|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 3, 2020 23:25:48 GMT
Hank McCoy also doesn't age from First Class to Dark Phoenix, which is 30 years later. Mystique even says they're the last of the first class. Generally speaking, (XCU) mutants age slower and better than humans. Mystique and Beast age EVEN MORE SLOWER, because their mutation (Beast's feline/ape forms are based on Mystique's DNA). Hank was at least 20 in FC. Hank was 31 in DOFP. Hank was 41 in Apocalypse. Hank was 50 in DP. He was 58 in "The Last Stand" (set in 2000). That's not a thing...
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 4, 2020 4:12:26 GMT
The original X-films take place in the not too distant future. Retconned. It was "the not too distant future" from the X-Men Origins/First Class perspective, so to speak. Concentration Camp: 1944 The Last Stand Prologue: 1980 Warren Worthington's Flashback: 1990 X-Men: 1999 X2: 1999 The Last Stand: 2000 The Wolverine: 2008 The Wolverine Post-Credits: 2010 DOFP Bleak Future: 2023 X-Men is set in the "not too distant future" and the movie was released in 2000 meaning that the movie takes place AFTER that time not PRIOR to it, the "Not too distant future" part refers to the real worlds time, not the movies WW2 time period, if it were set in the not too distant future from that or FC they would say "Over 50 years later" or "Almost 60 years later" whatever to keep it vague.
General accepted consensus from more reputable sources than yourself has X3 set in the present time of it's setting so 2006, which with how quickly X1, 2 and 3 follow on from one another means X1 and X2 should also be set in 2006, maybe 2005.
Then again that's if your trying to make heads or tails out of the bullshit that is the FoX-Men timeline, they fuck it up so bad by contradicting themselves, setting themselves in real world events, most of which contradict you and your timeline there buckaroo.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 4, 2020 4:22:26 GMT
At least James McAvoy Professor X started look Patrick Stewart Professor X in the 80s. They didn't even try to make Magneto look more age appropriate. Altered: 1930: Erik Magnus Lehnsherr is born. 1944: The concentration camp sequence. 1955: Erik conceives his son, Peter Maximoff. 1962: Erik becomes an X-Man. He is 32 years old. 1963: Erik debuts as "Magneto". 1973: Magneto escapes from his high security prison aided by the X-Men: Professor X, Logan, Beast, Quicksilver. He is 43 years old. 1983: Magneto becomes a Horseman of Apocalypse. He is 53 years old. 1992: Magneto rules over Genosha. He is 62 years old. Original: 1930: Erik Magnus Lehnsherr is born. 1980: Professor X and Magneto recruits Jean Grey. Erik is 50 years old. 1999: The events of "X-Men". Magneto is 69 years old. 2000: The events of "The Last Stand". Magneto is 70 years old. 2023: The post-apocalyptic future of DOFP. Magneto is 93 years old. Cinematic mutants age slower and better than humans. Except when they don't, such as Logan the super healing mutant whose healing slows his aging so much that he doesn't age supposedly for over 100+ years, only to age by several years in the span of about a year, and then ages further in the next 7 then ages even worse than Xavier who also ages significantly in the same time period, not to mention clearly ages 20 years along with Magneto between meeting Jean Grey and becoming "Human" in The Last Stand.
No dude they just didn't bother to age them up is all, and there is only so much de-aging you can do with make up to prevent actors from looking older, and as we still see de-aging CGI has that uncanny valley look to it for the most part.
I mean that's also why Moira doesn't age much between 1963 and 1983 and she's only human.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 4, 2020 13:07:59 GMT
Altered: 1930: Erik Magnus Lehnsherr is born. 1944: The concentration camp sequence. 1955: Erik conceives his son, Peter Maximoff. 1962: Erik becomes an X-Man. He is 32 years old. 1963: Erik debuts as "Magneto". 1973: Magneto escapes from his high security prison aided by the X-Men: Professor X, Logan, Beast, Quicksilver. He is 43 years old. 1983: Magneto becomes a Horseman of Apocalypse. He is 53 years old. 1992: Magneto rules over Genosha. He is 62 years old. Original: 1930: Erik Magnus Lehnsherr is born. 1980: Professor X and Magneto recruits Jean Grey. Erik is 50 years old. 1999: The events of "X-Men". Magneto is 69 years old. 2000: The events of "The Last Stand". Magneto is 70 years old. 2023: The post-apocalyptic future of DOFP. Magneto is 93 years old. Cinematic mutants age slower and better than humans. Except when they don't, such as Logan the super healing mutant whose healing slows his aging so much that he doesn't age supposedly for over 100+ years, only to age by several years in the span of about a year, and then ages further in the next 7 then ages even worse than Xavier who also ages significantly in the same time period, not to mention clearly ages 20 years along with Magneto between meeting Jean Grey and becoming "Human" in The Last Stand.
No dude they just didn't bother to age them up is all, and there is only so much de-aging you can do with make up to prevent actors from looking older, and as we still see de-aging CGI has that uncanny valley look to it for the most part.
I mean that's also why Moira doesn't age much between 1963 and 1983 and she's only human.
What you get on-screen is 100% CANON. If they age slowly on-screen, and they do, then you must deduce that the XCU mutants age slower and better than humans, and I remember that Kinberg hinted at it during some interviews too, if memory serves me well. They age better and slower, just not on the same level of super-healing factor bearers like Wolvie or Sabretooth or even Mystique, but they do. Xavier joked on Moira's appearance in "Apocalypse", and it occurred on-screen. Maybe she has good genes like many actors in real life, or maybe she has a potential mutant DNA or she is Moira X and we don't know. Use your brain. It's fun.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 4, 2020 13:37:58 GMT
Retconned. It was "the not too distant future" from the X-Men Origins/First Class perspective, so to speak. Concentration Camp: 1944 The Last Stand Prologue: 1980 Warren Worthington's Flashback: 1990 X-Men: 1999 X2: 1999 The Last Stand: 2000 The Wolverine: 2008 The Wolverine Post-Credits: 2010 DOFP Bleak Future: 2023 X-Men is set in the "not too distant future" and the movie was released in 2000 meaning that the movie takes place AFTER that time not PRIOR to it, the "Not too distant future" part refers to the real worlds time, not the movies WW2 time period, if it were set in the not too distant future from that or FC they would say "Over 50 years later" or "Almost 60 years later" whatever to keep it vague.
General accepted consensus from more reputable sources than yourself has X3 set in the present time of it's setting so 2006, which with how quickly X1, 2 and 3 follow on from one another means X1 and X2 should also be set in 2006, maybe 2005.
Then again that's if your trying to make heads or tails out of the bullshit that is the FoX-Men timeline, they fuck it up so bad by contradicting themselves, setting themselves in real world events, most of which contradict you and your timeline there buckaroo.
My timelines are perfect. Placing the Last Stand Prologue in 1980 fits with Jean Grey's personal timeline established in "Apocalypse" and "Dark Phoenix" (as well as in DOFP - her cameo as child). And we know that the prologue is set 20 years before "The Last Stand", of course. Likely, Cyclops is 18 years old in 1983, and he is featured (as a 18 years old kid) in X-Men Origins too. "X-Men" is set aprox. 15 years after the Weapon X project, as simple as that. 1999. The mainstream X-Men universe is more technologically advanced than ours... I mean, they have clones in 1983. See First Class: they have a much more advanced technology in 1962. My timelines are perfect. They are regarded as canonical by thousands and thousands of persons all around the globe, buddy. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Apr 4, 2020 14:13:35 GMT
X-Men is set in the "not too distant future" and the movie was released in 2000 meaning that the movie takes place AFTER that time not PRIOR to it, the "Not too distant future" part refers to the real worlds time, not the movies WW2 time period, if it were set in the not too distant future from that or FC they would say "Over 50 years later" or "Almost 60 years later" whatever to keep it vague.
General accepted consensus from more reputable sources than yourself has X3 set in the present time of it's setting so 2006, which with how quickly X1, 2 and 3 follow on from one another means X1 and X2 should also be set in 2006, maybe 2005.
Then again that's if your trying to make heads or tails out of the bullshit that is the FoX-Men timeline, they fuck it up so bad by contradicting themselves, setting themselves in real world events, most of which contradict you and your timeline there buckaroo.
My timelines are perfect. Placing the Last Stand Prologue in 1980 fits with Jean Grey's personal timeline established in "Apocalypse" and "Dark Phoenix" (as well as in DOFP - her cameo as child). And we know that the prologue is set 20 years before "The Last Stand", of course. Likely, Cyclops is 18 years old in 1983, and he is featured (as a 18 years old kid) in X-Men Origins too. "X-Men" is set aprox. 15 years after the Weapon X project, as simple as that. 1999. The mainstream X-Men universe is more technologically advanced than ours... I mean, they have clones in 1983. See First Class: they have a much more advanced technology in 1962. My timelines are perfect. They are regarded as canonical by thousands and thousands of persons all around the globe, buddy. Enjoy. Good for you. Still boils down to the fact Fox just screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 4, 2020 14:23:08 GMT
My timelines are perfect. Placing the Last Stand Prologue in 1980 fits with Jean Grey's personal timeline established in "Apocalypse" and "Dark Phoenix" (as well as in DOFP - her cameo as child). And we know that the prologue is set 20 years before "The Last Stand", of course. Likely, Cyclops is 18 years old in 1983, and he is featured (as a 18 years old kid) in X-Men Origins too. "X-Men" is set aprox. 15 years after the Weapon X project, as simple as that. 1999. The mainstream X-Men universe is more technologically advanced than ours... I mean, they have clones in 1983. See First Class: they have a much more advanced technology in 1962. My timelines are perfect. They are regarded as canonical by thousands and thousands of persons all around the globe, buddy. Enjoy. Good for you. Still boils down to the fact Fox just screwed up. It's not a drama. Even the continuity of the X-Men or any other Marvel character comic books is muddled and ruined at BEST. Heck, even the continuity of the MCU has several holes. It's not a drama. We can use our brain and fill the gaps by ourselves. It's entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 4, 2020 15:26:18 GMT
X-Men is set in the "not too distant future" and the movie was released in 2000 meaning that the movie takes place AFTER that time not PRIOR to it, the "Not too distant future" part refers to the real worlds time, not the movies WW2 time period, if it were set in the not too distant future from that or FC they would say "Over 50 years later" or "Almost 60 years later" whatever to keep it vague.
General accepted consensus from more reputable sources than yourself has X3 set in the present time of it's setting so 2006, which with how quickly X1, 2 and 3 follow on from one another means X1 and X2 should also be set in 2006, maybe 2005.
Then again that's if your trying to make heads or tails out of the bullshit that is the FoX-Men timeline, they fuck it up so bad by contradicting themselves, setting themselves in real world events, most of which contradict you and your timeline there buckaroo.
My timelines are perfect. Placing the Last Stand Prologue in 1980 fits with Jean Grey's personal timeline established in "Apocalypse" and "Dark Phoenix" (as well as in DOFP - her cameo as child). And we know that the prologue is set 20 years before "The Last Stand", of course. Likely, Cyclops is 18 years old in 1983, and he is featured (as a 18 years old kid) in X-Men Origins too. "X-Men" is set aprox. 15 years after the Weapon X project, as simple as that. 1999. The mainstream X-Men universe is more technologically advanced than ours... I mean, they have clones in 1983. See First Class: they have a much more advanced technology in 1962. My timelines are perfect. They are regarded as canonical by thousands and thousands of persons all around the globe, buddy. Enjoy.
Also, how can you say approximately 15 years later from 1983 and then say 1999? By my calculations, 15 year later would be 1998, right?
The only thing I disagree with dazz on is the "Not too distant future" part because it's a story element within the movie. If the movie started out with that scene saying "The not too distant future" then it would be from our perspective in time. But by starting at a point in time then saying the not too distant future, then it would be from that point in time.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 4, 2020 15:28:01 GMT
Good for you. Still boils down to the fact Fox just screwed up. It's not a drama. Even the continuity of the X-Men or any other Marvel character comic books is muddled and ruined at BEST. Heck, even the continuity of the MCU has several holes. It's not a drama. We can use our brain and fill the gaps by ourselves. It's entertaining. The only continuity screw up in the MCU is the one made by Sony in Homecoming.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 4, 2020 15:52:50 GMT
My timelines are perfect. Placing the Last Stand Prologue in 1980 fits with Jean Grey's personal timeline established in "Apocalypse" and "Dark Phoenix" (as well as in DOFP - her cameo as child). And we know that the prologue is set 20 years before "The Last Stand", of course. Likely, Cyclops is 18 years old in 1983, and he is featured (as a 18 years old kid) in X-Men Origins too. "X-Men" is set aprox. 15 years after the Weapon X project, as simple as that. 1999. The mainstream X-Men universe is more technologically advanced than ours... I mean, they have clones in 1983. See First Class: they have a much more advanced technology in 1962. My timelines are perfect. They are regarded as canonical by thousands and thousands of persons all around the globe, buddy. Enjoy.
Also, how can you say approximately 15 years later from 1983 and then say 1999? By my calculations, 15 year later would be 1998, right?
The only thing I disagree with dazz on is the "Not too distant future" part because it's a story element within the movie. If the movie started out with that scene saying "The not too distant future" then it would be from our perspective in time. But by starting at a point in time then saying the not too distant future, then it would be from that point in time.
Well, Wolverine, Xavier and Stryker say "aprox. 15 years" (along those lines). 1999 is the year when they filmed the movie. That said, "The Last Stand" is set 1 year since X2. 2000. Another important plot point: Logan/Wolverine in DOFP claimed that the X-Men fought Magneto for "many years". That makes sense. Wolverine joined the X-Men in 1999. The Last Stand is set in 2000. Magneto gained his powers back in 2001. The X-Men disbanded 1 year before "The Wolverine" (set in 2008). From 2001 to 2006, the X-Men fought Magneto.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 4, 2020 18:48:39 GMT
Also, how can you say approximately 15 years later from 1983 and then say 1999? By my calculations, 15 year later would be 1998, right?
The only thing I disagree with dazz on is the "Not too distant future" part because it's a story element within the movie. If the movie started out with that scene saying "The not too distant future" then it would be from our perspective in time. But by starting at a point in time then saying the not too distant future, then it would be from that point in time.
Well, Wolverine, Xavier and Stryker say "aprox. 15 years" (along those lines). 1999 is the year when they filmed the movie. That said, "The Last Stand" is set 1 year since X2. 2000. Another important plot point: Logan/Wolverine in DOFP claimed that the X-Men fought Magneto for "many years". That makes sense. Wolverine joined the X-Men in 1999. The Last Stand is set in 2000. Magneto gained his powers back in 2001. The X-Men disbanded 1 year before "The Wolverine" (set in 2008). From 2001 to 2006, the X-Men fought Magneto. Did you know that Bryan Singer is the main reason the continuity is all screwed? He's the one that said that he didn't think that people would pay attention to the goings on in the movies. The X-men have been going after Magneto even before Logan showed up.
Doesn't Stryker say "How long has it been? 15 years?" Doesn't sound like an approximation. More like he's guessing and rounding off in the moment.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 4, 2020 21:00:27 GMT
X-Men is set in the "not too distant future" and the movie was released in 2000 meaning that the movie takes place AFTER that time not PRIOR to it, the "Not too distant future" part refers to the real worlds time, not the movies WW2 time period, if it were set in the not too distant future from that or FC they would say "Over 50 years later" or "Almost 60 years later" whatever to keep it vague.
General accepted consensus from more reputable sources than yourself has X3 set in the present time of it's setting so 2006, which with how quickly X1, 2 and 3 follow on from one another means X1 and X2 should also be set in 2006, maybe 2005.
Then again that's if your trying to make heads or tails out of the bullshit that is the FoX-Men timeline, they fuck it up so bad by contradicting themselves, setting themselves in real world events, most of which contradict you and your timeline there buckaroo.
My timelines are perfect. Placing the Last Stand Prologue in 1980 fits with Jean Grey's personal timeline established in "Apocalypse" and "Dark Phoenix" (as well as in DOFP - her cameo as child). And we know that the prologue is set 20 years before "The Last Stand", of course. Likely, Cyclops is 18 years old in 1983, and he is featured (as a 18 years old kid) in X-Men Origins too. "X-Men" is set aprox. 15 years after the Weapon X project, as simple as that. 1999. The mainstream X-Men universe is more technologically advanced than ours... I mean, they have clones in 1983. See First Class: they have a much more advanced technology in 1962. My timelines are perfect. They are regarded as canonical by thousands and thousands of persons all around the globe, buddy. Enjoy. No they aren't, no one considers your pratting canon except you, and they aren't "perfect" for one because they contradict the actual movies, Origins is set in 1979, the battle with Deadpool and the kids rescue is the FoXverse cause of the 3 mile island accident, which takes place in 1979, which also means you cannot use the Apocalypse timeline to justify anything because Scott is a teenage whose powers activate in 1979 in Origins but he is about the same age and his powers activate in a similar scenario in Apocalypse set in 1983...for another you literally pull nonsense out your rectum based on miniscule easter eggs not really meant to mean anything whilst outright ignoring more obvious and intended world building that the next shmuck who came along just ignored, either way the timelines are broken as fuck and you are nowhere near smart enough to figure out how to put them together, no matter how many hours you put into trying, you cannot even do basic maths after all, you utter simpleton.
Also when does Jean cameo as a child in DOFP? she isn't listed in any of the cast lists or as such...also why does a Jean cameo in DOFP count but the Scott and Storm cameo's in FC not count? see not perfect because the movies are so poorly put together you cannot, and no attempt at fixing them can be perfect due to their fundamentally fucked up nature.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 4, 2020 21:51:02 GMT
My timelines are perfect. Placing the Last Stand Prologue in 1980 fits with Jean Grey's personal timeline established in "Apocalypse" and "Dark Phoenix" (as well as in DOFP - her cameo as child). And we know that the prologue is set 20 years before "The Last Stand", of course. Likely, Cyclops is 18 years old in 1983, and he is featured (as a 18 years old kid) in X-Men Origins too. "X-Men" is set aprox. 15 years after the Weapon X project, as simple as that. 1999. The mainstream X-Men universe is more technologically advanced than ours... I mean, they have clones in 1983. See First Class: they have a much more advanced technology in 1962. My timelines are perfect. They are regarded as canonical by thousands and thousands of persons all around the globe, buddy. Enjoy.
Also, how can you say approximately 15 years later from 1983 and then say 1999? By my calculations, 15 year later would be 1998, right?
The only thing I disagree with dazz on is the "Not too distant future" part because it's a story element within the movie. If the movie started out with that scene saying "The not too distant future" then it would be from our perspective in time. But by starting at a point in time then saying the not too distant future, then it would be from that point in time.
Except that doesn't make sense, 50-60 years is far beyond the scope of being in the not too distant future, and it also makes no sense in relation to being used to just signify the future on from the WW2 scenes, they would just say present day to do that, the not too distant future tag is for us signifying this is not set in the current time period the movie is released it but the near future of the present time, it is absolutely pointless for it to be referring to WW2, imo atleast.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 4, 2020 23:22:28 GMT
Well, Wolverine, Xavier and Stryker say "aprox. 15 years" (along those lines). 1999 is the year when they filmed the movie. That said, "The Last Stand" is set 1 year since X2. 2000. Another important plot point: Logan/Wolverine in DOFP claimed that the X-Men fought Magneto for "many years". That makes sense. Wolverine joined the X-Men in 1999. The Last Stand is set in 2000. Magneto gained his powers back in 2001. The X-Men disbanded 1 year before "The Wolverine" (set in 2008). From 2001 to 2006, the X-Men fought Magneto. Did you know that Bryan Singer is the main reason the continuity is all screwed? He's the one that said that he didn't think that people would pay attention to the goings on in the movies. The X-men have been going after Magneto even before Logan showed up.
Doesn't Stryker say "How long has it been? 15 years?" Doesn't sound like an approximation. More like he's guessing and rounding off in the moment.
Sounds like an approximation. As well as when Xavier says that. It doesn't matter anyway. 1998 or 1999, my point is still 100% valid. It's the "future" from the FIRST CLASS perspective. It's a retcon, of course. Well, it works. There's no big error in the continuity, once you pick the altered timeline movies as reference and once you assume that there "double" characters (clones, relatives or mutants with similar powers). It's nice.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 5, 2020 0:53:27 GMT
Did you know that Bryan Singer is the main reason the continuity is all screwed? He's the one that said that he didn't think that people would pay attention to the goings on in the movies. The X-men have been going after Magneto even before Logan showed up.
Doesn't Stryker say "How long has it been? 15 years?" Doesn't sound like an approximation. More like he's guessing and rounding off in the moment.
Sounds like an approximation. As well as when Xavier says that. It doesn't matter anyway. 1998 or 1999, my point is still 100% valid. It's the "future" from the FIRST CLASS perspective. It's a retcon, of course. Well, it works. There's no big error in the continuity, once you pick the altered timeline movies as reference and once you assume that there "double" characters (clones, relatives or mutants with similar powers). It's nice. After 10 years you pretty much round off. Saying "How long has it been? 15 years?" could be 13 or 17. It's because you aren't doing quick math to the year something happened in those seconds you are talking. The longer you go back the higher the rounding of the number. It's like if I said "How long ago was WW2? A hundred years ago?"
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Apr 5, 2020 1:03:20 GMT
Also, how can you say approximately 15 years later from 1983 and then say 1999? By my calculations, 15 year later would be 1998, right?
The only thing I disagree with dazz on is the "Not too distant future" part because it's a story element within the movie. If the movie started out with that scene saying "The not too distant future" then it would be from our perspective in time. But by starting at a point in time then saying the not too distant future, then it would be from that point in time.
Except that doesn't make sense, 50-60 years is far beyond the scope of being in the not too distant future, and it also makes no sense in relation to being used to just signify the future on from the WW2 scenes, they would just say present day to do that, the not too distant future tag is for us signifying this is not set in the current time period the movie is released it but the near future of the present time, it is absolutely pointless for it to be referring to WW2, imo atleast. It's because they decided on a storytelling device that they immediately broke. They didn't want to lock it down in a specific year. And 50-60 years is right in the scope of not too distant future. The distant future would have made it look like Valarian. Years later is too short a time. Not too distant just feels like a long time from now, but not too far away.
If they wanted it in a time beyond the present they would have shown that in everyday tech. Everything looked very modern besides the stuff that the X-men had.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 5, 2020 3:05:58 GMT
Except that doesn't make sense, 50-60 years is far beyond the scope of being in the not too distant future, and it also makes no sense in relation to being used to just signify the future on from the WW2 scenes, they would just say present day to do that, the not too distant future tag is for us signifying this is not set in the current time period the movie is released it but the near future of the present time, it is absolutely pointless for it to be referring to WW2, imo atleast. It's because they decided on a storytelling device that they immediately broke. They didn't want to lock it down in a specific year. And 50-60 years is right in the scope of not too distant future. The distant future would have made it look like Valarian. Years later is too short a time. Not too distant just feels like a long time from now, but not too far away.
If they wanted it in a time beyond the present they would have shown that in everyday tech. Everything looked very modern besides the stuff that the X-men had.
Not really when the events in the movie are depicting human/mutants lives, going from 13 year old Eric to 70 year old Eric is not the not too distant future on a character scale, which is what that was showing, if someone told you hey lend me some money I will pay you back in the not too distant future, would you even for a moment consider they mean they will pay you back in 60 years time?
To me it always made sense it was saying it was taking place a little further along than our own current time period, they way you see it just seems off to me, then again it's the FoX-Men movies none of this shit makes sense, X2 and Origins fuck this up even worse, the 15 years thing, Origins sets the events of the Weapon X programme in 1979, so if you take Stryker at his word that puts X2 taking place in 1994 stupid lazy timeline horseshit
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 5, 2020 3:19:39 GMT
Did you know that Bryan Singer is the main reason the continuity is all screwed? He's the one that said that he didn't think that people would pay attention to the goings on in the movies. The X-men have been going after Magneto even before Logan showed up.
Doesn't Stryker say "How long has it been? 15 years?" Doesn't sound like an approximation. More like he's guessing and rounding off in the moment.
Sounds like an approximation. As well as when Xavier says that. It doesn't matter anyway. 1998 or 1999, my point is still 100% valid. It's the "future" from the FIRST CLASS perspective. It's a retcon, of course. Well, it works. There's no big error in the continuity, once you pick the altered timeline movies as reference and once you assume that there "double" characters (clones, relatives or mutants with similar powers). It's nice. No what you mean is ignore everything that defies the narrative you have built, which includes all your the clone rubbish, Origins shows Scott getting his powers in 1979 and being a teenager at that point, how does he then remain the same age and get his powers in similar manner at the later date of 1983?
Why does Jean's power manifest years earlier in one timeline than the other? the timelines are broken, just deal with it.
Also Origins being set in 1979 would mean X1-3 take place in the mid 90's, if Stryker's comment is to be taken into account, so why exactly doesn't Jean, Scott, Nightcrawler, Magneto, Beast or Xavier look like their original trilogy counterparts by Dark Phoenix? counterparts who all look considerably older...odd how that aging thing only applies to the First Class timeline mutants, almost as if they just couldn't be bothered to age them up at all, also odd how this doesn't seem to effect mutants who get introduced, they all are normal looking for their introduced ages, so odd how the normally age up until they enter the movies, only then does the slowed aging come into effect, anyway that idea flies in the face of what is stated about Logan in X1, his healing slows his aging so determining his age is impossible, he could well be older than Xavier, so if Xavier, Beast and Magneto haven't aged physically more than 5-10 years in 40 years why would this be anything of note with Logan? Or why wouldn't they remark how his healing slows his aging down even more extremely than the typical mutation? because it's just laziness on the productions part, or stubbornness on the actors part maybe, either way it isn't a story issue but a production one.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Apr 5, 2020 12:24:58 GMT
It's because they decided on a storytelling device that they immediately broke. They didn't want to lock it down in a specific year. And 50-60 years is right in the scope of not too distant future. The distant future would have made it look like Valarian. Years later is too short a time. Not too distant just feels like a long time from now, but not too far away.
If they wanted it in a time beyond the present they would have shown that in everyday tech. Everything looked very modern besides the stuff that the X-men had.
Not really when the events in the movie are depicting human/mutants lives, going from 13 year old Eric to 70 year old Eric is not the not too distant future on a character scale, which is what that was showing, if someone told you hey lend me some money I will pay you back in the not too distant future, would you even for a moment consider they mean they will pay you back in 60 years time?
To me it always made sense it was saying it was taking place a little further along than our own current time period, they way you see it just seems off to me, then again it's the FoX-Men movies none of this shit makes sense, X2 and Origins fuck this up even worse, the 15 years thing, Origins sets the events of the Weapon X programme in 1979, so if you take Stryker at his word that puts X2 taking place in 1994 stupid lazy timeline horseshit
It wasn't 1979. The infamous Three Mile Island Accident had already happened in the past, according to Gambit. In fact, Stryker chose the place because people were scared and stayed away from it, making it the perfect "cover up" for their experiments. As simple as that, the TMI accident was not so dramatic or heavy like in our universe, and they could build an headquarters in there with no radiation problems. "Apocalypse" was even more clear about it via Cyclops' age and the Weapon X experiment happening again. So: 1983.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 5, 2020 16:06:55 GMT
Not really when the events in the movie are depicting human/mutants lives, going from 13 year old Eric to 70 year old Eric is not the not too distant future on a character scale, which is what that was showing, if someone told you hey lend me some money I will pay you back in the not too distant future, would you even for a moment consider they mean they will pay you back in 60 years time?
To me it always made sense it was saying it was taking place a little further along than our own current time period, they way you see it just seems off to me, then again it's the FoX-Men movies none of this shit makes sense, X2 and Origins fuck this up even worse, the 15 years thing, Origins sets the events of the Weapon X programme in 1979, so if you take Stryker at his word that puts X2 taking place in 1994 stupid lazy timeline horseshit
It wasn't 1979. The infamous Three Mile Island Accident had already happened in the past, according to Gambit. In fact, Stryker chose the place because people were scared and stayed away from it, making it the perfect "cover up" for their experiments. As simple as that, the TMI accident was not so dramatic or heavy like in our universe, and they could build an headquarters in there with no radiation problems. "Apocalypse" was even more clear about it via Cyclops' age and the Weapon X experiment happening again. So: 1983. See this just proves how unreliable and stupid your timeline is, you cannot even comprehend actual dialog in the actual movies, Gambit never says anything like that, his exact quote is.
"There it is the Island, Three Mile Island, hiding in plain sight, no one is going to snoop around a nuclear reactor, they think it's going to turn them into freaks"
No mention of an accident, something which would be clearly stated, and the battle at Three Mile Island is clearly meant to be the FoX-Verse explanation as to why it happened, much like how Mutants are at the centre of the Cuban missile crisis and Paris peace accords.
And no Apocalypse wasn't because it's a retcon, as is Jean's powers in Dark Phoenix, again how does Jean's powers manifest years earlier in Dark Phoenix than they did in Last Stand when Jean like Scott were born prior to the time travel shenanigans of DOFP meaning they should be the exact same people on a genetic level, meaning Jean's powers should not flare up any sooner than they did in the original timeline.
Origins is set in 1979, and contradicts multiple other movies, because they just did not give a flying fuck about consistency, and no matter how hard you claim otherwise you do not have any semblance of a definitive timeline you chubnut.
|
|