Thread:Rodangizzardcrusher3/@comment-26687285-20161222013026/@comment-26687285-20170404203507

Sorry, I forgot about that. <:|

The reason I asked is because, to complement the video, I've written an analysis of the series' continuity (or rather, the lack thereof). It is a combination of my own theories and expansions upon what is presented in Gonzo's video and official canonical information that has been disclosed since the video was released. Whil this first post pertains only to what is mentioned in the video, I will also be discussing as many of the other problems as possible as well later on.

So the video presents a view of the X-Men timeline (mainly films 1-7) which clears up about 87 to 93% of all the continuity problems within the series. The main approach here is to divide the movies into three distinct universes. Universe A follows the events of X-Men (2000), X2: X-Men United (2003), X-Men: The Last Stand (2006), and (presumably) the first two Wolverine films, X-Men Origins: Wolverine (1845-1979?) and The Wolverine (1945-2013/15).

Universe B is a kind of alternate history that starts with the events of X-Men: First Class (1944-1963) and leads to the future war between mutants and the Sentinels in X-Men: Days of Future Past (2023-1973).

And universe C is the new (and current) timeline that was created after the 1973 portions of DoFP. This means that until that point this reality is the same as universe B. This reality thus follows all the pre-1973 events of universe B but then diverges from that timeline, which leads to the events of Deadpool (2016/17?), X-Men: Apocalypse (1983), Logan (2029), and (most likely) all future 20th Century Fox distributed X-Men movies.

Keep in mind that, while I will refer to Gonzo Planet's video, I'm not viewing everything soley through the "3 universe" perspective provided therein. I see this mostly as one possible viewpoint and will only apply it if it provides the easiest and most logical solution to a given problem. In other words, I will still largely be looking at the series' history as one singular timeline. So, let's begin.

1: (4:14) Professor X is...alive!?.

At he end of the credits of X-Men 3 there is a secret scene where we see that Professor X has transferred his consciousness to another body after he was atomized by Phoenix. And although this idea would explain why the character back to life in the later films, it also raises a number of questions.

Problem 1: If Prof. X is in another body in the later films, why does he still looks the same?.

Solution: During the audio commentary for the film director Brett Ratner says that the body in this scene belonged a twin brother of Prof. X, named P. Xavier. The story would have been that when the two were together in the womb and Charles's mutant powers began to develop, they were so powerful that they all but consumed his brother's consciousness. After birth P. Xavier was always kept alive artificially in various hospitals, before being transferred to the medical clinic of Dr Moira MacTaggert (which is clearly not the same character that we saw in FC, because then she would've been much older and would not have spoken in a Scottish accent). This means that every time we see Prof. X alive in the post-X3 films, it is merely his conciousness in the body of his identical twin brother, which means that he was not cloned or physically brought back to life.

He also says that this scene was filmed in secret and that no one at the studio it about knew. He says this was meant as nothing more than a tease. A hint that Xavier might come back in a later film, even though at that time there were no concrete plans for an X4.

To make a long story short, what eventually happened was that the filmmakers, after the negative reception of X-Men Origins, decided to largly ignore the events of the previous films and pave over the series' history, beginning with X-Men: First Class.

Problem 2: Why would Prof. X still need a wheelchair if this new body is no longer paralyzed?.

Solution: Uhm...yeah, this is where the whole "twin brother" idea kind of falls apart. Because given that this new body would not have susstained the same injury as his old one, he should be able to use just the logically optimal. Simon Kinberg even said in an interview that, while making DoFP, they couldn't think of any direct explanations for the resurrected Charles. He said that their excuse was simply: "We just wanted Professor X back, dammit". Despite this however, I do have a few ideas that could possibly answer these questions.

1: Given that P. Xavier is braindead and therefore never learned to walk, it is not a strech to assume that his limbs are most likely paralyzed or have somehow expired. A frequent problem with people who are comatose for a long time (and I'm really talking about years on end) is that their limbs (because they are never used) slowly go through a process called 'Atrophy'. To give a rough explanation, this is a condition where the cells gradually wither away and the muscles stop working. And coincidentally, this is often caused by (among other things) genetic mutations.

An example of this process can be found in this scene from Kill Bill: Vol 1 (2003). Here "The Bride" (Uma Thurman) is trying to revive her legs after spending more than a year unconscious in a hospital. Although she unfortunately misnames the phenomenon by calling it 'Entropy' instead of 'Atrophy'.

And yes, I know that even that idea does not quite work, because it would mean arms would also not function (even though he cleary can in the later films). But hey, it's the best excuse I can think of. Plus, you can see clearly in the post-credit scene that he can use both his neck and face muscles, so I think this is a reasonably plausible explanation.

2: Perhaps Charles's paralysis has affected his mind after all these decades and it has now become an inseparable part of his psyche?. This is comparable to the condition known as 'Phantom pain', where someone who has lost a limb can still experience signs of itching or pain in the place where their limb used to be, despite the fact that that part of their body no longer exists.

3: And lastly, it's possible that Charles has become attached to his wheelchair (or hoverchair, like he has in the future), and learned to accept his disability. And this is something that really goes to the core of the character. The fact that Prof. X is paralyzed is one of his defining characteristics. This man has a brain that is so powerful that he can literally kill anyone he wants to with it, and yet is missing one of his most basic human functions. His paralysis in many ways makes him physically vulnerable, but his wisdom and good nature give him a "leg up", so to speak, in moral terms. This combination of his physical limitations and his noble intentions make him a sympathetic and honorable person. The message behind the character is that just because you have lost something doesn't mean you can't still achieve great things. A sentiment that many other Marvel heroes (mainly Daredevil) also express.

2: (6:37) The Summers Family.

Problem: Since Alex Summers (Havok)'s first appearance in FC fans have been speculating about the relationship between him and Scott Summers (Cyclops) in the movies. In the comics Alex is obviously the younger brother of Scott. But how can that be the case in the films when the events of First Class take place in 1962, while in X1, Scott seems no older than 24.

Solution: With the release of X-Men: Apocalypse it has been made clear that Alex and Scott are indeed brothers in the movie universe, but that Alex is the older of the two. In essence, a reversal of their dynamics in the comics. Which means that this is one theory the video presents that has been refuted.

3: (7:03 / 7:18) Nightcrawler's parents / Who is the "real" Trask?.

Problem 1: Why are there two different men in the series with the surname Trask, and what is the possible link between the two?.

Solution 1: This is another case of a concept the filmmakers either forgot about or simply ignored. Clearly Bill Duke's character in X-Men 3 is representative of an earlier attempt to introduce Bolivar Trask and the Sentinel program into the film series, which (again) were likely supposed to re-apear in a fourth X-Men movie.

Anyway, how would nevertheless be explained in the context of the film series?. Given that the secretary in X3 is only ever named "Trask" and not "Bolivar", it iss possible that he could be a distant relative of the character Peter Dinklage plays DoFP. What may have happened is that the secretary became motivated by the assassination of Bolivar to continue the crusade against mutantkind by continuing the Sentinel program. This would also explain why he wants to keep an eye on Mystique, as she was the one that killed Bolivar.

Solution 2: A much simpler explanation, however, can be found by looking at the "three universes" theory. Simply said, this would mean that the DoFP version does not exist in universe A, and that the character in X3 is the Bolivar Trask of that timeline.

Problem 2: Are Mystique and Azazel Nightcrawler's parents like in the comics?.

Solution 1: Considering that X-Men: Apocalypse is now the second film in which Raven and Nightcrawler have been on screen together and yet their relation has still not been made clear, I choose to believe that Mystique probably has no connection with him whatsoever and that this aspect is valid only in the comics and not the movies.

Solution 2: Interestingly enough, the (non-canonical) video game for X-Men Origins: Wolverine has its own (very plausible) answers to these questions. The games' storyline lines up surprisingly well with the "three universes" theory if you do the following. Simply replace the existing movie with the story of the game. If you do this you will notice that the game stays very true to the established logic of that universe.

You will see for example that the games' renditions of Mystique and Trask are very consistent with how they were portrayed in the third film in terms of their appearance. And that's not all. Around 3:41 Gonzo suggests that universe A (despite its differences) would likely also have resulted in a future war between mutants and the Sentinels, since X-Men 3 shows a Sentinel prototype during the Danger Room. Well, the opening and closing scenes of this game clearly show a future where mutants are being eradicated by soldiers and armies of Sentinel robots that look exactly like the one we saw in the first third movie!. In short, this game is the "universe A" version of both X-Men Origins: Wolverine AND Days of Future Past. :O

I've linked a walkthrough of the game below with time stamps for all the examples I mentioned. Check it out, you'll see what I mean.

| X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Game Movie)

'''(Timestamps)

(The Sentinel future: 0:11 to 02:27 / 1:35:24-1:36:55) (Mystique: 49:04 - 51:07) (Nightcrawler: 1:01:30 to 1:01:40) (Bolivar Trask: 51:10 - 53:23 / 1:35:43-1:36:16)'''

4: (8:04) Stryker and Weapon X.

Problem: Here Gonzo actually makes a bit of a mistake. He suggests that given the fact that Stryker tells Logan in X2 that it has been 15 years since he last saw him, yet X-Men Origins implies that the 1979 Three Mile Island incident was the result of Logan and Victor's fight with Weapon XI, that film may only have taken place in universe B.

Solution: Well, since I reject the idea that Stryker is lying to Logan in that film on the simple grounds that I see no reason for him to do so because neither of them stands to gain anything from that because of Logan's amnesia, the same way that he later clearly tells the truth when he mentions that Logan volenteered for the procedure, we have to assume that the events of Origins did not take place in 1979 but in 1991. Add to that the fact that in X1, Charles himself uses the same 15 years description as Stryker does in the second film and the fact that Prof. X (just like in the opening scene of X3) has the use of his legs at the end of Origins, as well as the fact that in universe B Charles was crippled in 1963, and I think we have more than enough reason to assume that these events must have taken place in universe A.