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

selfishmisery said:
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.
Click to expand...
Obviously set in Earth-17315, guys. :p
 
Last edited:
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
 
stphylcccs said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
stphylcccs said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Pro Bot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
stphylcccs said:
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
Click to expand...
Evidently, mutants were still being born, just at a much rare number.

stphylcccs said:
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
Click to expand...
Not sure that's quite how that math works out, but I understand your point.
 
Pro Bot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top