Vaughn confirms that "First Class" was intended as a soft reboot

[Havok83]

whats there to confirm? We knew this years ago

[Kurolegacy]

I think the period settings were a great idea. What better way to revisit the origins of the X-men than to ground it in the era where the comics themselves were created? Superhero period pieces allow us to see the cinematic avatars of these characters in the settings of classic comic-books, and its clearly an effective enough trend that its being replicated across the board - with Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, possibly the upcoming Batman movie etc.

And of course, had the Disney/Fox merger not happened, we likely would have 'caught up' with the present day. In any case, the point of 'fixing the present' in DOFP was more about giving a fitting send-off to the trilogy cast than anything else.

While that may have worked with a full on reboot, I feel that it doesn't work in a movie universe. The comics have the advantage of the sliding timescale so that while the comics may have started in the 60's and been set there at the time, now via the sliding timescale, the earliest portion of the X-Men occurred in the early 2000's. The way that Fox did it with the movies, it breaks willing suspension of disbelief by such a long amount of time needing to pass to get back to the present day and yet the characters never seem to age despite 10 year intervals passing with each movie. Hell Magneto, who was an adult in the 60's somehow isn't even greying by the 90's despite him at that point being anywhere from his 50's to 60's and yet by the same timeline, he's a full old man within 10 years. That also doesn't even mention the problems that are created with characters who should not even be around in that point in time due to their ages in the original trilogy appearing within the First Class series such as Angel and Jubilee. There's just too many problems created from the way that they went about things.

[bat39]

While that may have worked with a full on reboot, I feel that it doesn't work in a movie universe. The comics have the advantage of the sliding timescale so that while the comics may have started in the 60's and been set there at the time, now via the sliding timescale, the earliest portion of the X-Men occurred in the early 2000's. The way that Fox did it with the movies, it breaks willing suspension of disbelief by such a long amount of time needing to pass to get back to the present day and yet the characters never seem to age despite 10 year intervals passing with each movie. Hell Magneto, who was an adult in the 60's somehow isn't even greying by the 90's despite him at that point being anywhere from his 50's to 60's and yet by the same timeline, he's a full old man within 10 years. That also doesn't even mention the problems that are created with characters who should not even be around in that point in time due to their ages in the original trilogy appearing within the First Class series such as Angel and Jubilee. There's just too many problems created from the way that they went about things.

Oh, I'll totally agree that continuity isn't their strongest suit. Though they have made an honest attempt to clean things up and explain away at least the major contradictions.

The ageing thing is also perhaps a valid point, but not nearly as much a problem as people think. Mystique is ageless. Charles and Eric were supposed to be around 30 in First Class, which would make them around 60 in Dark Pheonix. While it does stretch suspension of disbelief a little bit, its not entirely unrealistic for them to largely look the same if they made an effort to keep fit. Plenty of people do so in the real world. Charles is now bald so there's no greying of hair that is evident. Eric probably dyes his. As for Hank, I think its safe to say that between his Beast form and that serum he keeps taking, he doesn't age at a normal rate either.

The Angel and Jubilee thing is admittedly a huge contradiction, but only if you accept that they are meant to be the same people. I mean they were obviously meant to represent the same characters from the comics, but nothing in the movies precludes the possibility of them being different people in this canon. My headcanon with regards Angel is that he's the father of the one from X3 - in the alternate timeline he's the one who manifests those powers. As for Jubilee, she was never actually named on-screen in the trilogy.

[Theleviathan]

Here's the thing though. General hatred of the Fox X-men movies notwithstanding, I just don't see how they 'failed' at building a franchise.

First Class was a pretty good film and a solid soft reboot of the franchise. DOFP is arguably one of the best X-men films ever and probably one of the greatest superhero films of the decade. Apocalypse was a step down in quality from the previous two, but its still a decent enough film, despite its flaws. We've yet to see Dark Phoenix but based on everything we've seen so far I'd argue that its at least better than Apocalypse.

By and large, the First Class series has been quiet successful. The only way you could argue that its not successful or even a failure is if you insist on comparing it to the MCU.

I guess it depends on how you measure successful. They certainly made some money, so are we talking quality? Well, Apocalypse was a horrid dumpster fire of a movie. DoFP was solid, but I think a bit overrated. First Class was very overrated IMO. Most of how we judge these movies is relative to the other X-men movies. Movies so bad it's hard not to call them "quality" by comparison. That's part of the problem baked in really. DoFP is a good movie, but X-fans slobber all over it because of how good it is relative to the crapfest we've endured. That's not a good measure.

So what if we broaden it out? The X-men movies suck compared to Nolan's Batman and the MCU. They aren't as bad as the DCU, probably. They're better than F4, I guess. Worse than Spiderman. What other franchises should we compare them to? At the end of the day, this franchise has brutally failed dozens and dozens of characters in service to a select few. They have failed to build on their stories, create continuity, or make any characters iconic save one. Their special effects and representation of powers are amateurish compared to other major franchises. (Look at Wolverine "leap" at anyone and you can all but see the freaking puppet strings) They have not become part of the zeitgeist like the MCU movies. At times they have been laughably bad. They have had to reboot several times to fix their failures, only to fail at that too. They've had to take two shots at the most iconic X-men story because of how butchered the first time was. I could go on.

They've had successes in small doses in a sea of failures.

[yogaflame]

I didn’t even know Jai was also Australian. And is he taller than Tom Hardy? He doesn’t really look it. He looks similarly stocky to me.

Tom Hardy is only 5' 9", Jai is 6' 1". Hugh is 6' 2".

[WebLurker]

Wolverine Origins was also a Soft reboot of the X-franchise. When it failed they had soft reboot it again

Origins: Wolverine was as much a reboot of the X-Men movies as Jurassic World was a reboot of Jurassic Park.

[Jackraow21]

Tom Hardy is only 5' 9", Jai is 6' 1". Hugh is 6' 2".

It’s funny what they can do with camera angles. Hardy looked huge as Bane in the Dark Knight. I remember being surprised when I read that he was not very tall. Regardless, Hugh has a long, lanky build that makes him look tall despite any camera angle you might use. Jai is built more like Hardy, where their stockiness gives the appearance of being more compact.

[bat39]

Origins: Wolverine was as much a reboot of the X-Men movies as Jurassic World was a reboot of Jurassic Park.

Even less so, arguably.

Jurassic World was a 'reboot' in the sense that it was reintroducing the franchise to a new generation.

Origins was basically an effort to cash in on Wolverine's popularity in the trilogy through a prequel/spin-off that expanded on the backstory from X2.

Whatever you may say about the quality of Origins, there were no real contradictions between Origins and the trilogy. The retconning really started with First Class.

[WebLurker]

Even less so, arguably.

Jurassic World was a 'reboot' in the sense that it was reintroducing the franchise to a new generation.

Origins was basically an effort to cash in on Wolverine's popularity in the trilogy through a prequel/spin-off that expanded on the backstory from X2.

As I understand it, the filmmakers wanted to adapt the Japan story first, but thought they needed to do Wolverine's backstory first. Can't say I think that was a bad idea on paper, I can't say I hate Origins: Wolverine and The Wolverine turned out to be pretty good, so I guess I think at the end of the day, it was probably the best bargain we could've gotten once Origins "went off the rails."

Whatever you may say about the quality of Origins, there were no real contradictions between Origins and the trilogy. The retconning really started with First Class.

Well, Victor Creed seems to have zero connection to X1's Sabretooth despite ostensibly being the same character, the Weapon X lab was specifically redesigned from X2 (as were Wolverine's dog tags), and Wolverine's flashbacks from X1 and 2 don't always mesh up, but that's pretty small details. (The recast for Styker is imperfect, but I think that's easy to let slide).

[RBerman]

Thank the Goddess this didn't happen. I didn't think the X-men franchise under fox could have gotten any worse but apparently it could have. But then i don't really care for Vaughn. If you look at every last movie he has done the main cast is always 99.9% white.

That's unfortunately par for the course in superhero movies, especially those based on 1960s comics. But First Class did have Angel Salvatore and Darwin, which is more than might have been expected for a Silver Age story.

[bat39]

As I understand it, the filmmakers wanted to adapt the Japan story first, but thought they needed to do Wolverine's backstory first. Can't say I think that was a bad idea on paper, I can't say I hate Origins: Wolverine and The Wolverine turned out to be pretty good, so I guess I think at the end of the day, it was probably the best bargain we could've gotten once Origins "went off the rails."

Funnily enough, I don't think they really needed to do Wolverine's backstory first. The Japan story in the comics actually predates the publication of any backstory on Wolverine, including the original Weapon X story! And eventually, 'The Wolverine' had ZERO connection to Origins and was more tied to X3.

Well, Victor Creed seems to have zero connection to X1's Sabretooth despite ostensibly being the same character, the Weapon X lab was specifically redesigned from X2 (as were Wolverine's dog tags), and Wolverine's flashbacks from X1 and 2 don't always mesh up, but that's pretty small details. (The recast for Styker is imperfect, but I think that's easy to let slide).

Well, its easy to assume that Creed mutated further and/or lost his memory as well. Come to think of it, Creed was so bestial in X1 that for all we know, he did recognize Logan on some level, but didn't really bother to engage him in any kind of normal conversation. Even in X1, he was fascinated by Logan's dog tags, implying some kind of connection between them.

As for the flashbacks not lining up, the flashbacks in X1 and X2 are Logan's traumatic memory fragments. What we saw in Origins is the event as it 'really' happened (alas!)

[Triniking1234]

I'm still salty they killed off one of the most powerful X-Men so easily.

[Theleviathan]

I'm still salty they killed off one of the most powerful X-Men so easily.

It was probably better for Havok than continuing to be the abomination they turned him into.

[Triniking1234]

It was probably better for Havok than continuing to be the abomination they turned him into.

What?

*** Havok. I meant Darwin.

[Theleviathan]

What?

*** Havok. I meant Darwin.

Ah, the shift to Apocalypse talk had me thinking that movie. The Darwin death was a terrible choice for a number of reasons and poorly executed to boot.