Skip to main content

marvel - Is the outcome of X-Men Apocalypse already known thanks to the ending of X-Men: Days of Future Past?


If I understand correctly, this movie takes place in the new timeline created by X-Men: Days of Future Past. But the placing of where on that timeline has it after the "past" of X-Men: Days of Future Past but before the "present", when Prof. X looks like Patrick Stewart, Cyclops looks like James Marsden, etc.


Problem is, we already saw that "present", at the end of X-Men: Days of Future Past. We know that Prof X, Cyclops, Jean Gray, Wolverine, and all the rest are all hunky-dory and living fine in the School for Gifted Youngsters. X-Men: Apocalypse takes place prior to that present, when the characters we know are all younger. From the point of view of Stewart's X, all of X-Men: Apocalypse already happened, and they came out of it just fine, right?


So are we going into this movie already knowing for a fact that everything's going to be fine, the Earth isn't going to be destroyed, the heroes are going to win, or is there the possibility that the "present" we saw at the end of X-Men: Days of Future Past won't happen?



Answer



Director Bryan Singer and writer/producer Simon Kinberg have spoken at length about this in an interview with Collider. They say (emboldening my own);



“All these movies now exist in the same timeline and certainly the intention at the end of Days of Future Past was that final future we saw was the destination for the characters. So barring another time travel or something else that would upset the timeline, that would be the fate of those characters.



Simon Kinberg, 2016



That would imply that ignoring further time-meddling, the X-Men films are all now leading to the point we saw with the old cast at the end of X-Men: Days of Future Past.


Director Brian Singer expands on that (again, emboldening my own);



“Time can always be fucked with, we’ve now learned that. We’ve now learned that once you alter time that could be the future, but I don’t believe if you look at all the X-Men movies and Days of Future Past, I don’t believe that’s definitive. I’ll kill any of those characters any day I want. They’re all fair game. Anything can happen. When two things are happening simultaneously in quantum physics it’s what’s called the Super Position and when the Observer finally observes the outcome that’s called the ‘Collapsing of the Super Position’ which is what happened when Wolverine woke up and saw all the happiness. So yes that is the outcome we hope for, that is the outcome we aspire to, and that’s the outcome we are moving towards, but we saw in Days of Future Past another dark world. What says that can’t happen again? What says the awakening of a being that has such power and can acquire the power to destabilize that? So anything is possible. That’s what we’d like to think happens, that’s what Simon would like to think is a good outcome, but to me it’s fair game.”



Brian Singer, 2016


It seems that the writer of the film and the director of the film disagree, at least somewhat, on the certainty the future that we saw at the end of X-Men: Days of Future Past.


Ultimately, I believe that this line from Brian Singer best explains why, despite having seen the future at the end of X-Men: Days of Future Past, we can't be sure that future will actually come to fruition;



"The point is time’s immutability. The idea that time is like a river. You can splash it and mess it up and throw rocks in it and shatter it but it eventually kind of coalesces and this is, again, quantum physics theory. It’s all based in quantum physics."




Brian Singer, 2016


The point he is trying to make is that the future we saw at the end of X-Men: Days of Future Past is just one possibility, not a certainty, and that possibility is made more or less likely by events occurring. As such, for all we know something could happen that would now stop the "happy future" seen by Wolverine at the end of X-Men: Days of Future Past from happening.


So in short - no, the outcome of X-Men: Apocalypse is not already known, despite us seeing the "happy future" in X-Men: Days of Future Past.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize Missy right away?

So after it was established that Missy is actually both the Master, and the "woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS number... ...why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize her right away? I remember the Tenth Doctor in The Sound of Drums stating that Timelords had a way of recognizing other Timelords no matter if they had regenerated. And Clara should have recognized her as well... I'm hoping for a better explanation than "Moffat screwed up", and that I actually missed something after two watchthroughs of the episode. Answer There seems to be a lot of in-canon uncertainty as to the extent to which Time Lords can recognise one another which far pre-dates Moffat's tenure. From the Time Lords page on Wikipedia : Whether or not Time Lords can recognise each other across regenerations is not made entirely clear: In The War Games, the War Chief recognises the Second Doctor despite his regeneration and it is implied that the Doctor knows him when they fir

the lord of the rings - Why is Gimli allowed to travel to Valinor?

Gimli was allowed to go to Valinor despite not being a ring bearer. Is this explained in detail or just with the one line "for his love for Galadriel"? Answer There's not much detail about this aside from what's said in Appendix A to Return of the King: We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Glóin's son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter. And Appendix B: Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf . And when that sh

Did the gatekeeper and the keymaster get intimate in Ghostbusters?

According to TVTropes ( usual warning, don't follow the link or you'll waste half your life in a twisty maze of content ): In Ghostbusters, it's strongly implied that Dana Barret, while possessed by Zuul the Gatekeeper, had sex with Louis Tully, who was possessed by Vinz Clortho the Keymaster (key, gate, get it?), in order to free Big Bad Gozer. In fact, a deleted scene from the movie has Venkman explicitly asking Dana if she and Louis "did it". I turned the quote into a spoiler since it contains really poor-taste joke, but the gist of it is that it's implied that as part of freeing Gozer , the two characters possessed by the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper had sex. Is there any canon confirmation or denial of this theory (canon meaning something from creators' interviews, DVD commentary, script, delete scenes etc...)? Answer The Richard Mueller novelisation and both versions of the script strongly suggest that they didn't have sex (or at the very l

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed.