This movie gives us a different timeline, where Stryker does not have control of Logan, therefore the origin of the metal claws is in jeopardy -- so you wonder how he has them in the future.
The prof x issue bugs me too but there was enough foundation laid that I didn't neeeed more. Be nice, but...
Can someone elaborate for me the argument over Logan's claws? Why are people complaining his claws are metal here? Obviously I'm forgetting something... Were they not still metal at the end of wolverine? I only saw it once.
No, they weren't. Singer stated that Magneto can bend & manipulate metal (as he did with the Sentinels), so that's how Logan got the metal claws again.
This movie gives us a different timeline, where Stryker does not have control of Logan, therefore the origin of the metal claws is in jeopardy -- so you wonder how he has them in the future.
Truthfully, I liked how the 'amnesia bullet' is theoretically gone, but wonder what was Singer's (and by extension, Mystique's) motive for having the fake-Stryker rescue Logan. It'd make more sense for the actual Stryker to rescue him.
So he didn't have metal claws at the end of wolverine? Then why in the end credits scene of wolverine did he avoid the X-ray at the airport? And didn't magneto use his powers to control his claws in that scene?
So the director has said sometime after losing his claws in wolverine, magneto put the metal back? Or did he say it was sometime after dofp?
I also thought it would've been cleaner just to have had the actual Stryker recover Logan. Odd mystique would even care. I don't see how it worked out in dofp automatically means Logan wouldn't/couldn't still get his metal claws in some variation of how he originally did. Probably be a better more believable scenario than how they played it in origins anyway lol.
When / where was it ever mentioned the brain dead patient in X3 was a twin bro of prof x?
Wolverine does not have metal claws at the end of the Wolverine, but he does still have metal all throughout the rest of his body. Magneto would still be able to handle that as would the metal detectors.
How exactly he gets it back on his claws, I don't know. But whether it was through Magneto or similar to how he got them the first time (only this time much easier because it's only his claws) I don't know and doesn't really matter to me.
"“There is no question that at the end of Days Of Future Past there are events that have happened in 1973 that did not happen in our accepted, real 1973. This ripples into the ‘80s, ‘90s and 2000s, where eventually X-Men 1 would take place. We acknowledge that at the end of the movie, with a look at the “future” that is similar to X-Men 1 through 3, but with some very distinct differences."
Kelsey Grammar as beast: "That was Kelsey, yes. When we were making the film, we referred to the happy future section as the ‘Happy Mansion’ sequence...."
On Apocalypse: "That scene really is just a little tease into the backstory of what the movie will be. We’re not committed to that young actor playing him; it’s just supposed to let the hardcore fans know that Apocalypse is coming. You may have noticed that there are four horsemen in the background; that was important to Bryan. I guess we call him the younger Apocalypse. The older Apocalypse that will come in the next movie, and he will be a different actor and have a slightly different vibe."
On Rogue: "Then I thought that if her power was winding down, they needed something stronger or someone who could take over her power. This came from a conversation with Matthew, which was about no-one having the same power as her but then realising there was someone who could take her power. I got chills. Rogue could be the McGuffin of that mission. They’d have to get Rogue out of some dark scary place, and that’s what happens. It’s a really nice sequence, and it’ll end up on Blu-ray some way down the line."
When / where was it ever mentioned the brain dead patient in X3 was a twin bro of prof x?
It was never mentioned in any of the theatrical releases or comic, but apparently on the DVD for X-Men 3: The Last Stand if you watch it with the commentary turned on from director Brett Ratner and producers of the film the idea that it was Xavier's twin is suggested if you watch all the way through the end credits.
The typical movie-goer is not likely to have known this. I've never watched X-3 with director commentary and I doubt if I had that I would've watched all the way to the end of the disc, but there it is.
When / where was it ever mentioned the brain dead patient in X3 was a twin bro of prof x?
It was never mentioned in any of the theatrical releases or comic, but apparently on the DVD for X-Men 3: The Last Stand if you watch it with the commentary turned on from director Brett Ratner and producers of the film the idea that it was Xavier's twin is suggested if you watch all the way through the end credits.
The typical movie-goer is not likely to have known this. I've never watched X-3 with director commentary and I doubt if I had that I would've watched all the way to the end of the disc, but there it is.
Which is exactly why I don't believe the typical movie goer cares how Charles is back in DOFP.
What exactly is exactly why you don't believe the typical movie goer cares how Charles is back in DOFP @Matt? Don't quite take your meaning there.
Sure; your typical moviegoer just watches the movie. He/She doesn't watch the extras, commentaries, hell a lot still don't even watch the post-credit scenes. They just go for the entertainment, not all the supplemental stuff.
I know a large number of people who don't watch anything on the DVD except the movie. A couple have wondered if the cost would be cheaper if they only had the movie.
Sure; your typical moviegoer just watches the movie. He/She doesn't watch the extras, commentaries, hell a lot still don't even watch the post-credit scenes. They just go for the entertainment, not all the supplemental stuff.
I know a large number of people who don't watch anything on the DVD except the movie. A couple have wondered if the cost would be cheaper if they only had the movie.
M
Exactly my point @Matt. We've already established a huge percentage of people walk out during the credits and never see the bonus scenes. That's a "typical movie goer". They also overlook the DVD extras. So what a typical movie goer saw during the last X-men movie starring Patrick Stewart, X-Men: The Last Stand, was Professor X blown to smithereens by Jean Grey and everyone on screen acting as though he was dead.
Even if they later saw The Wolverine, they were repeatedly reminded of what the Jean Grey character had done. Yet now Xavier is back and no one has bothered to explain how. That's all.
How does that mean "no typical movie goer cares how Charles is back in DOFP"? Am I being unreasonable?
Sure; your typical moviegoer just watches the movie. He/She doesn't watch the extras, commentaries, hell a lot still don't even watch the post-credit scenes. They just go for the entertainment, not all the supplemental stuff.
I know a large number of people who don't watch anything on the DVD except the movie. A couple have wondered if the cost would be cheaper if they only had the movie.
M
Exactly my point @Matt. We've already established a huge percentage of people walk out during the credits and never see the bonus scenes. That's a "typical movie goer". They also overlook the DVD extras. So what a typical movie goer saw during the last X-men movie starring Patrick Stewart, X-Men: The Last Stand, was Professor X blown to smithereens by Jean Grey and everyone on screen acting as though he was dead.
Even if they later saw The Wolverine, they were repeatedly reminded of what the Jean Grey character had done. Yet now Xavier is back and no one has bothered to explain how. That's all.
How does that mean "no typical movie goer cares how Charles is back in DOFP"? Am I being unreasonable?
People who care can find out how, if they don't already know. Your typical movie goer either didn't see the prior movie, doesn't remember, or doesn't care. Just focuses on the movie at hand. That's why using them as a reason for some dialogue explanation isn't a good one.
The people who really care more then likely already know &/or saw it initially.
Whatever you say @Matt. I think a "typical movie goer" that saw Last Stand and then went to see this thinking it was a sequel will be wondering how Xavier is alive. As a barometer for that "phenomenon" there are plenty of reviews and forum posts asking the same questions that I am regarding the reports of Prof X's demise being greatly exaggerated... here's a recent "typical" review snippet.
"But when considered part of a larger whole, “Days Of Future Past” only served to exacerbate the X-movie continuity problems it was ostensibly designed to fix.
Let’s start with the problem of Professor Charles Xavier, as portrayed by Patrick Stewart. This character died about halfway through the third movie. His body was blasted into a million pieces, and it was kind of a big deal. Yet at the beginning of this latest outing, Patrick Stewart’s Xavier is back, front and center, battling the bad guys without missing a beat. Nothing in the “Days of Future Past” time-shifting narrative allows for this possibility, and the professor’s passing never even gets a passing mention.
I can’t imagine I’m the only one who was bothered by this."
Whatever you feel about these glaring continuity problems, I suppose the key to any good retcon is taking what you want from previous iterations and just ignoring what you don't like, ergo Bryan Singer's Days of Future Past.
So, this review, the 'reviews' you are mentioning, & forum posts are 'typical movie goers' or 'serious movie goers'? Again, chances are the people you're quoting aren't your typical movie goers.
Need an explanation, how do we know Charles was killed? How do we know Phoenix didn't reassemble his disintegrated body as the body Moira is tending to?
As I said, until The Wolverine & DoFP, did YOU ever question if that was Charles who called out to Moira in the post-credits scene? I haven't heard of anyone questioning or disbelieving Charles returned in that scene. Suddenly he's back in The Wolverine & there needs to be dialogue about it? For whom? The typical moviegoer who just goes to see the movie & doesn't care about every little detail?
Did these same typical moviegoers complain that Marvel didn't hide who the a Winter Soldier really was before the movie was released?
So, this review, the 'reviews' you are mentioning, & forum posts are 'typical movie goers' or 'serious movie goers'? Again, chances are the people you're quoting aren't your typical movie goers.
So in this example review, the writer didn't even mention the post-credits scene from X3 so I assume he missed it. He isn't writing for Screenrant, just a local paper, and so from the content presented he seemed like a "typical movie goer". Your entire argument seems to hinge on everyone being familiar with a :20 second post-credits scene that we've both agreed most people don't stick around to see...
Need an explanation, how do we know Charles was killed? How do we know Phoenix didn't reassemble his disintegrated body as the body Moira is tending to?
We saw him destroyed by Jean. We saw how upset everyone was. We don't know anything further because we didn't see it happen and no one ever said it happened. It has never been addressed. Obviously, as comic fans, we are used to characters coming back to life, but not so with your "typical movie goer", as they never saw the post-credits scene in question where you hear Charles' voice address Moira.
As I said, until The Wolverine & DoFP, did YOU ever question if that was Charles who called out to Moira in the post-credits scene? I haven't heard of anyone questioning or disbelieving Charles returned in that scene. Suddenly he's back in The Wolverine & there needs to be dialogue about it? For whom? The typical moviegoer who just goes to see the movie & doesn't care about every little detail?
You assume a lot about typical movie goers. Maybe you haven't heard about it because most typical movie goers never saw the after credits scene in X3. Even Charles said in the post-credits scene in The Wolverine a line you claimed earlier addressed this and was a complete explanation for all of this, when Logan expressed astonishment at seeing Professor X, Xavier said "I told you a long time ago, you are not the only one with gifts." So apparently Charles had to address Logan's disbelief.
Apparently he can cheat death, but doesn't possess the gift to heal his crippled state. Of course that's a whole other debate most typical movie goers would never understand.
Did these same typical moviegoers complain that Marvel didn't hide who the a Winter Soldier really was before the movie was released?
M
Do typical movie goers watch ABC's "Assembling a Universe" special or read the comics? I don't know. I never complained about that reveal, but I remember Jamie D bitching about it on one of the podcasts. My daughter was surprised to see it was Bucky when we went to see Winter Soldier. I'm sure that's not atypical, but I don't qualify people that go to the theaters to see every super hero movie that comes out as "typical movie goers" either. Much like the kind of folks that would be bitching about seeing Bucky revealed as Winter Soldier are the same ones that stay for the after credit scenes. Not the "typical movie goers" we're discussing.
It's a blatant continuity error. Singer wasn't able to clean up every mess created by the lax continuity during the production of the first six movies. That's all.
So now people who go to superhero movies are no longer typical moviegoers? If that's the case, wouldn't they wait until the end of the credits?
Your argument seems to hinge on your 'typical moviegoer' caring why he's back. Also that there's no explanation for his return.
The post-credit scene in The Wolverine had an explanation. Even if someone didn't see that movie, the scene at the end of X3 more then implies Charles is now laying in that bed. Why is he still crippled? Maybe an additional injury sustained from the car accident that caused the brain damage?
Per the Wikipedia entry: In a post-credits scene, Dr. Moira MacTaggert checks on a comatose patient who greets her with Xavier's voice. Startled, she replies, "Charles?"
Its not a blatant continuity error. Its there. You can argue about the execution of it if you want. You can continue to say how you didn't like it, but everything needed to put the pieces together are there.
Iron Man 2 didn't take the time to say "remember when I broke into your home & hijacked JARVIS and told you you were apart of a bigger world."
In Thor there was no dialogue or scene where Coulson stated "remember when I got to the Hammer & called you."
In Avengers, there wasn't a scene or dialogue where Fury reminded Selvig he approached him about the Tesseract. Or Loki explaining he knew where it was prior to coming through the portal.
I also didn't hear 1 person complain the Winter Soldier reveal. In fact, I heard more 'typical moviegoers' state until "Bucky" was said, they didn't even know who it was.
Just like with Man of Steel, you can say "Superman shouldn't kill", but you can't say "Superman doesn't kill" when there evidence to the contrary.
So now people who go to superhero movies are no longer typical moviegoers?
No, but people who go to every super hero movie when it comes out to the theaters (instead of waiting for home video) very likely are the people sitting through the credits. Without the post-credits scenes, this is a continuity error, and even WITH the post-credits scene(s) this is a continuity error.
He was blown to pieces on screen. How did he get into another body? Why is he still a cripple? With or without the post-credits scenes, those questions are not answered. If anyone was wondering about those other items due to missing the post-credits scenes in Thor or Iron Man, they can look it up and catch that stuff elsewhere, not really the same with this continuity.
I've said my peace about this. It appears we've reached an impasse. You win @Matt. Here's your "No Prize" for explaining it all away. There isn't a smidgeon of corrupted continuity in this movie.
For what it's worth, having not seen X3 since it first came out almost 10 years ago, I completely forgot that Professor X was supposed to be dead. I remembered that Scott and Jean died, but I guess by the time the Professor dies in that one I had stopped paying attention!
I haven't seen the movie but I know a lot of people who have. Comics people and non comics people. And there is a clear divide. Exactly 0 people who aren't into comics brought up continuity issues when we talked about it and exactly everyone into comics did. What I took away from that is that non-comics people just don't get caught up in it. They don't care. When I would bring it up they would look at me like I wanted to discuss the rights of ascension in the Klingon High Council. So yeah I think 75-80% of movie goers don't have more concern for or deeper regard for the franchise than they do The Fast and Furious franchise. And I didn't just pick that out of a hat. Both series have been around about the same length of time, made almost the same exact amount of money, involve surprisingly complex continuity, reviled 3rd installments and characters who died at one point only to be resurrected later.
I haven't seen the movie but I know a lot of people who have. Comics people and non comics people. And there is a clear divide. Exactly 0 people who aren't into comics brought up continuity issues when we talked about it and exactly everyone into comics did. What I took away from that is that non-comics people just don't get caught up in it. They don't care. When I would bring it up they would look at me like I wanted to discuss the rights of ascension in the Klingon High Council. So yeah I think 75-80% of movie goers don't have more concern for or deeper regard for the franchise than they do The Fast and Furious franchise. And I didn't just pick that out of a hat. Both series have been around about the same length of time, made almost the same exact amount of money, involve surprisingly complex continuity, reviled 3rd installments and characters who died at one point only to be resurrected later.
Little tangent here; Tokyo Drift actually takes place after Fast 6. That means the character's death did not technically occur when we saw him after Fast 3. I still say this Marvel Studio's thing should continue with other franchises and Fast 6 should involve Keanu Reeves as Johnny Utah from Point Break!
I do agree with the rest of it. I usually use my wife as one of the 'typical moviegoer' sample. She loves most of the comic book movies, but does not really care about the extra info and how strict the continuity is. Hell, I always make her wait for the post-credit scenes. She has minimal interest in seeing them...until AFTER she sees them.
I haven't seen the movie but I know a lot of people who have. Comics people and non comics people. And there is a clear divide. Exactly 0 people who aren't into comics brought up continuity issues when we talked about it and exactly everyone into comics did. What I took away from that is that non-comics people just don't get caught up in it. They don't care. When I would bring it up they would look at me like I wanted to discuss the rights of ascension in the Klingon High Council. So yeah I think 75-80% of movie goers don't have more concern for or deeper regard for the franchise than they do The Fast and Furious franchise. And I didn't just pick that out of a hat. Both series have been around about the same length of time, made almost the same exact amount of money, involve surprisingly complex continuity, reviled 3rd installments and characters who died at one point only to be resurrected later.
Little tangent here; Tokyo Drift actually takes place after Fast 6. That means the character's death did not technically occur when we saw him after Fast 3. I still say this Marvel Studio's thing should continue with other franchises and Fast 6 should involve Keanu Reeves as Johnny Utah from Point Break!
I do agree with the rest of it. I usually use my wife as one of the 'typical moviegoer' sample. She loves most of the comic book movies, but does not really care about the extra info and how strict the continuity is. Hell, I always make her wait for the post-credit scenes. She has minimal interest in seeing them...until AFTER she sees them.
M
Ha, I was actually referring to Letty. But that illustrates my point about complex continuity. And that particular plot point was from a post-credit scene too.
When / where was it ever mentioned the brain dead patient in X3 was a twin bro of prof x?
It was never mentioned in any of the theatrical releases or comic, but apparently on the DVD for X-Men 3: The Last Stand if you watch it with the commentary turned on from director Brett Ratner and producers of the film the idea that it was Xavier's twin is suggested if you watch all the way through the end credits.
The typical movie-goer is not likely to have known this. I've never watched X-3 with director commentary and I doubt if I had that I would've watched all the way to the end of the disc, but there it is.
Thanks for answering.
Boy is that stupid. Is there a comic book precedent? Looking at the scenes online, there is no indication of any connection or familiarity brtween profX and the patient. The opposite actually.
With DOFP they should've just pulled a Star Trek. Never should've done the wolverine extra scene and left future profX out of dofp. Let dofp wolverines time traveling undo / rewrite everything after X2.
I haven't seen the movie but I know a lot of people who have. Comics people and non comics people. And there is a clear divide. Exactly 0 people who aren't into comics brought up continuity issues when we talked about it and exactly everyone into comics did. What I took away from that is that non-comics people just don't get caught up in it. They don't care. When I would bring it up they would look at me like I wanted to discuss the rights of ascension in the Klingon High Council. So yeah I think 75-80% of movie goers don't have more concern for or deeper regard for the franchise than they do The Fast and Furious franchise. And I didn't just pick that out of a hat. Both series have been around about the same length of time, made almost the same exact amount of money, involve surprisingly complex continuity, reviled 3rd installments and characters who died at one point only to be resurrected later.
Little tangent here; Tokyo Drift actually takes place after Fast 6. That means the character's death did not technically occur when we saw him after Fast 3. I still say this Marvel Studio's thing should continue with other franchises and Fast 6 should involve Keanu Reeves as Johnny Utah from Point Break!
I do agree with the rest of it. I usually use my wife as one of the 'typical moviegoer' sample. She loves most of the comic book movies, but does not really care about the extra info and how strict the continuity is. Hell, I always make her wait for the post-credit scenes. She has minimal interest in seeing them...until AFTER she sees them.
M
Ha, I was actually referring to Letty. But that illustrates my point about complex continuity. And that particular plot point was from a post-credit scene too.
Crap, you're right. I forgot about her...then again, I normally forget about Michelle Rodriguez.
When / where was it ever mentioned the brain dead patient in X3 was a twin bro of prof x?
It was never mentioned in any of the theatrical releases or comic, but apparently on the DVD for X-Men 3: The Last Stand if you watch it with the commentary turned on from director Brett Ratner and producers of the film the idea that it was Xavier's twin is suggested if you watch all the way through the end credits.
The typical movie-goer is not likely to have known this. I've never watched X-3 with director commentary and I doubt if I had that I would've watched all the way to the end of the disc, but there it is.
Thanks for answering.
Boy is that stupid. Is there a comic book precedent? Looking at the scenes online, there is no indication of any connection or familiarity brtween profX and the patient. The opposite actually.
With DOFP they should've just pulled a Star Trek. Never should've done the wolverine extra scene and left future profX out of dofp. Let dofp wolverines time traveling undo / rewrite everything after X2.
Truthfully, I didn't even know that is who the body was supposed to be. With no other connection (such as a reference in First Class), I don't even worry about it. The dude's face is covered. Who is to say it was not badly injured to require plastic surgery or that it looked very similar to Charles?
I think you kind of need Charles for this movie to work. Logan needed to see the past Charles to change the future. Past Charles needed to be convinced by the present day Charles to hope again.
M
Is this thread becoming the new Man of Steel debate thread?!
When / where was it ever mentioned the brain dead patient in X3 was a twin bro of prof x?
It was never mentioned in any of the theatrical releases or comic, but apparently on the DVD for X-Men 3: The Last Stand if you watch it with the commentary turned on from director Brett Ratner and producers of the film the idea that it was Xavier's twin is suggested if you watch all the way through the end credits.
The typical movie-goer is not likely to have known this. I've never watched X-3 with director commentary and I doubt if I had that I would've watched all the way to the end of the disc, but there it is.
Thanks for answering.
Boy is that stupid. Is there a comic book precedent? Looking at the scenes online, there is no indication of any connection or familiarity brtween profX and the patient. The opposite actually.
With DOFP they should've just pulled a Star Trek. Never should've done the wolverine extra scene and left future profX out of dofp. Let dofp wolverines time traveling undo / rewrite everything after X2.
Truthfully, I didn't even know that is who the body was supposed to be. With no other connection (such as a reference in First Class), I don't even worry about it. The dude's face is covered. Who is to say it was not badly injured to require plastic surgery or that it looked very similar to Charles?
I think you kind of need Charles for this movie to work. Logan needed to see the past Charles to change the future. Past Charles needed to be convinced by the present day Charles to hope again.
M
Is this thread becoming the new Man of Steel debate thread?!
.. Must. Resist. Negative. Man of Steel comeback. ; )
So is the movie close to the source material? I've seen the famous cover of course with Wolvie and Kitty Pride, but did it have time traveling and the origin of Sentinels like the movie? Seeing a lot of the posts I'm guessing Kitty doesn't send people back in time in the comic.
I wonder what Chris thinks of the movie, him being such a huge fan of the X-Men in the 70's and 80's.
So is the movie close to the source material? I've seen the famous cover of course with Wolvie and Kitty Pride, but did it have time traveling and the origin of Sentinels like the movie? Seeing a lot of the posts I'm guessing Kitty doesn't send people back in time in the comic.
Not that close. It had the basic spirit of the original story, but mixed in elements from a few other stories and changed the cast considerably. The target in the original story, for instance, was Senator Kelly, who initiated the Mutant Powers Act (or whatever it was called), and it was Rachel Summers who sent Kitty's mind back through time. Professor X and Magneto had been among the Sentinels' first victims.
Comments
M
M
So the director has said sometime after losing his claws in wolverine, magneto put the metal back? Or did he say it was sometime after dofp?
I also thought it would've been cleaner just to have had the actual Stryker recover Logan. Odd mystique would even care. I don't see how it worked out in dofp automatically means Logan wouldn't/couldn't still get his metal claws in some variation of how he originally did. Probably be a better more believable scenario than how they played it in origins anyway lol.
When / where was it ever mentioned the brain dead patient in X3 was a twin bro of prof x?
How exactly he gets it back on his claws, I don't know. But whether it was through Magneto or similar to how he got them the first time (only this time much easier because it's only his claws) I don't know and doesn't really matter to me.
"“There is no question that at the end of Days Of Future Past there are events that have happened in 1973 that did not happen in our accepted, real 1973. This ripples into the ‘80s, ‘90s and 2000s, where eventually X-Men 1 would take place. We acknowledge that at the end of the movie, with a look at the “future” that is similar to X-Men 1 through 3, but with some very distinct differences."
Kelsey Grammar as beast: "That was Kelsey, yes. When we were making the film, we referred to the happy future section as the ‘Happy Mansion’ sequence...."
On Apocalypse: "That scene really is just a little tease into the backstory of what the movie will be. We’re not committed to that young actor playing him; it’s just supposed to let the hardcore fans know that Apocalypse is coming. You may have noticed that there are four horsemen in the background; that was important to Bryan. I guess we call him the younger Apocalypse. The older Apocalypse that will come in the next movie, and he will be a different actor and have a slightly different vibe."
On Rogue: "Then I thought that if her power was winding down, they needed something stronger or someone who could take over her power. This came from a conversation with Matthew, which was about no-one having the same power as her but then realising there was someone who could take her power. I got chills. Rogue could be the McGuffin of that mission. They’d have to get Rogue out of some dark scary place, and that’s what happens. It’s a really nice sequence, and it’ll end up on Blu-ray some way down the line."
The typical movie-goer is not likely to have known this. I've never watched X-3 with director commentary and I doubt if I had that I would've watched all the way to the end of the disc, but there it is.
M
I know a large number of people who don't watch anything on the DVD except the movie. A couple have wondered if the cost would be cheaper if they only had the movie.
M
Even if they later saw The Wolverine, they were repeatedly reminded of what the Jean Grey character had done. Yet now Xavier is back and no one has bothered to explain how. That's all.
How does that mean "no typical movie goer cares how Charles is back in DOFP"? Am I being unreasonable?
The people who really care more then likely already know &/or saw it initially.
M
Whatever you feel about these glaring continuity problems, I suppose the key to any good retcon is taking what you want from previous iterations and just ignoring what you don't like, ergo Bryan Singer's Days of Future Past.
Need an explanation, how do we know Charles was killed? How do we know Phoenix didn't reassemble his disintegrated body as the body Moira is tending to?
As I said, until The Wolverine & DoFP, did YOU ever question if that was Charles who called out to Moira in the post-credits scene? I haven't heard of anyone questioning or disbelieving Charles returned in that scene. Suddenly he's back in The Wolverine & there needs to be dialogue about it? For whom? The typical moviegoer who just goes to see the movie & doesn't care about every little detail?
Did these same typical moviegoers complain that Marvel didn't hide who the a Winter Soldier really was before the movie was released?
M
Apparently he can cheat death, but doesn't possess the gift to heal his crippled state. Of course that's a whole other debate most typical movie goers would never understand. Do typical movie goers watch ABC's "Assembling a Universe" special or read the comics? I don't know. I never complained about that reveal, but I remember Jamie D bitching about it on one of the podcasts. My daughter was surprised to see it was Bucky when we went to see Winter Soldier. I'm sure that's not atypical, but I don't qualify people that go to the theaters to see every super hero movie that comes out as "typical movie goers" either. Much like the kind of folks that would be bitching about seeing Bucky revealed as Winter Soldier are the same ones that stay for the after credit scenes. Not the "typical movie goers" we're discussing.
It's a blatant continuity error. Singer wasn't able to clean up every mess created by the lax continuity during the production of the first six movies. That's all.
Your argument seems to hinge on your 'typical moviegoer' caring why he's back. Also that there's no explanation for his return.
The post-credit scene in The Wolverine had an explanation. Even if someone didn't see that movie, the scene at the end of X3 more then implies Charles is now laying in that bed. Why is he still crippled? Maybe an additional injury sustained from the car accident that caused the brain damage?
Per the Wikipedia entry:
In a post-credits scene, Dr. Moira MacTaggert checks on a comatose patient who greets her with Xavier's voice. Startled, she replies, "Charles?"
Its not a blatant continuity error. Its there. You can argue about the execution of it if you want. You can continue to say how you didn't like it, but everything needed to put the pieces together are there.
Iron Man 2 didn't take the time to say "remember when I broke into your home & hijacked JARVIS and told you you were apart of a bigger world."
In Thor there was no dialogue or scene where Coulson stated "remember when I got to the Hammer & called you."
In Avengers, there wasn't a scene or dialogue where Fury reminded Selvig he approached him about the Tesseract. Or Loki explaining he knew where it was prior to coming through the portal.
I also didn't hear 1 person complain the Winter Soldier reveal. In fact, I heard more 'typical moviegoers' state until "Bucky" was said, they didn't even know who it was.
Just like with Man of Steel, you can say "Superman shouldn't kill", but you can't say "Superman doesn't kill" when there evidence to the contrary.
M
He was blown to pieces on screen. How did he get into another body? Why is he still a cripple? With or without the post-credits scenes, those questions are not answered. If anyone was wondering about those other items due to missing the post-credits scenes in Thor or Iron Man, they can look it up and catch that stuff elsewhere, not really the same with this continuity.
I've said my peace about this. It appears we've reached an impasse. You win @Matt. Here's your "No Prize" for explaining it all away. There isn't a smidgeon of corrupted continuity in this movie.
I do agree with the rest of it. I usually use my wife as one of the 'typical moviegoer' sample. She loves most of the comic book movies, but does not really care about the extra info and how strict the continuity is. Hell, I always make her wait for the post-credit scenes. She has minimal interest in seeing them...until AFTER she sees them.
M
Boy is that stupid. Is there a comic book precedent? Looking at the scenes online, there is no indication of any connection or familiarity brtween profX and the patient. The opposite actually.
With DOFP they should've just pulled a Star Trek. Never should've done the wolverine extra scene and left future profX out of dofp. Let dofp wolverines time traveling undo / rewrite everything after X2.
M
I think you kind of need Charles for this movie to work. Logan needed to see the past Charles to change the future. Past Charles needed to be convinced by the present day Charles to hope again.
M
Is this thread becoming the new Man of Steel debate thread?!
I wonder what Chris thinks of the movie, him being such a huge fan of the X-Men in the 70's and 80's.