‘X-Men: First Class’ Sequel Titled ‘Days of Future Past’?

[007]

http://screenrant.com/x-men-first-cl...t-kofi-177114/

There is word circulating that 20th Century Fox has reached out to the MPAA to secure a title for the studio’s forthcoming sequel to X-Men: First Class - and if reported accurately, that title is going to send a tidal wave of geek freak-outs across the Interwebs. The title in question is “Days of Future Past” – which remains one of the most famous and celebrated X-Men storylines of all time.

More interestingly, however: “Days of Future Past” was also a X-Men story that dealt with time travel and multiple timelines – meaning that director Matthew Vaughn and Fox could be (finally) trying to organize the convoluted continuity of the X-Men film franchise, using a tactic similar to what J.J. Abrams did with his Star Trek reboot.

Here is the quote from AICN reporter “The Kidd,” which first kicked off this rumor:

One of my little birds Weapon X recently dropped me some information that 20th Century Fox had recently registered the title DAYS OF FUTURE PAST with the MPAA Title Registration Bureau. The Bureau exists for studios and productions companies to stake their claims on certain titles that they intend to release and distribute, so that others can stray from using a similar title.

The title “Days of Future Past” is taken from the two-issue Uncanny X-Men comic book storyline written in 1981 by legendary X-Men writer/artist team Chris Claremont and John Byrne. In the story, the X-Men are trying to stop the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants (led by Mystique) from killing an anti-mutant political figure named Senator Robert Kelly. This pivotal event creates a separate timeline in which the X-Men fail to stop the Kelly assassination, and as a result, mutants are hunted, imprisoned and exterminated by humanity. One X-Man from that future dystopia manages to travel back in time and warn the present day X-Men, who ultimately stop the assassination (though the two timelines both remain in existence).


The X-Men Battle Sentinels in 'Days of Future Past'

Given where X-Men: First Class left things, it’s easy to see how “Days of Future Past” could be reconfigured to focus on Magneto (Michael Fassbender) and his Brotherhood going after a key political figure, and the X-Men team being visited by a dimension-hopping mutant to be forewarned of what happens if they don’t stop the assassins. “Days of Future Past” also had the mutant-killing Sentinel robots, an older version of Wolverine, etc. – all of which would be awesome to see onscreen (not to mention a Terminator-style future dystopia). A “DoFP” plot could also open the door for the franchise to introduce time-hopping X-Men like Bishop or Cable to the mix.

In terms of the movies: “Days of Future Past” would give Vaughn and company a way to end all this continuity madness once and for all. If time travel and alternate timelines are successfully introduced into the X-Men movie universe, then that would be a perfect explanation for why the original X-Men trilogy (and Wolverine) have plot points that contradict First Class, while allowing all of the films to remain valid (unlike the ‘forget the past’ approach of the Spider-Man movie reboot).



“Days of Future Past” is an awesome story on its own – and I for one would welcome anything that could straighten out the movie continuity in satisfactory fashion. First Class was tormented all through development for not being a clear prequel OR reboot, but instead some weird amalgamation of both. I think a lot of X-Men fans would agree with the sentiment that it’s time to clean house. J.J. Abrams successfully cleared away decades of Star Trek continuity when he spun-off a new timeline for his 2009 reboot, which allowed him the freedom to tell his own stories using familiar characters.

Finally, introducing alternate timelines would give Fox many new options for how they approach their other upcoming X-Men films: including already-in-production sequel The Wolverine, and the already-planned X-Men 4. In fact, “First Class Continuity (FCC)” and/or “Original Trilogy Continuity (OTC)” could be terms we all start throwing around pretty soon. Comic book geekery at its best.

X-Men: Days of Future Past - if that is indeed the title – will be in theaters on July 18th, 2014.

Header Image by Deviant Art User “Wobblyone“.

Source: AICN

[Amnorix]

So, having never picked up a comic book in my life....I would say this was a very good movie. I've seen all the X-Men movies, Avengers and all the rest and I seriously think if you didn't like this movie you either don't like superhero movies, or you're too wedded to whatever is in the comic books and can't disconnect from them enough to enjoy the movie.

I sometimes feel this way about Tolkien movies, but I think the key is to just enjoy them for what they are, and not expect them to be a movie version of EXACTLY what you know from the comic books.

As for the plot points mentioned...

Spoiler!

It's hokey, but I think Magneto's control over the Sentinels went down into the circuit board level. IIRC, they did show the railroad tracks being split down into many very thin wires, and I'm assuming that went beyond "muscular control" if you will.

As to Mystique's adaptation ability morphing into the sentinels being able to replicate mutant powers (something Mystique cannot do), my assumption is that after years of research they took the basic adaptation ability that Mystique has and "improved" it to include not just replicating the look, but the actual power. If you assume that Mystique's adaptation is at the genetic level (which it obviously is), and that mutants powers are derived from genetic mutations (which it obviously is), then it's not TOO big of a stretch to combine them and then improve upon what Mystique can do. Heck, Rogue can already absorb powers, so we know that mutation exists. Perhaps it should've been Rogue, and not Mystique, they had to get DNA from...

[Simply Red]

Much better than the Hobbit.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Simply Red

Much better than the Hobbit.

Meh, it's a mixed bag. I thought the extended scene/fight with Smaug was awesome, and the fight part isn't in the books at all. Giant molten gold dwarf was stupid, but you have to take the good with the bad I suppose.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

So, having never picked up a comic book in my life....I would say this was a very good movie. I've seen all the X-Men movies, Avengers and all the rest and I seriously think if you didn't like this movie you either don't like superhero movies, or you're too wedded to whatever is in the comic books and can't disconnect from them enough to enjoy the movie.

I sometimes feel this way about Tolkien movies, but I think the key is to just enjoy them for what they are, and not expect them to be a movie version of EXACTLY what you know from the comic books.

As for the plot points mentioned...

Spoiler!

It's hokey, but I think Magneto's control over the Sentinels went down into the circuit board level. IIRC, they did show the railroad tracks being split down into many very thin wires, and I'm assuming that went beyond "muscular control" if you will.

As to Mystique's adaptation ability morphing into the sentinels being able to replicate mutant powers (something Mystique cannot do), my assumption is that after years of research they took the basic adaptation ability that Mystique has and "improved" it to include not just replicating the look, but the actual power. If you assume that Mystique's adaptation is at the genetic level (which it obviously is), and that mutants powers are derived from genetic mutations (which it obviously is), then it's not TOO big of a stretch to combine them and then improve upon what Mystique can do. Heck, Rogue can already absorb powers, so we know that mutation exists. Perhaps it should've been Rogue, and not Mystique, they had to get DNA from...

I agree. It's a very fun movie and I enjoyed it.

However, as an adaption of the source material it's a complete disaster. Singer does whatever he wants with no regard to the original characters.

I've come to accept it, but such disregard for the themes and characters of an adaption is always going to get backlash. Those fans who are upset are not 'wrong' in that regard. It's become nothing but a minor annoyance to me at this stage, but I sure do wish in retrospect that someone who actually liked or appreciated the source material had been put in charge, rather than a guy who sees the whole universe as an allegory for homophobia and continually misses the greater point by whitewashing the cast (Pietro is peter, because he can't have a GYPSY name!).

Judging it only as a film, it is hands down the best X-men movie yet. It's still born out of a universe that is, on a whole, a terrible adaption when compared to pretty much every other marvel property.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

I agree. It's a very fun movie and I enjoyed it.

However, as an adaption of the source material it's a complete disaster. Singer does whatever he wants with no regard to the original characters.

I've come to accept it, but such disregard for the themes and characters of an adaption is always going to get backlash. Those fans who are upset are not 'wrong' in that regard. It's become nothing but a minor annoyance to me at this stage, but I sure do wish in retrospect that someone who actually liked or appreciated the source material had been put in charge, rather than a guy who sees the whole universe as an allegory for homophobia and continually misses the greater point by whitewashing the cast (Pietro is peter, because he can't have a GYPSY name!).

Judging it only as a film, it is hands down the best X-men movie yet. It's still born out of a universe that is, on a whole, a terrible adaption when compared to pretty much every other marvel property.

Singer couldn't focus having to run to the bath room and rub one out every time Jackman took his shirt off.

[Aries Walker]

Singer's a movie guy. Movie people don't care about comic books; they care about movies. They will adapt, discard, or mutate anything they want to make the movie they want to make.

This is why the Marvel movies are so unique. They haven't stuck to each comic issue religious (you couldn't possibly film that), but they've kept the themes, characterizations, and general appeals much more faithful than the people who made, say, the X-Men, Spider-Man, or Fantastic Four movies.

[Anyong Bluth]

DARK HORIZONS - GENERAL FEED
June 2, 2014
Kinberg Talks Rogue's Missing "X-Men" Scene
Dark Horizons

Producer Simon Kinberg has already discussed pretty much everything you could want to know about "X-Men: Days Of Future Past". One thing he only briefly touched upon before though, the role of Anna Paquin's Rogue in the film, he has now elaborated on.

Paquin's character only shows up for one very brief cameo in the final film. Speaking with Empire, Kinberg confirmed that an excised sequence was developed in which she was to be a central figure. Bryan Singer has previously said it was edited out for time and hopes it will end up on the home video release. So what was it?

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

Spoiler!

The first part of it we've already heard about - Future Professor X, Future Magneto, and Iceman teaming up to rescue Rogue from the Sentinels. The other part follows the injury that Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) sustains during the film due to Wolverine's claws. Rogue steps in to absorb Kitty's powers so she can stay stable, keeping Wolverine safely in the past.

When the first part of the sequence was cut, the latter became useless so Rogue's appearance in the bleak future was cut altogether and Kitty Pryde stayed on to keep Logan in the past. Speaking about the excision, Kinberg says:

"I thought it would increase the urgency and the stakes of the plot in the future, but it actually does the opposite, because it makes you feel like there is an answer out there. You think once Rogue gets here, we’ll have an unlimited amount of time. The ticking clock that we’d established with Kitty getting wounded and losing her powers... well, Rogue would show up and press stop on the clock. So for all of those narrative reasons, there was this ten-minute subplot that had to go."

Would have definitely messed up the final scene.

I'm sure that the other rescue scene that's been cut and just referred to in the movie will be available in the extras with the home release.

There's supposedly about an hour of edited scenes that were finished with cgi that didn't make the final cut.
Obviously, not probably conducive to the movie as a whole but I'd like to see them at least.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Singer's a movie guy. Movie people don't care about comic books; they care about movies. They will adapt, discard, or mutate anything they want to make the movie they want to make.

This is why the Marvel movies are so unique. They haven't stuck to each comic issue religious (you couldn't possibly film that), but they've kept the themes, characterizations, and general appeals much more faithful than the people who made, say, the X-Men, Spider-Man, or Fantastic Four movies.

I agree. There are times, however, when a person who takes over a project has a real passion for the source material. Raimi had a lot of passion for the early spider-man comics and it permeated through the work.

Largely though Disney has put a lot of Marvel people in lofty positions as well as hired a guy to lead the Avengers charge who is an avid comic fan and has a back ground writing marvel comics. It's not a coincidence that putting people in charge who have a passion for the projects are creating better films.

[Ragged Robin]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Singer's a movie guy. Movie people don't care about comic books; they care about movies. They will adapt, discard, or mutate anything they want to make the movie they want to make.

This is why the Marvel movies are so unique. They haven't stuck to each comic issue religious (you couldn't possibly film that), but they've kept the themes, characterizations, and general appeals much more faithful than the people who made, say, the X-Men, Spider-Man, or Fantastic Four movies.

As opposed to DC movies which throw out the themes, characterizations and general appeals in attempt to appeal to the mass market so you're left with essentially a completely empty shell

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Ragged Robin

As opposed to DC movies which throw out the themes, characterizations and general appeals in attempt to appeal to the mass market so you're left with essentially a completely empty shell

True, but in fairness, the hatchet job they did on The Fantastic Four and ESPECIALLY The Silver Surfer (not to mention Galactus) probably made the DC folks say "Damn. I hope we never **** a movie up like that." Then of course they do...

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Bowser

True, but in fairness, the hatchet job they did on The Fantastic Four and ESPECIALLY The Silver Surfer (not to mention Galactus) probably made the DC folks say "Damn. I hope we never **** a movie up like that." Then of course they do...

Green Lantern.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by Bowser

True, but in fairness, the hatchet job they did on The Fantastic Four and ESPECIALLY The Silver Surfer (not to mention Galactus) probably made the DC folks say "Damn. I hope we never **** a movie up like that." Then of course they do...

I was thinking more along the lines of Ang Lee's Hulk.

[Ragged Robin]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Green Lantern.

I like to pretend that movie never happened

[Simply Red]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Green Lantern.

yup - just watched it two weeks ago. Horrid.

[Hammock Parties]

Man, that was so emotional. I think I was moved to tears three times.

Great flick. Fassbender is going to be such a spectacular actor. He really aped Ian.