Discussion in 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' started by BMM, Apr 6, 2011.
Maybe he just decided not to choose a side.
I think Edi had a lot of presence when he was on-screen in this movie and I felt kinda bad that he'd only been in like two or three scenes up to his death and I was just getting to like him...
they said they didn't even have a body to bury, I was under the assumption that he may have evolved into a being of energy (like he did in his first appearance in the comics) in order to withstand the blast... I wouldn't rule him out of sequels entirely.
I just saw the movie and I agree with you on this possibility.
Oh yeah... Hmmm...
I actually really like how they did that, definitely raised the stakes.
Yeah, they really needed some kind of sacrifice or a bit of a martyr to raise the stakes a bit. [/quote]
I was kinda surprised how the movie, set in the early 60's, did not hint much at all about any kind of racial tension between some of the characters. Most of the prejudice shown on the movie was gender-related with maybe a possible hint of sexuality.
It would probably be a bit too much to pile on civil rights unrest as well as Cold War nuclear tensions.
I think they were right to stick to one main historical event.
Other stuff can come later. Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream speech was a year later in 1963; he was assassinated five years later. So the civil rights stuff could come later, though
surprisingly without Darwin being alive unless he really did survive somehow
Well, the franchise has always had sexuality as an undertone. Bobby "coming out" to his parents. The "mutant cure." Among many other incidents. Bryan Singer used this to 'set it in reality' more. I didn't really see any character as being overtly sexually different. Beast's story did typify a LGBT albeit more bi, at least from my experience, journey of self-acceptance.
I'm just saying, I'm surprised there wasn't anything there at ALL about that specifically, but whatevs..
He got the shaft in this. It was pretty lame
and at the same time, I thought it was necessary.
I thought it was good that decided to leave him in the ashes.
I mean not everyone should be in the sequel! Someone has to go! Darwin is not even a popular X-Men member.
Why was Darwin in this film again? What a waste.
And how was he not able to evolve against that? It even looked like he was able to until he exploded. Then the next scene they were like "he's dead" and they didn't bring it up again. Really took the film down several notes down for me. If you're going to have a character, do something with him besides having him die. And if you're going to go with the logic "someone has to go", at least give him a point in being in the film before you do it.
I think you're taking that a bit too far.
Sebastian Shaw did say "if you're not with us, you're against us"
And thats the point. Darwin was against and fought Sebastian Shaw and he had to suffer the consequences.
Yet Havok was the one who actually attacked him and Shaw did nothing to him.
Darwin was included in the film because he is a black male. Fox/Singer wanted a diverse cast so they included a black female (Angel), black male (Darwin), a ginger (Banshee) and a Spanish/Latino character (Riptide). The characters were chosen so as to appeal to the widest audience possible, but Darwin was also there [BLACKOUT]to be killed off. You can't kill Beast/Mystique etc. so killing a character whose power is 'survival' shows that Shaw is a dangerous villain.[/BLACKOUT]
Darwin just shouldn't have been in the film. Period. The only reason he was in the film was to die, but that death was so weak it didn't actually server any purpose at all. The reaction afterwards was better related to the fact Angel had left with Shaw rather than the fact a teammate had exploded before their eyes.
You could remove Darwin from the movie without it making a difference, so they should have just left him out.
I completely agree, Avalanche. Darwin felt like the same "stick a character for the sake of sticking him in" mentality that Wolverine had. It infected the series while Singer was away and it still lingers a bit with this film though it's thankfully not as bad. You could have removed Darwin's entire character and the film would have progressed normally. It really added nothing.
Nah, that scene itself may have seemed weak to you, but the consequences and the effects of it still drove a huge turning point in the movie.
I don't think it did.
Darwin's death didn't really achieve anything that wouldn't have been achieved anyway. They were already going after Shaw. You were either with him or against him and the remaining team members, by default, were against him. Darwin didn't need to die (or even exist) to push them toward taking on Shaw.
I think the attack, the discussion that followed and Angel defecting all served the turning point of the movie in their own right. We didn't need a character we didn't know or care about to die.
Yes. I agree completely
It would have been a different story if Angel was shown to be remorseful as she was the one indirectly responsible for his demise. That way, you would have tied both Angel's 'arc' and made Darwin's time that little more meaningful.
As I said in the Angel thread, I would have had Havok call Angel out on that in the climax, and that would have simultaneously given everyone that bit more character development. And that's all without sacrificing story quality: particularly after how they invested in Darwin as a character and Angel's switcheroo.
But we got what we got.