear you would now have them completly ignore the ending of DOFP

on second thought, it wouldn't be impossible for members of the OT cast to appear in the past in the new movie. Lauren Shuler Donner seems to be open to the possibility of continuing to use time travel. I wouldn't mind, if it was used appropriately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRwecfC0nN4
[YT]xRwecfC0nN4[/YT]

 

[marvelrobbins]

Simon Kinberg has said apocalypse won't be time travel.

 

[Super Jim]

I'd be very surprised if there is more time travel after DOFP.

In future movies I do expect some time travel, such as Cable, but I'm thinking no for this Apocalypse movie.