Apocalypse X-Men Apocalypse News and Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 40

[CaptainCanada]

[BLACKOUT]Wolverine is captured by Stryker anyways. The real one. There is absolutely no attempt to explain why Mystique didn't have him. [/BLACKOUT]

[BLACKOUT]Why would she "have him"? She doesn't take the people she rescues around with her; we see that with Nightcrawler when she's getting him a passport. After she rescued him he went off on his own and got captured for real.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Tacit Ronin]

beast has just been outright terrible the entire franchise as well..

Nicholas Hoult is so underutilized. Especially after seeing him in Fury Road.

 

[psyonic]

the amusing part is Mystique didn't even have to be the one rescuing him.. it could have just been stryker himself.. hinting at his appearance in Apocalypse.. and all would have made perfect sense.

It does make sense.. Raven saved Logan from falling into the wrong hands, she parted ways and then Logan got captured some time after. This wasn't about Logan but Raven. It sets Raven on the path to becoming a helper/saviour for mutants and she continued doing so for ten years after DoFP up until Apocalypse.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

[BLACKOUT]Why would she "have him"? She doesn't take the people she rescues around with her; we see that with Nightcrawler when she's getting him a passport. After she rescued him he went off on his own and got captured for real.[/BLACKOUT]

[BLACKOUT]It's just redundant and poor storytelling to end a film with twist, that Wolverine isn't captured by who we think he should be captured by, only for him to be captured in the next film by the same guy. It makes the subversion in the previous film meaningless and creates a contradiction.
[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Flint Marko]

They shouldn't have revealed Stryker to be Mystique if they weren't going to do anything with it. Just another questionable continuity decision.

Speaking of - I have a big question regarding Cyclops. It was explicitly revealed that he is Havoc's younger brother, and that he was around 7 at the time of the Washington DC incident in 1973. This means he was born in/around 1966, prior to the timeline changing from DOFP, correct? This renders null and void the theory that the timeline changing in DOFP caused the X-men to be born earlier, because Cyclops was already around at this point. Correct?

I understand I'm nitpicking the broken continuity of a franchise that has never particularly cared about keeping things in line, but I just wanted to make sure I had this correct.

 

[marvelrobbins]

oh come on people some try to make mystique saving wolverine at end of DOFP into more than it needs to be.DOFP set this up with her rescuring Havok and others in vietnam.and continued In APocalypse with Nightcrawler.It was only because of magneto she went with nightcrawler to mansion.

with stryker the scene of DOFP where they mentioned ripples in time and
home time would try to repair itself as well as singer's interviews and comments on DOFp audio commantary him having wolverine is destined to happen.

 

[TeeKay]

No you're just assuming.

 

[CaptainCanada]

This renders null and void the theory that the timeline changing in DOFP caused the X-men to be born earlier, because Cyclops was already around at this point. Correct?

I understand I'm nitpicking the broken continuity of a franchise that has never particularly cared about keeping things in line, but I just wanted to make sure I had this correct.

The time change is meant to be a soft reboot, so yeah, they aren't being that precise with the ages of many characters (e.g., Jubilee, who would have already been born in 1973).

But Cyclops isn't one of them. Being born in 1966 is about right for the character to be a peer of Halle Berry and Famke Janssen's characters, though it's a bit older than James Marsden.

 

[GuestStar2004]

A blunt plot hole.

[BLACKOUT]Wolverine is captured by Stryker anyways. The real one. There is absolutely no attempt to explain why Mystique didn't have him. [/BLACKOUT]

What was she gonna do with him? keep him as a pet?

Mystique technically did the same with nightcrawler in this movie so what else do we need to know?

 

[Sithborg]

I'm sticking with the Rachel Summers theory on time travel. Alternate universes and all that.

 

[GuestStar2004]

the amusing part is Mystique didn't even have to be the one rescuing him.. it could have just been stryker himself.. hinting at his appearance in Apocalypse.. and all would have made perfect sense.

Then stryker would have had him for 10 years, thats a long time till apocalypse

 

[Erik Lensherr]

New interviews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OVf-JsBxcw

sophie <3

 

[Flint Marko]

The time change is meant to be a soft reboot, so yeah, they aren't being that precise with the ages of many characters (e.g., Jubilee, who would have already been born in 1973).

But Cyclops isn't one of them. Being born in 1966 is about right for the character to be a peer of Halle Berry and Famke Janssen's characters, though it's a bit older than James Marsden.

Gotcha, that's about what I suspected.

What was she gonna do with him? keep him as a pet?

Mystique technically did the same with nightcrawler in this movie so what else do we need to know?

Are we really going to pretend this isn't something of an issue? I get that we can say it doesn't matter in regards to Apocalypse but it was the cliffhanger of the last movie and it went absolutely nowhere.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

It does make sense.. Raven saved Logan from falling into the wrong hands, she parted ways and then Logan got captured some time after. This wasn't about Logan but Raven. It sets Raven on the path to becoming a helper/saviour for mutants and she continued doing so for ten years after DoFP up until Apocalypse.

and that right there was also a terrible direction to take the character

 

[marvelrobbins]

The time change is meant to be a soft reboot, so yeah, they aren't being that precise with the ages of many characters (e.g., Jubilee, who would have already been born in 1973).

But Cyclops isn't one of them. Being born in 1966 is about right for the character to be a peer of Halle Berry and Famke Janssen's characters, though it's a bit older than James Marsden.

some characters remain the same age while others they change age based on
if they want to use.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

What was she gonna do with him? keep him as a pet?

Mystique technically did the same with nightcrawler in this movie so what else do we need to know?

Because the last movie hinted a different direction with Logan. [BLACKOUT]This one just abandoned that and gave us a weapon X retread.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[GuestStar2004]

Because the last movie hinted a different direction with Logan. [BLACKOUT]This one just abandoned that and gave us a weapon X retread.[/BLACKOUT]

From the point of view of bryan and kinberg perhaps it wasn't hinting at that at all, kinberg did say they thought about having charles and hank fishing him out before deciding to do it with mystique, perhaps it really wasn't much of a cliff hanger at all.

 

[GuestStar2004]

it was the cliffhanger of the last movie and it went absolutely nowhere.

We all assumed it was a cliff hanger but did bryan or anyone ever actually say it was a cliff hanger?

 

[psyonic]

Gotcha, that's about what I suspected.



Are we really going to pretend this isn't something of an issue? I get that we can say it doesn't matter in regards to Apocalypse but it was the cliffhanger of the last movie and it went absolutely nowhere.

How is it a cliffhanger though? Raven was seen rescuing Havok and the mutants in Saigon. Raven rescued Logan by taking him from the authorities, like how she will do so for ten years (and with Nightcrawler) in Apocalypse. People are reading too much into it. It wasn't meant to tie into Logan and Weaponx X, it was about Raven saving Logan because it's what she does now and to show Logan survives. They part ways then Logan gets captured by Stryker some time after.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Then stryker would have had him for 10 years, thats a long time till apocalypse

one would assume in those 10 years some of the events of Origins took place, like the spec ops task force.. and Logan working for Stryker. Hell.. he could have had his memory erased when he was found.. and completely worked for stryker out of his own free will.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

From the point of view of bryan and kinberg perhaps it wasn't hinting at that at all, kinberg did say they thought about having charles and hank fishing him out before deciding to do it with mystique, perhaps it really wasn't much of a cliff hanger at all.

Stuff the point of view of Bryan and Kinberg. We are not mind readers. We interpret what's on screen. And what was on screen was Mystique taking Logan with a voice over explictly saying it's gonna be different and new.

 

[GuestStar2004]

one would assume in those 10 years some of the events of Origins took place, like the spec ops task force.. and Logan working for Stryker. Hell.. he could have had his memory erased when he was found.. and completely worked for stryker out of his own free will.

for 10 years?

 

[marvelrobbins]

from the point of view of bryan and kinberg perhaps it wasn't hinting at that at all, kinberg did say they thought about having charles and hank fishing him out before deciding to do it with mystique, perhaps it really wasn't much of a cliff hanger at all

they shot an ending with it has been real stryker fishing him out but in reshoots due to suggestion from Lauren Shueller Donner they changed to it being mystique in disguise.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

we all assumed it was a cliff hanger but did bryan or anyone ever actually say it was a cliff hanger?

that's the problem. if you can't properly convey a message, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

And only a tiny portion reads interviews. We shouldn't have to rely on them for clarity.