Days of Future Past X-MEN Movie-Verse Timeline

[Micromind]

"It is not a sequel to one of the others. It's an in-between-quel ! that's what I call it, for lack of a better word. It takes place about ten years, give or take, after X-Men 3; and in the past it takes place about ten years after First Class."

Alternate timeline which allows them to go ahead and use younger cast members for sequels. (Re-booted franchise that happened in X-men :FC continuing forward with some ties to earlier X-men movies, that are shown in this movie, X-men: DOFP.)

 

[DigificWriter]

I honestly think DoTFP is gonna retcon ALOT, because many things don't make sense. For instance, how was Charles xavier bald with complete use of his legs at the end of Origins, if he lost use of his legs at the end of first class, when he still had hair decades earlier? How are there two Emma frosts? How were Eric and Charles friends when they found Jean, after the events of first class? How is Havok older than cyclops?? A lot doesn't make sense, the mess ups are endless. Time travel needs to be involved in the new movie, to hopefully fix the mess.

I really hope DotFP will be altering the timeline somehow, otherwise the xmen films are just doomed.

This again?

It's as if people have no concept of what actually constitutes realistic and GOOD storytelling procedure.

Yes, the Xavier thing is an issue, but throwing out multiple films' worth of story simply to fix it is both unnecessary and overkill. It's like cutting off someone's entire hand just because they broke a finger.

I'm wholeheartedly convinced that a whole lot of people are going to be sorely disappointed when DoFP comes out and, by the end end of the story, most of the X-Franchise's current continuity remains very much intact.

 

[Gianakin_]

I think I agree with you.

 

[DigificWriter]

Following up on earlier comments about alternate timelines and what have you, comparisons to what JJ Abrams and Co. did with Star Trek A) really aren't warranted and B) aren't supported by the things that Singer has said - especially recently - about DoFP.

Furthermore, the PTBs at FOX have shown absolutely no indication that they're not happy with the way the story of their X-Verse has played itself out thus far and, contrary to popular belief, there are a MYRIAD of stories that can still be told - with both the FC cast as well as the OT cast, as well as the new additions to both - without having to toss out the current - and currently still-viable - continuity.

Since some of Singer's early comments did reference alternate timelines, though, I'm of the opinion that we will see the 2023 dystopian future perpetuated beyond the end of the movie, allowing it to be potentially used again.

 

[Arawn Fenn]

Following up on earlier comments about alternate timelines and what have you, comparisons to what JJ Abrams and Co. did with Star Trek A) really aren't warranted and B) aren't supported by the things that Singer has said - especially recently - about DoFP.

Since some of Singer's early comments did reference alternate timelines, though, I'm of the opinion that we will see the 2023 dystopian future perpetuated beyond the end of the movie, allowing it to be potentially used again.

These paragraphs seem to contradict each other. If Singer has spoken of alternate timelines, and if we get an alternate timeline resulting from a character in the future "going back" ( in this case sending back their consciousness ) and changing the past, and if we see the dystopian timeline perpetuated beyond the end of the movie, then that is exactly analogous to the situation portrayed in Star Trek. The only difference is the method of time travel, since in the Star Trek case the travelers were deposited bodily in the past, complete with their spaceships, as opposed to sending their minds back into their past bodies.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Using the Abrams Star Trek model is not the only way to create an alternate timeline. Altering the events that led to the 2023 future but then showing that future still intact (as was done in theDoFP comic) would turn said future into an alternate timeline, thus accounting for Singer's early comments about alternate timelines while also not conflisting with things he has said more recently that point to the film creating an ALTERED timeline and maintaining the current continuity in part.

Re: the Abrams-Verse, showing the dystopian 2023 future still intact actually isn't ANYTHING like what was done in the new ST because, although we know that the 'prime' Trek continuity survives from a real-world perspective, it has no bearing on the Abrams-Verse at all.

Showing the dystopian 2023 future still intact would instead be an example of the same thing that Joss Whedon did with the Buffy episodes Doppelgangland and Normal Again... especially the latter.

 

[Arawn Fenn]

Altering the events that led to the 2023 future but then showing that future still intact (as was done in theDoFP comic) would turn said future into an alternate timeline, thus accounting for Singer's early comments about alternate timelines

And again, that would be the same thing that was done in Star Trek.

( Also, I've heard that the DOFP comic did not confirm that the dystopian timeline still existed but a later comic did. )

we know that the 'prime' Trek continuity survives from a real-world perspective

I don't even know what that means. No Trek timeline is in the real world. The point is that the Prime timeline remains in existence in the overall fictional Trek continuity.

it has no bearing on the Abrams-Verse at all.

The continuation of the post-DOFP dystopian timeline would have no more bearing on an alternate timeline created by sending someone back.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ The ONLY thing that Abrams' Star Trek would have in common with DoFP if the dystopian future were to be shown as being intact even after the events that initially led to it were prevented/changed ls that both films create an alternate timeline. The method by which they did so would be entirely different.

Using the dystopian 2023 future as the catalyst for an alternate timeline would be much more akin to the two examples I cited from Buffy, as well as to what the ending of Ocarina of Time did for The Legend of Zelda franchise.

Under the example I used, the 'altered timeline' created by the time-travel in DoFP would be the 'prime' timeline, and the dystopian 2023 future would be the 'alternate' timeline.

 

[Arawn Fenn]

The method by which they did so would be entirely different.

I think I already said that. Trek characters don't time travel by the "Kitty Pryde" method. But that's irrelevant to the point that the timeline mechanics in the relevant comics and in Abrams' Star Trek were the same.

Under the example I used, the 'altered timeline' created by the time-travel in DoFP would be the 'prime' timeline, and the dystopian 2023 future would be the 'alternate' timeline.

This really makes no difference. It's just a question of labeling. Calling the new timeline in DOFP "prime" just means "this is the one we care about and this is the one we're going to follow from now on". By that standard the Abrams timeline could be called "prime", but in their nomenclature "prime" meant "original". Thus if Abrams' nomenclature is applied to the DOFP situation the "prime" timeline is the one which contains the original films and leads into the dystopian future.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ The dystopian future would be the alternate timeline, and its past would be exactly the same as the 'altered timeline' in many respects. The only difference between the two timelines would be that the events in one of them led to the dystopian 2023 future, whereas those same events in the other timeline had an entirely different outcome.

 

[Arawn Fenn]

^ The dystopian future would be the alternate timeline

If the time travel originates in the dystopian future, that would make the newly-created timeline not leading to the dystopian future the "alternate" one. I guess you could call the original timeline the "alternate" one once the franchise isn't using it anymore, but it certainly didn't start as an alternate.

and its past would be exactly the same as the 'altered timeline' in many respects.

Like how the Prime Star Trek timeline and the Abramsverse timeline have the same past prior to 2233.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ Based on what we know, the time-travel originates in 2013, not 2023.

If the 2023 future were shown to still exist, its past would contain everything that happened in FC, O:W, X1, X2, TLS, TW, and whatever had happened to directly lead to its existence in the first place, whereas the 'altered' timeline's past would contain the events of FC, O:W, DoFP, X1, X2, TLS, and TW only.

 

[Arawn Fenn]

whereas the 'altered' timeline's past would contain the events of FC, O:W, DoFP, X1, X2, TLS, and TW only.

If you go back to 1973 and change things from the way they would have turned out otherwise, it stands to reason that nothing after that point is guaranteed or expected to happen the same way it originally did. So I don't see how there can be any assumption that the events of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X1, X2, X3, etc. still necessarily happen in the new timeline. Maybe similar events are presumed to happen at some point, but not necessarily the same ones.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

I meant 20, but come on, he's going from an older gray haired man in one movie, to a visibly younger one in this one. Somethings rotten in Denver.

Huston looked like he could've been in his middle 30s in O:W, at least to me.

I could see it being just a, war takes it's toll on a man an age's you, kinda explanation

 

[DigificWriter]

If you go back to 1973 and change things from the way they would have turned out otherwise, it stands to reason that nothing after that point is guaranteed or expected to happen the same way it originally did. So I don't see how there can be any assumption that the events of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X1, X2, X3, etc. still necessarily happen in the new timeline. Maybe similar events are presumed to happen at some point, but not necessarily the same ones.

Singer has repeatedly stated that he's not ignoring any of the existing movies and has stated that at least some of the current continuity will be maintained, which tells me that, whatever event ends up being changed in 1973, it will not create an alternate timeline in which the events of chronologically subsequent films never happened. Certain aspects of those events may end up being changed as a result of the time travel, but they will still have happened in some capacity and it will therefore be possible to continue to view the existing films as part of a cohesive single continuity, albeit with the knowledge that their events have been subsequently altered slightly.

 

[Arawn Fenn]

Singer has repeatedly stated that he's not ignoring any of the existing movies and has stated that at least some of the current continuity will be maintained, which tells me that, whatever event ends up being changed in 1973, it will not create an alternate timeline in which the events of chronologically subsequent films never happened.

But an alternate timeline in which the events of chronologically subsequent films never happened wouldn't count as ignoring any of the existing movies, as in the case of Star Trek.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I disagree, but this is an argument I don't really want to have again.

 

[marvelrobbins]

What was done with Star Trek was done a:To allow them to do whatever they
wanted to do and B:was way to say to exsisting fans we are not saying all that you loved never happened.Go ahead and keep buying trek merchandace.

X-Men Is whole different ballgame there Is no reason to It besides some people online crying for them to have some kind of reboot.

1:I don't see bryan singer erasing his own films
2:With the Wolverine so tied to Last stand I don't think erasing the Last
stand is even a possibilty anymore

we will have to see what Bryan Is going to fix with DOFP.

 

[Arawn Fenn]

What was done with Star Trek was done a:To allow them to do whatever they
wanted to do and B:was way to say to exsisting fans we are not saying all that you loved never happened.Go ahead and keep buying trek merchandace.

X-Men Is whole different ballgame there Is no reason to It besides some people online crying for them to have some kind of reboot.

The point stands that in both cases the timeline mechanics are the same and the earlier films aren't being ignored. ( In Star Trek's case some might even say they've gone too far in the other direction - that the earlier films are being referenced too frequently. )

1:I don't see bryan singer erasing his own films
2:With the Wolverine so tied to Last stand I don't think erasing the Last
stand is even a possibilty anymore

Why should a time travel/alternate timeline scenario mean that anything is "erased"? Singer specifically said he wasn't going to ignore any of the earlier films.

 

[DigificWriter]

Why should a time travel/alternate timeline scenario mean that anything is "erased"? Singer specifically said he wasn't going to ignore any of the earlier films.

If you do what the Abrams' Star Trek did, you're 'blanking the slate' in terms of continuity; the existing films will have happened, but they'll have all happened in an ALTERNATE REALITY, and, as marvelrobbins pointed out, there's no reason for the X-Men series to go that route despite what some might believe to the contrary.

Answering your question more directly, you're effectively 'erasing' the existing films from having happened in the continuity you plan on using going forward. Yes, they still exist, but they've also been effectively 'erased' since they have no bearing on what happens next.

 

[Arawn Fenn]

If you do what the Abrams' Star Trek did, you're 'blanking the slate' in terms of continuity

Not quite. That sounds like you're describing a reboot, but an alternate timeline branching off from the timeline of the preexisting canon is different. For example, in the Star Trek case everything is supposed to be the same before 2233, so anything before that point, such as the entire run of Enterprise and anything else we knew about events prior to 2233, still holds. In the X-Men case, if the idea is that a character goes back to 1973 from the future of the timeline of the original films, stuff before 1973 ( for example, part of Origins ) would be unaffected and would still be part of the past of the new timeline.

there's no reason for the X-Men series to go that route despite what some might believe to the contrary.

There is a reason: it's precisely what happened in the comics. No one says they have to do it the same way the comics did, but alternate timelines don't seem to have hurt the popularity of that arc. Look at the reason given for why Star Trek supposedly did it. Why can't that apply to the X-Men franchise?

Answering your question more directly, you're effectively 'erasing' the existing films from having happened in the continuity you plan on using going forward.

The timeline, not the continuity. When you start using time travel an overall continuity can contain mutliple timelines. If the timeline you plan on using going forward results from a time travel event that originated in the future of the Origins-X1-X2-X3-The Wolverine timeline, it is intrinsic to the storyline that all those films still happened.

 

[CyclopsSummers]

Singer has said he's keeping the existing continuity

X1: Xavier said "When I was 17 I met Erik Lehnsherr"
First Class: Xavier met Erik while he was 30

What a mistake

 

[X-Maniac]

X1: Xavier said "When I was 17 I met Erik Lehnsherr"
First Class: Xavier met Erik while he was 30

What a mistake

Not a mistake. A retcon. A deliberate choice to tell the origin story differently.

If they do bother to acknowledge this, or create way where it could be explained, there could be another timeline where Xavier and Erik met earlier.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Watching XMFC right now. Xavier reveals himself as a mutant to the lhe Stryker here and tells him of his Son William.

This confirms that he is William Strykers son, not William Stryker himself

 

[NanaT]

Watching XMFC right now. Xavier reveals himself as a mutant to the lhe Stryker here and tells him of his Son William.

This confirms that he is William Strykers son, not William Stryker himself

You mean William Stryker's father.
The character is called William Stryker Senior