X-Men Cinematic Universe - Timeline (Revised & Original)

[Specks]

View attachment 4069
View attachment 4070

Where did you find this? I want to add it to my list of tie in media, which includes how to find everything. I guess I could just link this page

 

[Pro Bot]

Found it. It's 4 pages and not compatable with Earth-10005. It's just Magneto interupting a Danger Room session (with WOLVERINE and JEAN GREY there, Magneto not in prison) - And he is gloating "I WILL get you soon!" essentially like Sting in David Lynch's Dune. That's it.

And the Sentinels are ugly, green and resemble the hideous bricky Transformers minicon toys from Takara giveaways.

Obviously set in Earth-17315, guys.

 

[Specks]

Obviously set in Earth-17325, guys.

17315*

 

[Pro Bot]

Typo.

 

[myusernameyes]

Obviously set in Earth-17315, guys.

I'm telling ya these branches sure are different sometimes.... :cigarette:

 

[selfishmisery]

Where did you find this? I want to add it to my list of tie in media, which includes how to find everything. I guess I could just link this page

Google deep dive

 

[selfishmisery]

Infinity level based.

 

[myusernameyes]

Me, a wiki following sheeple:

 

[Specks]

Logan will always be the true direct sequel to The Wolverine to me. Not DoFP

 

[stphylcccs]

Did Fox ever say which universe it actually occurs in?

 

[barryh]

Logan will always be the true direct sequel to The Wolverine to me. Not DoFP

What about The Wolverine's mid-credits scene that leads into DOFP?

 

[Pro Bot]

Did Fox ever say which universe it actually occurs in?

The director did, and that's post-DoFP.

 

[Pro Bot]

Logan will always be the true direct sequel to The Wolverine to me. Not DoFP

It is, just a direct sequel where X-Men: Days of Future Past happened in-between.

 

[stphylcccs]

I hear there being a lot of contradictions between that and New Mutants, but iirc the New Mutants were being held by the same people who made X-23, so there's a plethora of explanations one could give as to their mere existence in the first place

 

[selfishmisery]

I hear there being a lot of contradictions between that and New Mutants, but iirc the New Mutants were being held by the same people who made X-23, so there's a plethora of explanations one could give as to their mere existence in the first place

Why not just...watch the movie?

The internet also thinks Ryan Wilder's Batwoman is a "blackwashed"/"trans" Bruce Wayne or Barbara Gordon and obviously that's not true.

 

[Pro Bot]

I hear there being a lot of contradictions between that and New Mutants, but iirc the New Mutants were being held by the same people who made X-23, so there's a plethora of explanations one could give as to their mere existence in the first place

There's no proper contradictions. The New Mutants especially doesn't contradict anything. In fact, the exact reasons people cite to claim Logan isn't canon would also apply to it contradicting The New Mutants, but that film is directly connected to Logan.

 

[stphylcccs]

There's no proper contradictions. The New Mutants especially doesn't contradict anything. In fact, the exact reasons people cite to claim Logan isn't canon would also apply to it contradicting The New Mutants, but that film is directly connected to Logan.

Logan states that no mutants had been born since a certain year (I don't remember when) so since New Mutants showed the mutants with their powers as children it's implied they would've been born with them, not given like with X-23, which didn't align with the Logan date (I think)

But, like I said, there're a plethora of possible explanations

 

[stphylcccs]

Also, I'm pretty sure Logan wouldn't work for 10005 even more than 17315, since 25 years before 2029 would mean most of the X-Men would be dead long before DoFP could even happen

 

[Pro Bot]

Logan states that no mutants had been born since a certain year (I don't remember when) so since New Mutants showed the mutants with their powers as children it's implied they would've been born with them, not given like with X-23, which didn't align with the Logan date (I think)

But, like I said, there're a plethora of possible explanations

Evidently, mutants were still being born, just at a much rare number.

Also, I'm pretty sure Logan wouldn't work for 10005 even more than 17315, since 25 years before 2029 would mean most of the X-Men would be dead long before DoFP could even happen

Not sure that's quite how that math works out, but I understand your point.

 

[selfishmisery]

There's no proper contradictions. The New Mutants especially doesn't contradict anything. In fact, the exact reasons people cite to claim Logan isn't canon would also apply to it contradicting The New Mutants, but that film is directly connected to Logan.

Also New Mutants literally takes place within a day or so after the woman who adopts X-23 snuck in and took footage of the experiments, the same footage is reused from Logan.

 

[selfishmisery]

Also New Mutants literally takes place within a day or so after the woman who adopts X-23 snuck in and took footage of the experiments, the same footage is reused from Logan.

Apparently this and Deadpool & Wolverine's evidence about Logan literally being the inevitable future of "Earth-10005" (in the film's words, but it's clearly not that numbering anymore) wasn't enough for the Marvel Database wiki.

That literally got ignored because of admin bias.

 

[stphylcccs]

Not sure that's quite how that math works out, but I understand your point.

A quick google told me it was 25 years. Is present-day DoFP not after 2004?

 

[Pro Bot]

A quick google told me it was 25 years. Is present-day DoFP not after 2004?

The X-Men in Days of Future Past are older than 19 years old.

 

[selfishmisery]

A quick google told me it was 25 years. Is present-day DoFP not after 2004?

Google A.I. is not your friend.

It tried to tell me Krypton is somehow an official prequel to Superman & Lois and that was NEVER confirmed...

 

[stphylcccs]

The X-Men in Days of Future Past are older than 19 years old.

Sorry, the 25 years were incorrectly mentioned; it's stated in Logan that Xavier's seizures killed most of the X-Men

 

[stphylcccs]

Google A.I. is not your friend.

Of course (I've had it give two contradicting, equally incorrect responses to the same search), that specific use of it must've slipped through the cracks

 

[selfishmisery]

Sorry, the 25 years were incorrectly mentioned; it's stated in Logan that Xavier's seizures killed most of the X-Men

Now I will say I'm curious how Avengers: Doomsday might acknowledge that seizure incident and if anything changed as a result of Monica arriving there.

 

[Pro Bot]

Sorry, the 25 years were incorrectly mentioned; it's stated in Logan that Xavier's seizures killed most of the X-Men

Only 7 mutants died, and only several of them were X-Men. That means only between 3 to 6 X-Men died. That was in 2028, too.

 

[Pro Bot]

People exaggerate the Westchester incident and make it seem like Xavier killed everyone. The movie is bleak, not that bleak though.

 

[BB10]

View attachment 4067View attachment 4068

TRN1141?

Because that universe also had Magneto not imprisoned after the events of X-Men 1 (this comic is obviously post-X-1 since Wolverine is a part of the team).