Why X Men Days Of Future Past Is A Game Changer For Comic Book Movies; the latest X-Men movie introduces comic book ‘retconning’ to moviemaking.

SPOILER ALERT: Do NOT read until after you’ve watched X-Men Days Of Future Past! You’ve been warned.

“Everything that happens now, is in your hands.” Thus says Professor X to Mystique in the new film ‘X-Men Days of Future Past’. It’s his attempt to stop her from killing Bolivar Trask, inventor of the mutant-killing Sentinel program. And with her choice to spare his life, everything that we knew about the X-Men films has changed, irrevocably.

By and large, I loved Bryan Singer’s adaptation of Chris Claremont and John Byrne’s classic X-Men saga. But its time travel element caused some major continuity gaps from earlier X-Men films.

But this very concept also makes it groundbreaking in comic book cinema. Behold the word’s first retcon comic book film. Or at least the most notable example (Singer’s ‘Superman Returns’ showed his first stab at the concept).

For the uninitiated, Retcon (aka retroactive continuity) is an oft-used trope in the comic book medium. It provides an out for a writer or editor on a series that’s hit a creative brick wall from events created by a previous storyline.

For years the DC Comics universe featured hundreds of parallel Earths, allowing for different versions of iconic characters. This became cumbersome for readers and the 1985 series ‘Crisis On Infinite Earths’ cleaned house, paring it down to one earth and singular iterations of characters. It was well received by fans and made for easier to follow storylines.

But retconning can also backfire; when Marvel thought Peter Parker’s marriage to Mary Jane Thompson was reaching a dead-end, they created a storyline where a villain changes history so that the nuptials never occurred. Many fans screamed bloody murder.

The ‘X-Men’ movie series has been lop-sided. It started out strong with the original film and excellent sequel ‘X-2: X-Men United’. But when Singer departed to do ‘Superman Returns’, we were left with Brett Ratner’s substandard ‘X-Men: The Last Stand’ and the even worse ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’.

Click here for my list of Best Comic Book Movies Ever Made

Things got back on track with the prequel ‘X:Men: 1st Class’, which brought Singer back as producer (Matthew Vaughn directed). And the merging of both old and new casts for ‘Days Of Future Past’ is ambitious as hell. It also allows for Singer to clean house from the inferior films he wasn’t involved with.

While many of these changes are thrilling, it can also tie your brain in knots. Take these for example:

• Professor X and Magneto: At the end of ‘X-Men The Last Stand’, Xavier was a disembodied soul in need of a host and Magneto had barely any powers. They were both in normal form in the film. According to screenwriter Simon Kinberg, there was an explanation for the former, but they ran out of time to put it in the movie. (Here’s hoping there’s a ton of deleted scenes in the blu-ray).

• Cyclops and Jean Gray return; When Singer decided to resurrect Jean Grey and Scott Summers at the end of ‘Future Past’ it was awesome, but unexplained. By Mystique sparing Trask’s life, it simply meant the Sentinel war would never occur, but why would that change their fates from ‘X-2’ and ‘Last Stand? Is he inferring that a better relationship between humans and mutants would have avoided their deaths in ‘X-2’ and ‘Last Stand’ from ever occurring at all? Which leads me to:

• Beast: At the end of Future Past, Hank McCoy is a teacher at Xavier’s school, but in ‘X-3’ he’s on the U.S. cabinet as Secretary Of Mutant Affairs. Is this implying that due to the mutant/Sentinel war being avoided that his political muscle wasn’t needed?

• Wolverine: It gets even weirder with Logan. In ‘X-2’ and ‘Origins’, it was revealed he was experimented on by William Stryker, but the new film ends with him being rescued by Mystique posing as a younger Stryker. If she saved him, does that mean that he’s adamantium-free, or did the real Stryker catch up to him later? And being a man haunted by memory loss, will he now be haunted by the memories he does recall? Will he and Xavier have fireside chats to keep these memories alive, or will it later be retconned so that they forget everything?

• Sentinels: why weren’t the Sentinels included in earlier X-men movies? The real answer is Singer wanted them in the older movies, but didn’t have the coin to do it. But if the prototype was designed in the early 70’s it sure is a long ways off until they’re put into production. But given Trask was using DNA technology in its infancy, the idea of long gestation is easier to swallow.

• Magneto: Future Magneto tells Logan he must reunite himself and Xavier; “It’s going to take the two of us; side by side at a time when we couldn’t be further apart.” But true to form, Magneto turns on Xavier. Uhhhh, so…

• Was Magneto’s actions simply to prove Beast’s point that the ‘current of time’ flows unimpeded…and the goal was still accomplished by making Magneto’s betrayal of Mystique a catalyst for her to spare Trask’s life, thereby changing their future?

• Quicksilver; It’s clearly implied that he’s Magneto’s son. But he has a twin sister in the comics (aka Scarlet Witch), who’s much younger in the film (seen sitting in his lap). Did he just grow up faster due to his crazy quick metabolism?  Or is Singer just fucking with us (more continuity craziness; both characters will be in the Avengers sequel, played by different actors)? And while we’re at it;

•  How is Quicksilver using a Walkman, in 1973 when it wasn’t invented until 1979?  I know, that’s nitpicking. But….

• Why in the future is it permanent nighttime just because mutants are being hunted? Probably just because it looks cool and changes up the color-scheme I suppose. Nice Terminator homage too (or is it the other way around?)

Are you getting a headache yet?

These are the pains and pleasure of retconning, folks. We’re now left with a brand new cinematic X-universe, making ‘Future Past’ a  prequel-sequel-inbetweenquel. At this point anything goes; we know that X-Men Apocalypse is up next, which according to Singer, will take place in the 80’s with the younger cast (and Channing Tatum as Gambit.. Meh). But the possibilities are endless; we can now have movies with every iteration of the cast, and plenty of new characters too.

But isn’t this more exciting? To get fresh takes on familiar characters, and not a reboot? That the sense of inter-connectivity between established characters (and actors) still matters, vs. retelling the same old stories with a new cast (i.e. ‘Amazing Spider-Man’, ‘Man Of Steel’, etc)?

We shall see, but the genie is now out of the bottle. I expect films from all genres to jump in on the retcon train, providing equal inspiration and frustration. Bryan Singer pioneered the modern comic book movie with ‘X-Men’ in 2000, and now he’s done it again.

I hope the charges leveled at him are false, and that he continues with the franchise. He knows the X-universe better than anyone, and as ‘Future Past’ makes clear, he’s fueled the best moments of the series.. To have it veer out of control with another inept filmmaker will make the need for yet another ‘Future Past’ to come along and reset the odometer to zero. I think once was enough.

What were your thoughts on ‘X-Men Days Of Future Past’ and the implications for future X-Men movies? Let’s discuss in the comments section.