Days of Future Past What you didn't like about X-Men:DOFP - Flaws/Critiques

[Lightning Strykez!]

The only major gripe I really had with the film had to do with the end credits:

Why the F*** was Anna Paquin listed above Ellen Page, Famke Jansen and James Marsden? I mean, seriously WTF? Those three actors actually ACTED, with speaking parts and (in Ellen's case especially) with great emotion and even comedic timing.

Anna was on screen for literally 3 seconds...and she didn't utter a damn word. Billing her so high--above Ellen especially--was REALLY inappropriate and undeserved. There is no way to justify that.

 

[Drab87]

He was always an a**hole

TRUE SO TRUE! Lol...

 

[Quasimod0]

Did anyone notice something different about the cinematography in this movie? Seemed different from the other X-movies to me. Like it felt more like you were watching real footage from a set. The Avengers had this feeling too sometimes, as much as I love it.

 

[BlackFox]

The only major gripe I really had with the film had to do with the end credits:

Why the F*** was Anna Paquin listed above Ellen Page, Famke Jansen and James Marsden? I mean, seriously WTF? Those three actors actually ACTED, with speaking parts and (in Ellen's case especially) with great emotion and even comedic timing.

Anna was on screen for literally 3 seconds...and she didn't utter a damn word. Billing her so high--above Ellen especially--was REALLY inappropriate and undeserved. There is no way to justify that.

Yeah that was funny, 2 seconds of screen time, second billing!!!

Guess it was alphabetical reasons?

 

[Spiderine]

I have some points that others already mentioned... and some new ones:

- It would have been more logical that Trask needed Rogue's DNA and not Mystique's DNA, since Mystique can only change her appearance and not her powers.
- I'm not really satisfied with the explanation why it has to be Wolverine who goes back in time - "because he can regenerate". After all, not his body is sent back, but only his spirit. So Wolverine's regenerative abilities also affect his consciousness? Then why can't he heal his missing memories?
- Leaving Quicksilver behind makes no sense. His scenes showed that his Fox version is very, very powerful. He had to be left behind because his presence in Paris and Washington would have destroyed the plot. So there might be a reason for Singer to leave QS behind, but certainly not for Xavier and Logan.
- When Mystique killed Trask in the original year of 1973, what happened to her? Did they say that in the movie? Could be that I missed it... Was she killed? If she wasn't, how did she escape and never tell anyone that Trask has her DNA? And if she was killed, how can there be a Mystique (Rebecca Romijn) in the three first X-Men movies - after all, these three movies represent the normal time line before Wolverine's time travel corrects it. Did Fox just create another continuity mistake?

Good movie, but not a great movie.

I was wondering that myself. Also we have to point out the glaring omission of the existence of sentinels in the first place. They were not present in the original films at all. If the program was implemented due to the death of Trask then we should have had sentinels hunting mutants all along since 1973.

Also did the short Trask grow up to be Bill Duke in the new timeline? LOL .....I think he's a mutant too

 

[speno94]

How come Kitty, Iceman and Colossus were with the other band of mutants at the start and not with Xavier, Storm, Magneto and Wolverine in the X-Jet?

Because when they land the jet and come out, Kitty says "professor..." and Bishop, Blink, Sunspot and Warpath didn't seem to know who they where?

 

[Incredible Hans]

If the program was implemented due to the death of Trask then we should have had sentinels hunting mutants all along since 1973.

Of course, it could be that after Trask's death the Sentinel project was still considered to be in a test phase and there were no Sentinels appearing in public for a while.

But on the other hand, 1973-2015 would be a very, very long test phase. You get to wonder how important Trask's research could really be if they are not able to send a Sentinel on a mission until decades after his death.

(Then again, in X-Men 3 the danger room simulates a Sentinel, right?)

 

[Weather Witch]

I have decided to just treat First Class and DOFP as a new timeline altogether. The OT in DOFP complicate matters, but in my mind they are the characters that these younger versions will (and would have) grown into, instead of the OT X-Men. This allows me to look past all the continuity errors.

 

[Smilodon]

How come Kitty, Iceman and Colossus were with the other band of mutants at the start and not with Xavier, Storm, Magneto and Wolverine in the X-Jet?

Because when they land the jet and come out, Kitty says "professor..." and Bishop, Blink, Sunspot and Warpath didn't seem to know who they where?

Judging by some of the b-roll footage there was probably a short bit where the new mutants are suspicious of Logan and co. but Kitty and Bobby are the ones who tell them that they can be trusted etc, but it was cut out for time purposes.

I also thought it was pretty clear that they were just developing the Sentinels throughout the time of the original trilogy. I think they mentioned it somewhere too.

 

[Slushy]

Why the F*** was Anna Paquin listed above Ellen Page, Famke Jansen and James Marsden?

1993 The Piano Flora McGrath Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress

 

[warhorse78]

Yeah that was funny, 2 seconds of screen time, second billing!!!

Guess it was alphabetical reasons?

Probably because she had more scenes in the movie before they were cut out, but I guess they forgot to redo the ending credits to fix the error.

 

[SuperJediHero]

I hated the fact that the stinger at the end was all the way after the credits because I really needed to pee.

Next time, find out online when they show it.

http://www.aftercredits.com

 

[Hurm...]

Did anyone notice something different about the cinematography in this movie? Seemed different from the other X-movies to me. Like it felt more like you were watching real footage from a set. The Avengers had this feeling too sometimes, as much as I love it.

It was shot on digital, and I know what you mean, it was very distracting. I love the film, but the cinematography was so-so.

 

[Quasimod0]

It was shot on digital, and I know what you mean, it was very distracting. I love the film, but the cinematography was so-so.

Ah, that's what it is! So the reason for that look is digital vs being shot on film? I'm all for film then

 

[Superhero 101]

I just came back from the theater and I had two major gripes

-no explanation how Xavier came back after The Last Stand
- how wolverine got his adamantium claws after The Wolverine

Also i don't know if it bothered anyone else but was anyone else curious if Logan had adamantium claws in the reset timeline

Besides that this film was excellent.

 

[EnDz0n3]

As someone that was looking forward to the Future scenes much much more than the FC cast, I actually quite liked the past scenes more. I couldn't help but dread every time I sense the movie is about to transition into the future scenes.

I just didn't think the future scenes were effective enough. I think a scene where the future characters were more proactive, as opposed to just hiding out, waiting for the inevitable would've made their scenes more effective and the characters in the future, much more important to the plot. Ergo, I think cutting the Rogue scene was a mistake. Patrick Stewart's Xavier literally did nothing in the future scenes other than having others protect him inside the monastery.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Yeah that was funny, 2 seconds of screen time, second billing!!!

Guess it was alphabetical reasons?

No. Because "Page" would still come before Paquin even with alphabetized.

 

[SterlingDee]

The only major gripe I really had with the film had to do with the end credits:

Why the F*** was Anna Paquin listed above Ellen Page, Famke Jansen and James Marsden? I mean, seriously WTF? Those three actors actually ACTED, with speaking parts and (in Ellen's case especially) with great emotion and even comedic timing.

Anna was on screen for literally 3 seconds...and she didn't utter a damn word. Billing her so high--above Ellen especially--was REALLY inappropriate and undeserved. There is no way to justify that.

Credit order is usually negotiated as part of the compensation package for actors. So, Paquin negotiated a higher billing order based off prestige (I think she previously got the "...and Anna Paquin" prestige credit in 2 of the X-men films). Having a sequence that was cut probably contributed to her billing order (I suspect if her role had always consisted of just her cameo at the end she would have been billed after Ellen Page who had a speaking part).

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

1993 The Piano Flora McGrath Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress

Again, that doesn't make sense either. Going by your reasoning, Halle Berry would've been listed before McAvoy and Fassbender like this since she also has an Academy Award.

If Anna Paquin had uttered at least one word in this film I might be able to see justifying that. But this is a situation where if you literally blinked you missed her ass. Ellen played a MAJOR key role in this film. Hell, she had a bigger role than Halle Berry herself. Therefore, ranking her under Anna is just improper and false advertisement.

The proper crediting should have read as the following:

[Credits]
with Anna Paquin
and
Ian McKellan Patrick Stewart

They should've put her at the end. Since she was truly AT the end...for 3 seconds. Lame.

 

[EnDz0n3]

I'm rewatching the movie in 5 hours. What was the billing?

 

[SterlingDee]

Therefore, ranking her under Anna is just improper and false advertisement.

Credits order are not a form of advertisement and do not have to reflect the actual content of the film. There are many, many examples of this. A well known superhero example is Superman (1978) where Marlon Brando is credited first for his role as Jor-El before Christopher Reeves as Superman. There are other examples in the X-men films as well.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Credits order are not a form of advertisement and do not have to reflect the actual content of the film. There are many, many examples of this. A well known superhero example is Superman (1978) where Marlon Brando is credited first for his role as Jor-El before Christopher Reeves as Superman. There are other examples in the X-men films as well.

Yes, and what your'e saying makes sense. However Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman were accomplished actors with speaking roles whereas Christopher was a newcomer. No one can say they didn't play key roles in the 1978 film even though they weren't title characters.

In contrast, Anna Paquin's scene was so brief that she was in and out within a literal blink of an eye. Perhaps there is more we don't know of as you're alluding to. However, the trailers and TV spots did continue to list Anna in the credits consistently. Therefore, if you are an Anna Paquin/True Blood fan coming to DoFP to see her (because of the way it was promoted) you're gonna walk out of that theater pissed. That's why I think it was improper because they had several months to get that marketing part right. It wasn't even a cameo...it was like...an appearance.

And that's why I consider it fairly false advertising.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm rewatching the movie in 5 hours. What was the billing?

Top 5 billing featured Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, and Halle Berry with Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart getting the "and" distinctive honors.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Oh I thought she was actually second billed as per BlackFox's post.

 

[SterlingDee]

Yes. However Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman were accomplished actors with speaking roles whereas Christopher was a newcomer. No one can say they didn't play key roles in the 1978 film even though they weren't title characters.

In contrast, Anna Paquin's scene was so brief that she was in and out within a literal blink of an eye. Perhaps there is more we don't know of as you're alluding to. But it still seems improper because they had several months to get that right.

And the trailers and TV spots did continue to list her in the credits consistently. If you are an Anna Paquin/True Blood fan coming to DoFP to see her (because of the way it was promoted) you're gonna walk out of that theater pissed.

And that's why I consider it fairly false advertising.

No, I definitely agree that it would be really disappointing if one was coming just to see Anna Paquin and ended up with that tiny cameo, but it's almost undoubtedly contractual in nature. They probably could have changed it for the advertising though.

Giving Anna a "...with" credit as you suggested would actually be a step up as that is considered a prestige credit in the industry. But really giving her her own title card (i.e. listing her name by itself and not with a bunch of other actors) implies a role in any case (and I doubt having her name listed with a bunch of nobodies would be acceptable to Paquin).