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

[georgec]

Must be talking about Nightcrawler.

 

[Da-Scribe]

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

You've gotta realize that there are a lot of factors that determine our appearance? And that the odds of having the exact same genetic makeup, even after time has been completely altered, is incredibly slim. I mean, what are the odds that Bobby's parents, in a totally new timeline, will meet and behave in exactly the same way? And that then Bobby will be exposed to the exact same environments and have the exact same nutrition, etc? Truthfully, it's a huge stretch to believe that. But then again, so is time travel itself. There's no way to introduce it that won't present certain complications. You'll always fine aspects that don't add up, because it's not a real 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.

That only proves all that for those characters. It's an assumption you can make, for sure, but it's not actual proof of anything in the grand scheme of it all. The only safe bet we can really make regarding time travel in this film is that it is at least linear, meaning the changes in the past with create changes in the future. That's really it.

It's like saying that, because we saw several characters sporting the same hairstyles between timelines, all characters must then have the same hairstyles regardless of the timeline. Yeah, you can say that, but it's an unnecessary rule you're forcing on yourself to maintain continuity, after introducing a plot device whose general function is to alter continuity.

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?'...

It takes like 15 seconds of dialogue to address that, if they even bother. Not like anyone cared much about it with Stryker.

 

[Super Jim]

You've gotta realize that there are a lot of factors that determine our appearance? And that the odds of having the exact same genetic makeup, even after time has been completely altered, is incredibly slim. I mean, what are the odds that Bobby's parents, in a totally new timeline, will meet and behave in exactly the same way? And that then Bobby will be exposed to the exact same environments and have the exact same nutrition, etc? Truthfully, it's a huge stretch to believe that. But then again, so is time travel itself. There's no way to introduce it that won't present certain complications. You'll always fine aspects that don't add up, because it's not a real thing.

Yes, totally agree that who/what a person becomes is based on many, many factors, including genetics, environmental, etc.

No one argues that.

First, let's look at the changes Wolverine made. All he really did was wake up Professor X (which must have happened in the OT), helped to free Magneto (which must have happened in the OT) and helped to prevent Mystique from killing Nixon.

Would these changes really have a major effect to things like certain people who previously met, fell in love and had a child in the OT? Maybe, there's no way to tell, except one. When we saw the OT characters post Wolverine "waking up" it was very obviously the same person, meaning born to the same parents and conceived at the same time, and more than likely, based on the fact that they looked identical to how they did in the OT (didn't Rogue have the white streak), their lives weren't affected that much by the changes to the timeline.

I guess my argument is that the changes that Wolverine helped make will likely not affect most of the known characters that much. Sure, there may have been some differences. For example, did the world still go through the anti-mutant hysteria we saw in X1 through X3? Maybe, maybe not. Did the events of X1 through X3 even happen? Maybe, maybe not. We just don't have enough evidence to make a decision. All we know is that the Sentinals didn't cause the dystopian future that Wolverine went back in time to stop, and that's really it.

But the fact that we saw Bobby, and he was identical, meaning the same, as the OT Bobby, means that yes, Bobby's parents met and acted in (at least for the most part) the same way, and then Bobby was exposed to (for the most part) the same environments and had the same nutrition. Afterall, he was the same person (meaning same egg and sperm) and obviously had the same mutated gene (he was at the school still) and looked effectively the same.

Again, it's real simple...

If we saw the same OT character after Wolverine woke up, then they are the same person, meaning conceived at the same time to the same parents and having the same mutated gene, causing them to end up at the institute.

If we didn't see them then there are two choices, looking at things from a high level. Either A, they were never born because the changes to the timeline meant that their parents never conceived that character at the same time they did in the OT, or B, they were born to the same parents because they were conceived at the same time as they were in the OT. Effectively, either they do exist (and are the same person, same age, etc.) or they do not.

So again, the idea that Warren Worthington III could now have been born 20 years earlier is stupid!!!!!

Actually, I just realized that what Kinberg stated only works if the character was born after 1973, and he could only have them born earlier (even though that would be stupid), as long as earlier does not mean before 1973. See, whatever happened up to the point that Wolvie woke up back in 1973 wasn't affected. So any character that was born prior to 1973 can't be born earlier and any character born after 1973 can't be conceived prior.

Now why does this matter?

Well, many have assumed that Kinberg's statement must have meant Angel. It made sense as many of us could see him wanting to bring Archangel into the 1983 Apocalypse story. Again, I've given them an easy way to make this happen that actually makes sense, which is take new born baby Warren and age/transform him into Archangel, but it seems that Kinberg is talking about just having a character born earlier than they were in the OT.

So, let's see how this could work for Warren.

In 2006 (I believe that is what year Last Stand supposedly took place in - at least this week), Warren was what, early twenties? Let's go with 20 years old (even though it's more like 23 or 24), just to make it easy. Remember that they indicated that it was 10 years later, after the bathroom scene (the cutting the wings off thing). That boy was older than 10, but for now, to make it easier, let's say he was 10 years old in that bathroom in 1996. This would have him being conceived in 1985. At the very worst Kinberg could move Warren's birth back to 1974 (he would have had to be conceived in 1973 due to the change to the timeline). If he was born in 1974 then at best he could only be 9 years old in a 1983 movie!

Yes! That's right! Kinberg can't do something stupid like make Warren 20 years old in 1983 because the changes to the timeline could have only happened post 1973. In fact, this works for any characters that could have been "born earlier in the new timeline". In 1983, if indeed that is when Apocalypse will take place, at the very best any "born earlier" character could only be 9 years old!

So unless Kinberg is going to try to state that the changes made in 1973 caused someone to be conceived in say 1963, when in the OT they weren't (and that would indeed be stupid), it means that any character that he could be talking about will not be usuable in a 1983 set Apocalypse movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Super Jim]

I am very surprised that no one has been able to argue against my above point?

 

[X-Maniac]

The actor who played young Angel was aged 11 when the movie was filmed and 12 when it was released in 2006. The Last Stand novelisation says young Angel was 12 in that bathroom origin scene so let's go with that.

Empire's timeline (nearest we have to anything workable and official) says The Last Stand was in 2007 and that Angel's 'first appearance' (that bathroom scene) was 1997.

So, Angel was 12 in 1997.

By those dates/ages, he was born in 1985. If the timeline alterations made it that his parents got together in 1973 and he was born in 1974, he would be 10 in 1985, 14 in 1989, etc.

Probably not really old enough to be an X-Men character. But I suspect they will ignore The Last Stand if they feel like it.

To be honest, I'm not bothered about getting Archangel. We already had an Angel in X3 and a female Angel in First Class, I don't really need to see more Angel in X-Men: Apocalypse. They'd be better holding off on Archangel until a film set in the 90s (presuming Apoc is going to be more than a one-movie wonder!)

 

[x-er]

i doubt the audience will notice something like that. Either way, just because most characters' lives are not affected at the end of X4, it doesn't mean that no one's life can be altered. After all, Angel's parents were influential. The events of DOFP would more likely impact the Warringtons than it would, say, Rogue's or Iceman's parents.

 

[X-Maniac]

i doubt the audience will notice something like that. Either way, just because most characters' lives are not affected at the end of X4, it doesn't mean that no one's life can be altered. After all, Angel's parents were influential. The events of DOFP would more likely impact the Warringtons than it would, say, Rogue's or Iceman's parents.

Congratulations for managing to completely ignore what I and Super Jim were saying.

Angel can't be born any earlier than the point where the timeline altered (1973). Read the posts for further explanation of why this is significant.

 

[Super Jim]

Right!

I think we've effectively proved that Kinberg can't screw up these characters ages too much.

It's real simple...

Anything prior to Wolverine mucking with the timeline is currently off limits. If a character was born prior to 1973, when Wolvie helped stop Mystique from killing Trask, then they were already born and that is finite.

So, which characters would have already been born prior to 1973?

First, all of the characters in DOFP or First Class:

- Wolverine
- Xavier
- Beast
- Mystique
- Magneto
- Quicksilver
- Havok
- Toad
- Ink
- Emma Frost
- Azazel
- Tempest
- Angel
- Banshee

Now who was not in the 1973 storyline that still would have already been born?

Well, it is assumed that Scott, Jean and Ororo are 20-something in the X-Men movie that supposedly took place in 2007. I guess they could try to say that they were as old as say early 30's. If they were say 25 years old then they were born around 1982. So after the 1973 story. If they were say 35 years old then they would have been born around 1972, meaning either just before or after the events of DOFP.

Now I read somewhere that the young redhead girl that witnessed Magneto drop the stadium around the White House was Jean. I think the girl was like 6 years old, making her born around 1967. If Jean was born in 1967 she'd be 18 in a 1985 Apocalypse movie, which would be perfect, but she would also end up being 40 in the X-Men movie, which is stretching it. Either way, if this was Jean then she, and likely Scott and Ororo were all born prior to the 1973 timeline change.

So their birth can't be affected:

- Jean
- Scott
- Ororo

We know that Sabertooth is even older than Wolvie, so his birth was unaffected:

- Sabertooth

Now we know that Mystique and Azazel would have had to have gotten busy in 1963 or 1964 since Azazel died in 1964. So that would mean that Nightcrawler would be around 20-21 years old in a 1985 Apocalypse movie, and that he was born prior to Wolvie mucking with the timeline.

- Nightcrawler

In the after credit scene we got to see many of the OT cast, including Colossus, Kitty, Rogue and Iceman. They were the same people, so their births, even though they happened post 1973, weren't affected by any changes to the timeline:

- Kitty
- Bobby
- Piotr
- Rogue

So who does that leave that Kinberg may have been refering to? Let's list all other X-characters that we've seen in the movies:

- Pyro
- Angel (Warren)
- Blink
- Warpath
- Bishop
- Psylocke
- Some of the various other students at Xavier's, like Siryn and Jubilee

Anyway, so even if Kinberg decided to muck up the timeline even worse and take some of these characters and have them born earlier, and the earliest it would have to be post Wolvie mucking with the timeline. That would mean, at the earliest, they could have been born in 1974. So any character that Kinberg would want to make this type of (stupid) change to, at best, could be 11 years old in a 1985 Apocalypse movie.

Personally I don't see any benefit to doing this and I don't see him wanting to use 11 year olds in this movie.

Likely, if he wanted to make such a significant change, it would be to have a teenaged or 20-something character in a movie that should be younger. That would mean that this concept would only affect a movie that took place in the early 1990's. He could do this and force characters like Angel, Psylocke, Blink, Bishop, etc. to be say 17 or 18 years old in a movie that took place in say 1990 or the early 90's. But there is no way possible to do the same with any of these characters for a 1985 set Apocalypse movie!!!!!

And again, he can't have them born prior to 1974 since the timeline wasn't altered until 1973!!!!!

 

[x-er]

Congratulations for managing to completely ignore what I and Super Jim were saying.

Angel can't be born any earlier than the point where the timeline altered (1973). Read the posts for further explanation of why this is significant.

Lol. you're right.
That's what I get for trying to argue with SuperJim like he asked for

 

[Pauln6]

They should have stuck to the timeline IMO and made 2 more movies back to back with the original cast.

Marauders Massacre wounding Angel, Kitty, Kurt, Piotr and whoever else to open up some places on the team. Move them to Muir Island to introduce English Psylocke and have yourself a Sabretooth fight like in the comics and she discovers a secret and then Angel's death.

Final teasers show what Psylocke saw - Scott & Jean in a lab with a baby. The second one with Angel on a slab with an offer from Apocalypse.

Then next movie Gambit, Dazzler and whoever can join the team while the others get better. Movie focuses on 4 horsemen and Kitty's budding relationship with the wounded Piotor as they try to stop her drifting apart. Cyclops is freed for a final confrontation with Sinister. the baby is zapped to the future (cue spin-off) and Jean is ok - or is she...?

 

[GuestStar2004]

They should have stuck to the timeline IMO and made 2 more movies back to back with the original cast.

Marauders Massacre wounding Angel, Kitty, Kurt, Piotr and whoever else to open up some places on the team. Move them to Muir Island to introduce English Psylocke and have yourself a Sabretooth fight like in the comics and she discovers a secret and then Angel's death.

Final teasers show what Psylocke saw - Scott & Jean in a lab with a baby. The second one with Angel on a slab with an offer from Apocalypse.

Then next movie Gambit, Dazzler and whoever can join the team while the others get better. Movie focuses on 4 horsemen and Kitty's budding relationship with the wounded Piotor as they try to stop her drifting apart. Cyclops is freed for a final confrontation with Sinister. the baby is zapped to the future (cue spin-off) and Jean is ok - or is she...?

That's more fan fiction then a direction they would have actually have gone with this franchise

 

[Pauln6]

That's more fan fiction then a direction they would have actually have gone with this franchise

True - I just get frustrated at the way they reboot and then tell different classic stories in a new timeline and you never feel like any one version does the comics justice.

They're getting very close with this franchise and the popularity of DoFP was at least partly because people will happily watch the impressive original cast.

The massacre and four horsemen would have tied the franchise up with a bow for me by ticking the remaining boxes.

Of course they might go forward and make three more with the younger cast of the (movie) original Xmen but the focus of the 'soft reboot' to date has been on Prof X, Magneto, and Mystique. The actual X-men have been supporting players.

The new Spiderman franchise would have worked better for me in the same timeline with minimal changes to the actual plot.

 

[dax]

Nothing they haven't already done. Monkeyed around with Styker's age. He's clearly in his late 40s/early 50s in Wolverine and in Days of Future Past, he's suddenly 30-ish.

Most of Origins: Wolverine took place in 1985 so it makes sense that Stryker would be in his 40's. The scene where he meets Wolverine during the Vietnam war is where things get troublesome in light of DOFP because he shouldn't look like a middle-aged man if he's supposed to be 30 in 1973.

 

[marvelrobbins]

It's still unknown when Origins main events took place.As when the trilogy took
place.Kinberg placed Origins In 1970's.

But now after DOFP it really doesn't matter anymore when the trilogy,Origins,and The Wolverine took place.

 

[Cherry]

Well, many have assumed that Kinberg's statement must have meant Angel. It made sense as many of us could see him wanting to bring Archangel into the 1983 Apocalypse story. Again, I've given them an easy way to make this happen that actually makes sense, which is take new born baby Warren and age/transform him into Archangel, but it seems that Kinberg is talking about just having a character born earlier than they were in the OT.

This is what I was thinking. We don't fully know what Apocalypse's powers are going to be. Who's to say he doesn't meet a young Warren Worthington and see some sort of potential inside of him, then ages him up and turns him into Archangel? I would much prefer this than changing Warren's birth year.

 

[dax]

I guess my argument is that the changes that Wolverine helped make will likely not affect most of the known characters that much. Sure, there may have been some differences. For example, did the world still go through the anti-mutant hysteria we saw in X1 through X3? Maybe, maybe not. Did the events of X1 through X3 even happen? Maybe, maybe not. We just don't have enough evidence to make a decision. All we know is that the Sentinals didn't cause the dystopian future that Wolverine went back in time to stop, and that's really it.

I doubt that the world still went through the anti-mutant hysteria that we saw in X-men 1-3 because if they still are, then the sentinel program would still exist but as we clearly see from the ending of DOFP, that is not the case. Remember, Magneto pointed the cameras upon himself so that the world would watch him kill President Nixon and his staff. Instead, the world watched Mystique kick Magneto's ass thereby saving the president and from that moment, the human race would no longer view mutants as dangerous threats to society. That moment reminds me of an episode of Smallville when Clark Kent revealed his secret identity to the Daily Bugle and everyone embraced him as their hero which is exactly how humans would feel about mutants after 1973.

With the anti-mutant hysteria erased, Magneto no longer has a reason to create a mutation machine that turns humans into mutants. Also, William Stryker now no longer has a reason to do any of the following:

-Brainwash Nightcrawler into attacking the white house.
-Kidnap Prof. X and Cyclops.
-Invade the X-Mansion, abduct some mutant kids, and dismantling cerebro.
OR
-Build his own cerebro and have his son trick Xavier into killing the mutant race with it (that way, Magneto wouldn't show up to reverse cerebro and have Mystique impersonate Stryker so that she could trick Jason Stryker into making Xavier kill the human race).

Removing those events means that Jean Grey wouldn't die saving the X-men nor does she become the Phoenix thus, why she's alive at the end of DOFP along with Cyclops. The cure plot of X3 might still happen but the attack on alcatraz will never happen because a) no phoenix and b) none of the mutants will feel like they're being exterminated by humans now that there's trust between humans and mutants. The whole humans/mutants war was mostly instigated by both Magneto and Stryker but with the timeline now reset into what we just saw in DOFP, the war now ceases to exist.

 

[titansupes]

^ Of course people would still fear mutants. Just at a different level. They watched one rip up a stadium, drop it on the White House, control killer robots to attack civilians and try to kill the President. But they also saw another one protect the President and take the other one out. There'll be two sides of the argument as always, but it's an argument that will happen a few decades sooner and not in a Sentinel controlled planet.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Things won't be great for mutants just because one mutant saved nixon from another.

 

[Mr.M]

You still have to tackle the Stryker angle. Assuming Xavier still fails to rehabilitate his son, allowing Jason to kill his mother, Stryker will still want revenge. Or do they just completely phase that out of the franchise? The cure will most definitely come in some form or another, and there will obviously be an impasse between mutants who feel abnormal and want to return to normal versus gifted mutants that embrace their powers.

The bottom line is, Apocalypse throws a brand new wrench in the timeline. Magneto will not be the Magneto we knew him to be in the OT after that. None of these questions will get answered until May 2016. Obviously many questions will still be unanswered regardless of what happens in the next film.

But for hypotheticals, assuming DoFP was the last of the franchise, considering the ending, I would say Wolverine never ended up getting the adamantium. He joins Mystique and a band of underground mutants who act as vigilantes. Eventually this group is disbanded or Wolverine leaves voluntarily to join the X-Men. I would say Magneto would lay low for a while. The Jason Stryker plot will still happen but in a different way. The cure will still happen. The mental blocks and the Dark Phoenix could not happen, since Xavier knows the fate of old Jean and has now done things differently.

So I would say some variation of X1, X2, and X3 still occur, even after the ending of DoFP. And this is in line with what the creators wanted us to believe coming out of that film. There are just major changes to the fates of some characters.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Here Is the thing

X-Men-At some point there could still be a registration act propsed.Magneto
could still plan to turn world leaders Into mutants.Wolverine could join X-Men after events of Apocalypse.Rogue with white streak In hair at end of DOFP opens up possibilty Rogue is still captured and put In machine.However the close wolverine-rogue relationship of X1 may not happen.
X2-The weapon X part and Jean sacrificing herself now defently don't happen
and after Apocalypse so may Nightcrawler attack the white house since
Nightcrawler may join X-Men In Apocalypse In 1983.Stryker planning to wipe out all mutants after Xavier failed to cure Jason and Jason caused his wife to
kill herslef can still happen but without any connection to Wolverine.Deathstrik likely wouldn't be a part of this anymore
Last Stand-A varation of the cure plot could still happen