Apocalypse Timeline(s) in Apocalypse

Holy ****, epiphany.



What if he returns to the new future of 2023 to have one final battle with the cast of the Original Trilogy...considering the new future of 2023 is connected to the events of 1973?

He can returns during present days (2005 or 2015). Cyclops and x-men could fight with him instead of having x-men vs brotherhood evil mutants, x-men vs Stryker ... Knowing that X1 X2 X3 are now erased.

They must make X4 a retcon of original trilogy.
 
DOFP is sequel of both 1stClass and X3. DOFP served to cancel Wolverine's movies and original trilogy.
In fact Wolverine 3 must be a retcon of X-men Origins and X4 must be a retcon of trilogy.
 
Apocalypse Is looking like it will have bookeneds In 2023 with Kinberg's announcement of some of OT cast Involved.With bulk of film set In 1980's.
 
Holy ****, epiphany.

What if APOCALYPSE ends in a cliffhanger where it's obvious that while the FIRST CLASS characters defeated the character of Apocalypse, it was a temporary defeat?

What if he returns to the new future of 2023 to have one final battle with the cast of the Original Trilogy...considering the new future of 2023 is connected to the events of 1973?
That's what I'm hoping for.
 
I'd rather Apocalypse defeat the good guys in the 80's and rule the world for a few decades until the survivors and some new members have to rise up and defeat him to save the world. That would then place the series back into the now, as opposed to the past. Unfortunately, we saw in DOFP that the future is peachy keen.
 
Well, I guess since Wolverine and Xavier "have a lot to catch up on" since the future was altered in 1973, the movie could be Xavier telling Wolverine about the events leading up to 2023.
 
So because I don't know the source material, what's the gist of the story of Age of Apocalypse?

Similar to Days of Future Past actually.

-Charles' son, Legion, travels back in time to kill Magneto.
-He goes back too far, to when Charles and Erik are friends, and Charles sacrifices himself.
-Magneto takes up Charles' cause.
-Apocalypse decides to attack a weak Earth
-Dissolution of X-Men into several factions
-Bishop followed Legion ends up in Apocalypse's dystopia.
-Bishop tries to convince people of his time travel shenanigans.
-Magneto believes him.
-X-Men fight Apocalypse and Bishop is sent back in time to kill Legion.
-Magneto kills Apocalypse and Bishop succeeds just before the world is bombed to hell.


And why would we not see the original trilogy characters take on this villain instead of the FIRST CLASS characters?

Well it's another story about travelling to the past.
 
Are you looking for actual answers or is this a speculative topic? :huh:

The first question would be a spoiler as well, so tread carefully...

My lord you're pushing the envelope on what's considered a "spoiler". It can be inferred the timeline will change the same as it can be inferred wolverine will unleash his claws at some point at least once.
 
I'd rather Apocalypse defeat the good guys in the 80's and rule the world for a few decades until the survivors and some new members have to rise up and defeat him to save the world. That would then place the series back into the now, as opposed to the past. Unfortunately, we saw in DOFP that the future is peachy keen.

Yeah it's peachy keen now but who knows how long its been that way. Apocalypse could have very well been ruling the world for a few decades up just until the OT finally defeated him (which they could make a movie or two out of and show us) just a couple years before Wolverine woke up.
 
Last edited:
I'm just going to highjack this thread since I hate starting new ones for one question.

What historical events should X:A be set around?

I'm thinking it takes place during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. America would be paying attention to the Middle East.

The sudden and random disappearance of mutants would have parallels to that event as well.
 
So 1980s was indeed confirmed by Kinberg/Singer. But I would say they should do just 1980. 7 years after DoFP. Obviously the younger cast isn't aging quite this fast in real life. So 36 year old Mcavoy/38 year old Fassbender being almost 50 is already gonna be a stretch. But also it leaves more room in the 80s and 90s to be explored in future sequels/inbetweenquels.

Actually from the timeline stuff I think they are born in 1936 so I guess late 40s which I think would be easy enough, with makeup and balding lol
 
Im confused about official timeline released by Empire. Many things tells differences opposite to x-men movies

Origins Wolverine movie states that 6 years pass in between Logan leaving Team X and the timeskip to his time back in Canada. Fox’s official statement (from empire) is that 8 years in fact passes.

Xavier and Erik met Jean as a child 20 years ago X3. Official timeline indicate 26yo between X3'intro and X3.
 
Indications from movies are erased by Fox's timeline released by empire

-Between Logan left teamX and three Mile island battle, Weapon X operation, Scott recruiting ..
6 years in movie
8 years for Empire timeline

-Between three Mile island battle, Weapon X operation, Logan lost memories .. and X1
15 years in movie
18 years for Empire timeline

-Between Xavier/Erik at Jean's home and X3
20 years in movie
26 years for Empire timeline :doh:
 
With the 3-mile island battle, they actually didn't give an exact year in the film. People just assume that the events of the film caused the 3-mile island accident but I don't think so.
 
So 1980s was indeed confirmed by Kinberg/Singer. But I would say they should do just 1980. 7 years after DoFP. Obviously the younger cast isn't aging quite this fast in real life. So 36 year old Mcavoy/38 year old Fassbender being almost 50 is already gonna be a stretch. But also it leaves more room in the 80s and 90s to be explored in future sequels/inbetweenquels.

Don't agree. 1980 just won't work for this movie.

Think about it this way...

1. People want a young Jean Grey (new actress)
2. People want a young Scott Summers (new actor)
3. People want a young Ororo (new actress)
4. Some would like to see a young Nightcrawler (new actor)
5. Singer has indicated he wants Nightcrawler
6. Most people want Gambit
7. Singer has indicated he wants Gambit

So, let's start with the concept of having Jean, Scott and Ororo in the movie. The general ages of these characters are, at least to a degree, known. For example, we know that Jean was first visited in 1985 by Charles and Erik. Yes, that specific timeline is now retconned, but we can speculate as to when Jean was born based on that scene (her birthday is set because it happened orior to 1973).

I've speculated that she was around 15, while other indicated that she was somewhere around 11. The actress was 13 years old. So what we know is that she was somewhere in that area, between 11 and 15 (or so).

Let's split it for discussion purposes...

Going with 13 years old, if you were to try to have the movie in 1980 she would be 8 years old, and that would not make for a good character or a good movie.

What makes more sense is putting her age at 15 in 1985 and going with that year for movie. In a lot of ways it would make sense to show the scene where Charles (of course, not with Erik now) visiting the Grey household, but this time he doesn't put the mental guards in place and instead dedicates himself to helping her control her powers.

Now Scott might be a year or two older than Jean, and I believe Ororo is a year or so younger. In general the three are around the same age.

Now Nightcrawler is actually the easiest to determine, assuming that Mystique and Azazel are his parents. Azazel died in 1963 and First CLass happened in 1962. That means that he was conceived in either late 1962 or 1963. That would mean he was born in either 1963 or 1964. So in 1980 Nightcrawler would only be 16. If the movie was in 1985 then he would be around 20 or 21 years old.

And just for discussion, Gambit's age is also set and can be speculated on, based on Origins and such. My best guess is he is somewhere between early 20's and early 30's. And this seems to fit for Channing Tatum.

So, 1980 just doesn't seem to work, if the story is what most seem to want and what most seem to be expecting. My best recommendation is a movie that takes place around 1985...
 
I wouldn't say he's overthinking it.

But with the end credits scene of DoFP its safe to assume that Apocalypse's existence wasn't because of the major retconning. And if this new movie is taking place in the 80s its safe to assume that Apocalypse was a threat in the past in Charles earlier days and this was how he recruited Scott and the others.

But say if we're going with the original ****ed up timeline, Apocalypse was always around and he always attacked the X-Men in the 80s. But how was he stopped back then if he didn't get to Scott and Jean until way later? (I hope this question makes sense...it sounded better in my head)

One can probably assume that maybe its Charles and company who accidentally free Apocalypse due to Wolverine's intervention in the past. Like for example, say after the events in the 70s it leads Charles down some new path that leads him to uncovering the secrets of Apocalypse and he's reawakened or whatever, which causes him to go searching for young Scott and Jean and Storm.

Time travel makes my head hurt....or at least just the Xmen timeline.
 
I don't think I am. Character birthdays are what they are and as such the age of the characters need to make sense. That means that having the movie in the year 1980 doesn't make sense. At a minimum, Jean and Ororo would be too young.

If they want to have the movie around this next class of Jean, Scott, ororo and maybe Nightcrawler, then their ages must make sense.

Does anyone argue my logic on Nightcrawler's birth year? Here's what I wrote:

assuming that Mystique and Azazel are his parents. Azazel died in 1963 and First CLass happened in 1962. That means that he was conceived in either late 1962 or 1963. That would mean he was born in either 1963 or 1964. So in 1980 Nightcrawler would only be 16. If the movie was in 1985 then he would be around 20 or 21 years old.

Does anyone disagree with this assessment?

Would it make sense for them to have a movie that takes place in say 1980 with a 20 year old Nightcraler or a 20 year old Jean Grey? Of course not.

So the ages of the characters will affect what year the movie will take place in, simple!

As far as Apocalypse, it's pretty easy, IMO. We know in the comics very often he slumbered for many, many years. Well, something has now changed because of the new timeline (for example, maybe Gambit goes to Ciaro - when in the past he hadn't) and meets Storm and the two of them end up going to Apocalypse's pyramid and wake him accidentaly. There's a good reason why he would now be a threat when possibly in the other timeline he wasn;t...
 
I kinda don;t want them to do another time travel film. We just got one...another focus on time travel would be redundant.
 
I think they should set the movie in 1986/1987 and everything will figure itself out.:o
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"