The present-day X-Men are forewarned of the possible future by a future version of their teammate Kitty Pryde, whose mind traveled back in time and possessed her younger self to warn the X-Men
The storyline alternates between present day of 1980, in which the X-Men fight Mystique's Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, and a future timeline, taking place in 2013, is caused by the X-Men's failure to prevent the Brotherhood from assassinating Senator Robert Kelly
Yeah, I thought that Wolverine thing was weird too. While I was incredibly excited watching the trailer I was wondering, "Why is this centering around Wolverine again." Though has Kitty even been born yet?
MOORE
I am in tears of nerd gamas!
Anna Paquin/Rogue got cut out the film. (http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/12/21/anna-paquin-rogue-cut-from-x-men-days-of-future-past?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook)I wonder what her role would've been.
Anna Paquin/Rogue got cut out the film. (http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/12/21/anna-paquin-rogue-cut-from-x-men-days-of-future-past?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook)I wonder what her role would've been.
Wait, what? Doesn't the present part take place after Wolverine which takes place after X3?
with Micheal Bay as director.No. NO NO NO.
Which is why I think X-Men VS Transformers would be a better movie, with Micheal Bay as director.
Which is why I think X-Men VS Transformers would be a better movie, with Micheal Bay as director.
You are going to give thousands of fanboys a heart attack advocating that :psyduck:
If they're putting him in an X-Men film they may not be able to use him in The Avengers due to licensing issues (I understand that Fox jealously guards all the film rights they have to any characters they put in their films).
Also I'm OK with the redesign. It could work. I'll have to see it in the film to actually judge but if they gave him the blue and silver spandex suit from the comics it would look completely insane so whatevers.
Or in this case, future.Well, both.
(don't see it in 3D! The 3D in this movie is really not worth the extra $$$)Does this ever not apply to movies that were converted to 3D in post?
Beast woulda been excellent, but looked like he was lifted straight outta the original Hulk TV-series and his action sequences were a mixed bag of awesome and meh.
Dinklage, to no-one's surprise, did a surprisingly good job with his character :P
(don't see it in 3D! The 3D in this movie is really not worth the extra $$$)Does this ever not apply to movies in 3D?
Or when it's actually filmed with a 3D camera, like Avatar. Too bad nothing else about Avatar was particularly interesting.Avatar was an accomplishment in film-making. Yes, plot, characters, development and all that fancy stuff was severely lacking, and still I sat glued to the screen. Visuals can be oh so important if done so well!
Or when it's actually filmed with a 3D camera, like Avatar. Too bad nothing else about Avatar was particularly interesting.
Oh, yeah, I enjoyed it plenty because of the visuals, but the idea that it was actually a contender to win Best Picture is absurd.Or when it's actually filmed with a 3D camera, like Avatar. Too bad nothing else about Avatar was particularly interesting.Avatar was an accomplishment in film-making. Yes, plot, characters, development and all that fancy stuff was severely lacking, and still I sat glued to the screen. Visuals can be oh so important if done so well!
It's a movie you did go out and watch though. Although yeah, it's clearly not for little kids.