comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Mutatis Mutandis

Days of Future Past Writer On Why They Swapped Kitty Pryde For Wolverine


I get your thought process, Simon Kinberg, but I’m still side-eyeing you real hard.

In the Days of Future Past comics, Kitty Pryde goes back in time to alter the course of history and save mutants from a horrible future. In the upcoming Days of Future Past movie, the same thing happens – except it is Wolverine, not Kitty Pryde, who takes the role of time traveller. Many fans were disappointed to learn that Kitty was getting effectively kicked out of her own storyline in favor of a male hero. Why would the writers of this film put the focus on Wolverine all over again when they could give a female character a chance?

According to writer Simon Kinberg, the reason is mostly logistical. He told Empire Magazine:

“We made the decision for a lot of reasons, some of them obvious and some of them more nuanced, to make it Wolverine who goes back in time. One reason is that he’s the protagonist of the franchise, and probably the most beloved character to a mass audience. Probably the bigger reason is that when we started thinking about the logistical realities of Kitty’s consciousness being sent back in time, to her younger self, as opposed to her physical body being sent back..it was impossible.

Obviously in the book it’s Kitty..but you’re talking about an actress (Ellen Page) who, in the age of Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy, would have been negative 20 years old. So we started thinking again, and the first reflex response to that was a character who doesn’t age. Wolverine is the only character who would looks the same in 1973 as he does in the future.”

In short, the Kitty Pryde from the cinematic world of X-Men just isn’t old enough for this type of time travel to make sense. I get that. I really do. However, it seems telling that rather than make adjustments to the storyline to accommodate the Kitty they had (such as changing the method of time travel or moving the timeline up), they elected to simply replace her. Kitty will still be in the film, but she has been relegated to a position of supporting role rather than protagonist. It’s disappointing, no matter what the reason.

So there you go: another female-led superhero movie that almost happened. Wolverine gets the spotlight (again), and the studio gets a popular and conveniently male character to lead the film. The reasoning does make sense, but it’s an excuse. If the people behind DOFP had really wanted Kitty, there are a whole pile of ways they could have managed it and made it work within the world of the film. As it is, I’m rolling my eyes. The perfect opportunity to bring a beloved female character to lead a superhero film, and it is once again deemed too “tricky.”

Maybe next time.

(via: Blastr)

Previously in Days of Future Past

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | |


  • Thomas Hayes

    I’ve never read that comic so I didn’t know Kitty was the central character until today. Now that I know, and I’ve seen their feeble excuse for why it had to be Wolverine again, I’m just going to give the film a miss instead. Screw next time.

  • Charlie

    This is bullshit, they could have just changed the time travel. How do they expect female characters to gain any momentum unless they actually let them have a first film -.-

  • tsee

    Days of Future Past was my very first ever exposure to the X-Men, via the YA (yeah, okay, elementary school) “novels” they put out which I obsessively checked out of my school library. Kitty has forever and always been my absolute favourite of the X-Men, and my excitement on hearing that they were bringing DoFP to the screen as the next installment in the franchise was largely due to her involvement. Hearing that it was instead going to be another Wolverine-centric film dampened my spirits somewhat.

    The reasoning makes sense; the epic list of talent going into this movie guarantees it will still be a spectacle, and the trailer still has me yanking at the bit to just get here already. But as much as I believe I’ll enjoy the movie, and as marvelous as it is going to be, it’s always going to be slightly dampened by the fact that “that should have been Kitty”.

  • Annie Bulloch

    The decision makes sense to me. They didn’t change it because Kitty’s a girl. They changed it because you want to hang your big movie that ties two sides of a franchise together with your most recognized character. They’d have done the same thing if Colossus or whoever was the main character in the comic version.

  • Melinda Heaney

    umm…Wolverine was the one who went back in time in the animated series. and who wants to see Ellen Page when they can see Hugh Jackman? kind of a no-brainer ladies. Kitty was never a prominent character in the movies anyway. would be kinda dumb & make no sense to make her the main character now

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005825887698 Becca Lampenstein

    First it’s impossible to create a Wonder Woman movie, now it’s impossible to use Kitty Pride because she doesn’t look old enough and the screenwriters aren’t imaginative enough to work around it. Sigh.

  • Melinda Heaney

    X-Men has Storm, Jean Grey, Mystique, Rogue, a lot more females than most other movies have

  • Samuel

    This is why I don’t like Wolverine, he’s everyone’s favorite go-to Marty Stu, he’s in every title since the late 90′s, and always wins no matter what.

  • Calum Syers

    None of whom have been more prominent than Wolverine and, arguably, Professor X and Magneto.

  • Rebecca Pahle

    “who wants to see Ellen Page when they can see Hugh Jackman? kind of a no-brainer ladies.”

    *raises hand*

    I need a break from shirtless primal screaming. I’d rather the franchise do something different and focus on someone else.

  • Thomas Hayes

    And they keep relegating them from the lead roles.

  • Joanna

    So sick of Wolverine. When are Rogue and Gambit gonna hook up? When do we get a Storm origin story? I don’t think the movies touched on her claustrophobia at all. There’s so much way more interesting character arcs we either only get a glimpse of or are told really badly. Get your shit together, Hollywood!

  • Joanna

    Ditto.

  • J Ritchey

    It may be logical, but it’s also short sighted. Sooner or later, Jackman’s going to stop doing these movies. Then they’ll be stuck because they’ve hung the entire franchise on his pecs and didn’t bother to develop any of the other characters when they had the chance–and anyone who tries to take over his role is going to suffer in comparison.

  • Melinda Heaney

    are they more prominent? yes, but the women do play a big role in the films & arent just the token female/ useless girlfriend character like in almost every other superhero film.

  • Anonymous

    I’m extremely disappointed. It makes sense, but I don’t like it. I didn’t care that much for First Class anyway. It doesn’t really work as an X-Men movie. And Kitty is my favorite comic book character, and DOFP is one of my favorite stories, mostly because of her role in it. I’m not sure that it will be a story I’ll care about without her as the main character.

  • http://runt.org/ Adrian

    I want to see Ellen Page! It’s funny how studios are convinced that the “target demographic” (hetero men) are more interested in seeing shirtless dudes than cute chicks.

  • KF

    Mystique was one of the leads in First Class. She’ll probably have a prominent role in this film as well.

    Rogue was one of the protagonists of X1 and X2. She’s as much a protagonist in those films as Wolverine.

  • Samuel

    Not only that, they are going to have Bishop and Blink! Blink’s not even from this continuity, are they gonna magick her into the timeline? And Bishop is straight up FROM THE FUTURE, how’s he getting there if “time travel doesn’t work like that”?

  • Samuel

    They’re logic of not being able to have Kitty time travel is automatically disproven by the involvement of Bishop in the movie.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know if I would call Kitty the protagonist of that story. I thought she spent most of the story passed out on the floor.

  • KF

    You’re assuming he’ll have the same origin as in the comics. In the past, they’ve changed characters quite a bit while keeping the same names and power sets. Particularly in X3.

  • Calum Syers

    I’m not arguing that they’re not at all prominent, but the franchise has moved from its origins as being an ensemble piece to a series of films with defined, even typically masculine leads is telling.

    Bryan Singer was even hired, originally, due to his skill handling an ensemble cast with The Usual Suspects, suggesting that, at least to begin with, they were attempting to make a franchise where every character was as important as the person next to them. This statement today farts that small act of goodwill away.

  • Cad Wallader

    I get why people are disappointed, but the lead was always going to be Wolverine. The first reason the producer gives is straightforward and honest: “He’s the protagonist of the franchise, and probably the most beloved character to a mass audience.” The producer then goes on to also note that with Wolverine they can more easily unite the two X-Men time periods, but the first and best reason is the initial one; Wolverine is the main character in this franchise, and has been from the beginning. Would a Kitty Pryde-centric movie be awesome? Yes, but I don’t think it is likely so long as Singer and Jackman are the leads on Fox’s X-Men business.

  • Cellism

    And so why does Wolverine have two solo films and a third in production whereas Rogue ends up losing her powers at the end of the third film?

  • Samuel

    Here’s hoping, I don’t have that much faith.

  • KF

    Why Wolverine has two solo films: He’s a more popular character. Has been for quite some time.

    Edit to add: I say this as someone for whom Rogue is her favorite X-man. She meant a great deal to me while I was growing up.

    Rogue losing her powers: I’m not a fan of X3. That’s all I’ll say about that.

  • Cellism

    It was also Bishop that performed the time travelling in the ‘original’ animated adaption, in which he was physically sent back in time because he hadn’t been born yet. Sound familiar?

  • Anonymous

    I just realized: Cyclops is the older brother. In the trilogy, he appears to be in his 20′s or 30′s. In FC, a movie set 50 years earlier, his younger brother Havok is in his late teens or early 20′s. Even if they made Havok the older brother, it would mean he would have to be 30 years older than his brother. The timeline is already broken. The franchise failed with 3, FC didn’t work as an X-Men film, and trying to shoehorn them together is bad. The more I think about and hear about this movie, the less excited I am for it.

  • http://runt.org/ Adrian

    They changed a good story for the sake of business and franchise concerns, which is creatively bankrupt. That’s the kind of sense that ruins great storytelling. One could argue the story remains intact despite the protagonist being changed, as long it maintains the feeling and spirit of– nah, never mind. Why make excuses for the studio? It was a sensible and weak decision.

  • Cellism

    I very much ‘get’ why it’s Wolverine doing the time travelling malarkey in Days of Future Past but let’s not pretend that this is a new story. Kitty is the time travelling hero in the comic book version of the story but when it was adapted from X-Men: The Animated Series half the story was rejigged and it was Bishop who goes (physically, not psychically) back in time to sort out stuff.

    Kitty Pryde wasn’t even in the original X-Men animated series because ‘X-Men’ was actually the second pilot produced about the team. The first was called ‘Pryde of the X-Men’ and had Kitty in the central role but the animation was so dire that Marvel cancelled the project and made a whole new pilot from scratch. As a result, Kitty doesn’t get within ten feet of the entire run. (She might feature in a cameo role like Bobby Drake did but when Morph and Jubilee got such huge roles, go figure.)

    Since then, Kitty Pryde has been very reluctantly handled in media adaptations of the X-Men which is why so mainstream fans of the series (i.e. – Don’t read the books) have no real idea who she is.

  • Cellism

    It was never meant to be a continuation of the series, there’s massive continuity errors. (Where Magneto gets his helmet, how Xavier becomes paralysed etc etc.) This is first and foremost a cash-in.

  • Annie Bulloch

    I’m not making excuses. They had good reasons, and I look forward to seeing the final product.

  • Anonymous

    Agreed (as long as they find someone else for Storm – Halle Berry needs to stop doing these kinds of movies and go back to Oscar-bait movies. She always has this air about her like she can’t believe how she got stuck in a movie like this, and it’s so beneath her.)

  • Cellism

    I don’t think you can really compare the two in that case since they went in on uneven footing, got different narrative arcs (Logan saves the day, gets backstory, emotional development and plays the hero while Rogue just hates her feminine nature) and then exit it on different trajectories. I don’t like Rogue in the movies at all, the archetypal Rogue didn’t mope around for no one.

  • KF

    Business and creativity are not mutually exclusive.

  • KF

    Rogue sure did some moping back when I was reading her. Was your first introduction to her in the cartoon?

  • Joanna

    Zoe Saldana for Storm!

  • Joanna

    I didn’t mind the mopiness at the start. I kinda thought she would get more badass at some stage though. Alas, nay =(

  • Cellism

    Well yes but she’s very content at the moment. Still, in the cartoon she knew that her and Gambit couldn’t get it on but she didn’t turn into a passionless mope scared of her own strength.

  • Cellism

    Three films, nae chuckles.

  • KF

    The character in X1-X3 is at an earlier point in her life. She hasn’t gotten there yet. She could have in X3, but that movie’s a mess.

  • Joanna

    I dunno. She did fall into despair and try to get rid of her powers. Her sass was really just on the outside, used as a self defence mechanism.

  • Cellism

    Ru Paul for Storm! (I love Zoe Saldana but she can only play so many minority science fiction women.)

  • http://discord-inc.tumblr.com/ James Fletcher

    It’s a decision that makes sense in context, but I would hesitate to call it “good”.

  • Calum Syers

    “Three films, nae chuckles.” That made my day.

  • Joanna

    I just think Saldana would rock a mohawk ^_^

  • Cellism

    ‘good reasons’ = we wanted to target the generic male demographic because they are the only people who buy movie tickets

  • Cellism

    True. (Although Mohawk would mean that Storm would be Wolverine’s girlfriend? :/)

  • Samuel

    This. My problem with this is they have Bishop (from the future) and Blink (from a completely alternate timeline) but they can’t send Kitty back in time? I call bullshit.

  • KF

    The mohawk predates that stuff. The current mohawk is a nod back to her 80s look.

    Edit to add: It would mean she’d be hanging out with Yukio, though, which could be fun.

  • Stephie

    This storyline is one of my favorites but I gave up on the franchise when they completely butchered my favorite character, Rogue. I still don’t see how they are going to fit all this material into an hour and a half movie. I know we don’t know the true running time but, I’m going to be realistic and cynical here, it’s going to be a disaster. Many characters will suffer development wise while others, like wolverine again, get to flourish. I fear this will just be like the Resident Evil movie series, which always breaks my heart, where they just throw a bunch of recognizable characters at you for fan service, yet don’t explain anything or develop them. ugh. I have no qualms about wolverine or hugh jackman but really, the property needs to get rebooted proper when Marvel regains the property rights as a television show or something because there are so many beloved characters that deserve recognition too!

  • Annie Bulloch

    “Good” = the word I chose because in my opinion, they were good reasons. (And I bet Hugh Jackman sells just as tickets to ladies as Ellen Page, because rowr.)

  • Joanna

    I just silently squeed at the thought of a live action X-men tv show.

  • Cellism

    Would you like to quantify in any which way that comment wasn’t sexist? Saying a male character is going to be preferable to a female character to female viewers because he’s rowr’ is white washing over the entire fact that Hollywood consistently and unrelentingly prioritises male leads over women or female-centric narratives while also reducing women to scenery, damsels in distress or sexualised objects.

    Hollywood hasn’t released a female-lead superhero film in 8 years (not since Elektra) and so to actively take a story that iconicly featured a female character and stick the same old male character on the front to sell more tickets (he was going to have a large-scale role in the movie anyway) is not just about eye candy, it’s not just about ‘making the story work’ in some blasé logic, it’s downright pernicious.

  • KF

    If the “present-day” timeline in the new film is around now, or more likely, in the near future, and if the “past” timeline is in the early 70s (as it seems to be – First Class was definitely in the 60s), then she’d be about 40 years younger than she is now. In X3, she’s, what late teens, early 20s? So maybe she’d be around 30 in the “present-day” of the film? So she wouldn’t have been born yet.

    If she’d be 14 at the time of the “past” in the film, she’d be in her mid-40s in the film’s “present.” I don’t think Ellen Page can pass for her mid-40s yet.

    They’d either have to use a different time travel method that physically sent someone back (as @disqus_uoRwJfme6h:disqus has suggested) or they’d have to set the “past” timeline closer to the present. Or they’d have to recast Kitty.

  • http://discord-inc.tumblr.com/ James Fletcher

    You know, while I do understand their logic to why they didn’t use Kitty (though I don’t necessarily agree with it), but I do wonder why use Wolverine?

    Well, okay, the obvious answer is because he’s the most popular character. Logically though, wouldn’t it make sense to use someone who actually appeared in First Class?

    I mean I haven’t read the original Days of Future past, but I assume that part of the reason they send Kitty back is she is a member of the team so they can skip the whole “you don’t know me yet, but you will in the future” schtick a lot of time travel stories have. So, with that in mind why would they send back Wolverine, who was not an X-Man at the time and Xavier met only once?

    Again the answer is he’s the popular one, but it really increases my fear that this film will be less a sequel to First Class and more Singer’s attempt to retcon X-Men III.

  • Mark Matson

    Well sure. Every movie starring Wolverine has been a great hit and Ellen Page has no proven ability to be the lead in a movie.

    Oh, wait…

  • KF

    He also doesn’t require age-enhancing makeup in the later part of the timeline, since he basically doesn’t age.

  • Mark Matson

    Or use physical time travel.

  • KF

    The first Wolverine film, bad as it was, had a domestic box office of $179.9M, and a worldwide box office of $373M.

    His second solo film had a domestic box office of $132M, and a worldwide box office of $414.8M.

    X3, in which he was essentially the protagonist, had a domestic box office of $234M, and a worldwide box office of $459M. (All numbers from Box Office Mojo.)

    Regardless of the poor quality of his first solo film and X3, his films do well enough financially that they’re going to continue to hang the franchise on him.

  • KF

    That’s what I said: “They’d either have to use a different time travel method that physically sent someone back (as Samuel has suggested)”

  • Stephie

    all the yes. It’d have to be picked up by a respectable network tho, not ABC. I’m on the fence lately about Agents of SHEILD and think some of it’s issues stem from the fact that ABC/Disney is too damn pc.

  • Anonymous

    I have to give Kinberg credit for at least admitting that they’re giving Wolveremo the hard sell to the Michael Bay Fan demographic. Again.

  • athenia45

    “logistical realities of Kitty’s consciousness being sent back in time,
    to her younger self, as opposed to her physical body being sent back..it
    was impossible.”

    I haven’t read the comic, but Kitty doesn’t seem to be THAT old from what I’ve seen. How old was her “younger” self???

  • KF

    There was a not-very-good Generation X TV movie in the 90s:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X_(film)

    Finola Hughes was Emma Frost, Jubilee, Monet and Banshee were in there. Matt Frewer played some scientist guy.

    I think it was intended as a back door pilot, but that didn’t work out. This eventually led (I think) to the early 00′s tv show, Mutant X, which was produced by Avi Arad:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutant_X_(TV_series)

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    I rarely come on here anymore. I rarely look at the comments because – agony. In this one small case, I am going to lay down my two cents.

    Hugh Jackman IS rowr. Shutup.

  • Annie Bulloch

    I’m very much in favor of female-led superhero movies, or any other types of movies. In this case, the decision made doesn’t sound like it’s about gender – it’s about fame. The ‘rowr’ was mostly a joke, but Jackman is objectively more well-known and more of an established box office draw than Page. A movie of this scale isn’t going to get made without certain assurances up front. If there was some sensible way to make Mystique the protagonist, and have Jennifer Lawrence as the lead, I’d be behind that completely. But that probably doesn’t work for the character/story.

    For most of the movie-going public, they’ve never even heard of “Days of Future Past” as a comic, and might not remember that Kitty Pryde exists at all. I blanked on the fact that she was in the third X-Men movie myself, because that movie wasn’t that good and I only saw it once, back whenever it came out. She was in X2 briefly, and it was very cool, but I don’t know if she made a big enough impression of viewers who didn’t come in knowing who she was. So she’s “iconic” in a comic, but sadly, not to most people.

  • Anonymous

    I get that Kitty Pride was a teenager when she first appeared in the comics, but the X-Men film franchise seems to have an odd thing with de-aging female characters. It would have been possible to introduce her as an older version when the first films came out, but they didn’t. They also made Rogue younger, and with First Class Mystique is only as old Professor X. I’m not sure if that actually says anything, but it’s an odd pattern. I think. (I’ve never read the comics, so I am going by little I’ve picked up online)

  • KF

    “Saying a male character is going to be preferable to a female character to female viewers because he’s rowr’”

    That’s not what she said. She just said Jackman would sell as many tickets as Page. Not the same thing as him being preferable to her.

  • KF

    Actually, Mystique would have been a great choice for the one to send back if they hadn’t killed her off in X3.

  • Annie Bulloch

    Did she die? I just remember her losing her powers. Jeez, this is now not-good X3 was.

  • KF

    They de-aged Iceman and Pyro as well. And Cyclops always seemed a bit young to me in the films. He certainly seemed younger than Jean, which is different from the comics.

  • Stephie

    I’m a really big fan of the 90s X-Men the animated series, I also really enjoyed Wolverine and the X-men animated series. I think they should bring that back!

  • KF

    Wait, not died, de-powered, now that I think about it. And abandoned by Magneto as a result.

  • KF

    There is a “Wolverine and the X-men” comic right now. Not the same as having an animated series, but it’s generally a lot of fun. Wolverine as headmaster of the school. They’re restarting the numbering at #1 again, but there’s about 40 or so issues out there.

  • KF

    The problem isn’t that. It’s that the earlier timeframe in the upcoming film is in the 70s, while the later timeline is, presumably, in the present day.

    In the original comic, the earlier timeframe was the present-day, which meant Claremont and Byrne could have used any character from the future (which was an unspecified number of decades away).

  • LizbethAnne

    I don’t think anyone who wants Kitty as the lead is saying “remove Wolverine from the film!” He’s a part of the original story, and should remain so. But you can have Kitty be the lead, Logan be a supporting character, and still benefit from the “Wolverine” aspect to marketing.

  • http://discord-inc.tumblr.com/ James Fletcher

    That seems more like a bonus than a selling point to me though.

  • http://bytestemplar.com/ Fortyseven

    Eeeh. To me, it just sounds like the path of least resistance. Rather than do a bunch of work to get around a problem, they found a shortcut and did very little work. Relatively speaking.

  • http://discord-inc.tumblr.com/ James Fletcher

    To me the real question is, why is the method of time travel suddenly the most important part of the story? Couldn’t they just change the method used? Do they think that would annoy more comic fans somehow then changing the main character of the story?

  • LizbethAnne

    In the comic, Kitty is integral to the story–while in the future timeline she’s unconscious, in the “current” time, she’s rallying the X-Men and participating in the fight against the Brotherhood. In fact, her presence is a temporal anomaly, and she manages to phase through Destiny and interfere with her precog ability (which was getting the X-Men’s asses kicked). Without Kitty, who alerted the team to the issue and then disable the biggest threat, the X-Men wouldn’t have won.

  • LizbethAnne

    I’d rather see Kitty as the lead, and Wolverine as a supporting character. I don’t understand why your desire to see an attractive man on screen means that this was a good writing choice–my understanding is that there’s at least an Avengers porn parody, if your main criteria for superheroes is that they be sexy.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know if anyone pointed this out before in the thread but the way the comic storyline is presented in the article is, while technically true, omitting a very important detail. In the comics, FUTURE Kitty Pryde goes back to the PRESENT to prevent the apocalypse. Done that way, any mutant who wasn’t killed off in X-Men 3 could have done the travel. But since the movies want to tie up both franchises, only 5 characters from the current day franchise are old enough to make the switch: Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, Mystique and Sabretooth (assuming he’s still alive after X1). I think it’s important to make that distinction to fully represent the complications, even if we don’t agree with their “solution”.

    Personnally, in that group above, Xavier makes the most sense to me as the one who should do the travel. I’m sick and tired of the franchise over-reliance on Wolverine, and the other characters are all villains. Among the female characters of the “current day” X-Men, Kitty Pryde makes the least sense as to who would play that crucial role. They have done NOTHING with the character except cast an actress who was probably better than they realize. If one character deserves a film around her, it’s probably Rogue, who was developped but not turned into a hero yet.

  • http://anna.balasi.com/ AnnaB

    That’s a whole load of bullshit for “we don’t think Kitty Pryde can carry this mega film” and by Kitty Pryde, I mean female lead.

  • Anonymous

    I hate the fact tht they ‘stole’ Kitty’s story, though I see that it was the way to go if they wanted to combine the First Class cast with the original X-Men cast.

    The argument I don’t buy is the crap about Wolvie being the protagonist and beloved by the audience. Don’t misunderstand – I love Wolvie, always have. But calling him the protagonist really puts the finger of how they’ve screwed up the franchise. Look at Avngers. Yes – Iron Man gets a lot of face time but the rest are more than his supporting cast. They are ALL protagonists!

    Thor 2 did fine without Iron Man. First Class did fine without Wolverine.

    They HAVE to start using some of the other X-men soon or this franchise will die. The fact that they can’t cut the umbilical cord is deeply worrisome! Even Jackman is getting a bit fed up with it.

  • http://anna.balasi.com/ AnnaB

    I get that they found a good reason, but honestly, I think it would’ve been gutsier of them to use Kitty Pryde anyway. It’s kind of odd to call “her age doesn’t fit with the timeline” in a movie about time travel. I mean, what, was that a fixed point in time, or something?

  • Stephie

    oooo, excellent, I’ll have to check that out! =)

  • Anonymous

    Wolverine is a popular character because they gave him center stage and allowed him to experience important story arcs. Iron Man was a B-level super hero and that all changed with one good casting and one good movie.

    They cast the excellent Ellen Page as Kitty Pride and the great Anna Paquin as Rogue. So why not use that and not stick them in the background (especially Page)?
    Things just don’t ‘happen’. They are allowed to happen by the studios – or not as the case may be.

  • KF

    I’m talking about his popularity in the comics, before the franchise started, which probably led Fox to focus on his character.

  • athenia45

    OHHHHH. Thanks!

  • http://discord-inc.tumblr.com/ James Fletcher

    I actually think if they were going to use someone who appeared in the original movies and First Class they should have gone with Mystique. I know that might seem like a terribly idea, but think about it: she has a connection to Xavier even though she joined Magneto’s side. There could be a conflict, since obviously she’d want to save the mutants, but she might want to betray Xavier in a way that would screw humanity over.

    Obviously this would change the story, but it’s obvious they weren’t planning on being 100% faithful to it anyway. The real risk would be them retreading too much of plot of First Class, but since X-Men is about 90% melodrama anyway it seems like an acceptable risk.

  • LizbethAnne

    It’s irritating to me that the official stories seem to be “well, as you know in the comic the time travel is switching your current mind into your past body and Wolverine is old and Kitty isn’t” and acting as if this is an insurmountable obstacle. They’ve made dozens of changes from the comics–hell, from what’s come out about this movie alone I could name a bunch (Blink and Bishop are in it, Rachel Summers and Franklin Richards aren’t, the assassination of JFK is involved, and I could do on).
    They’ve changed characters ages, powers, nationalities, personalities. They’ve changed the order X-Men joined the team. They butchered the Phoenix storyline. Why is the comic method of time travel suddenly sacred and unable to be changed?

  • KF

    The Avengers was also made by Marvel Studios, as were the connected films, with involvement from the Marvel writers and editors. It was also directed by someone who had previously written for Marvel (a great run on Astonishing X-men that featured Kitty Pryde, incidentally).

    The people working on the X-franchise, which is at a different studio, may not have the same level of knowledge of the characters, or of how they can interact well while sharing a story. I get the sense that they think of a lot of the characters they have access to from the comics as power sets first, characters second. The complex web of relationships that characterizes the X-men in the comics gets flattened in the films to varying degrees as a result. (I though the first two were the most successful at capturing that, but even there, the focus was limited. And much as I liked First Class, it was basically the story of Xavier, Magneto and Mystique, with the other characters as adjuncts to the story).

  • Anonymous

    Well my point is that if they want to keep this franchise financially successful they need to plan for the future. Jackman won’t be around forever and it will be difficult for anyone else to step into that role too quickly. X-Men is one of Marvel’s biggest sellers not just because of Logan but because of the varied roster and plenty of complex female characters unlike most other superhero comics. It’s just bad business not to use that imo. Apart from the ethical reasons.

  • KF

    I don’t think it’s a matter of being seen as “sacred” or “unable to be changed.” I think it’s more a matter of the people making the film realizing they had to make some changes, they went with whatever changes they decided on, changes that seemed the most financially viable to them (foregrounding Jackman), and then moved on.

    The studio at this point has invested more time and money in Wolverine’s character than in Kitty’s, have had financial success as a result, and are continuing on that path.

    I’m not saying that I would have liked to have seen Kitty travel back via a different method. (Or the more I think of it, I’d rather have seen Mystique sent back instead.) I’m saying they’re not as invested in, or possibly aware of, the importance of Kitty as a character as long-time X-man fans are. (To me, she’s more or less the heart of the franchise.) That, plus the financial side of things, leads to the decisions they’ve made.

  • KF

    That I agree with.

    Maybe look at it this way. If this version of the franchise fades out (as it almost did), maybe Marvel gets control again, does a reboot.

  • Anonymous

    They didn’t. The cure wasn’t completely effective (re: Magneto barely moving his chess piece). They left it open for all “cured” mutants to somehow regain their powers.

    That said, Mystique’s original role is orchestrating the assassination, but given how she’s not a straight up villain in this film franchise, I suppose it could have been written around her.

  • Anonymous

    The mohawk was back when she wanted a change and her friend Yukio helped her restyle herself and helped her cut loose. It has nothing to do with Wolverine or her alternate future relationship with him.

  • Anonymous

    I get why Logan is the only one whose mind they could send back into his own body (I guess Kelsey Grammar’s Beast is killed by then), but why keep the confusing chronoskimming without Rachel? The only reason this plot device worked in the original is that it made the greenest X-Man, Kitty, into the most vetran & justified her addition by having her save the day. The pressure was on since the Sentinels killed all the established fan favorites like Wolverine.
    If Magneto assassinating Nixon causes DoFP, why don’t they just send his mind back in time so that the whole debacle is directly avoided? What’s the point of introducing Bishop if you’re not going to send him back in time?

    I’m really not liking Wolverine being the one to inspire Xavier to reopen his school & make more X-Men. Any of the other mutants could fill that slot & become better developed for it. Surely Wolverine in the future & maybe a cameo in the past would be enough to get people to watch it. Now I’m really worried it won’t have the iconic scene of Sentinels melting Logan down to his bones that even the 90s toon managed to slip in.

  • Anonymous

    The secret is that Kitty is still sent back in time, but into Wolverine’s head.

  • Anonymous

    For a long time, Rogue was basically barely keeping it together that she couldn’t touch another person. Her lack of control was why she desperately left to join Xavier’s. Later, despite her growth into a more confident person, she still had a difficult time dealing with her isolation, which lead to her trying to get rid of her own powers. The rambunctious Southern belle thing was sort of a front. Plus, she still remained traumatized by the awakening of her powers when she was with that boy, Cody. Then when she finally had the chance to be with Remy, it went completely wrong and she nearly killed him.

    She didn’t get back on the up and up until X-Men Legacy, which was relatively recent, whereupon she finally gained control of her powers, which was a good thing, IMO. The entire personal story arc for Rogue across her time in the X-Men always seemed to be “girl gets punished for wanting to express physical love, girl gets her chance, girl is cursed again, girl takes another chance, harms someone in the process”. Tedious for one thing, problematic for another.

  • LizbethAnne

    I mean, I know what the reasoning of the studio is, I just think it’s a terrible choice. As someone else pointed out, Jackman won’t do this forever–stressing the team aspect to the X-Men would be a good move.

  • Anonymous

    integral, yes, but far from the protagonist. I don’t know if I’d say anyone is the protagonist.

    Honestly the whole story is really weak in the comics. Or maybe that’s from a lifetime of reading about time travel and other stories written after it.

  • Rob Payne

    Hugh Jackman could definitely pull that off, Homeslice.

  • LizbethAnne

    That would be an amazing movie, actually.

  • Rob Payne

    The comic isn’t necessarily weak, it’s just too much story to tell really well in two 24-page issues. There’s no third act, which at the time was kind of brilliant — of course the reader wouldn’t know if it worked, because the X-Men wouldn’t until they got to that future. Even still, if they’d done it in three instead of two issues the narrative would flow much better now. It was groundbreaking at the time and the abruptness was part of that, but in retrospect it doesn’t hold up quite that well beyond the still-searing image of Wolverine’s death.

  • Rob Payne

    Which, I should hasten to add, likely won’t be in this movie. Bets on who gets that fatally iconic Sentinel blast?

  • Rob Payne

    Well, he wouldn’t be “the best there is at what he does” if he didn’t have a perfect win/loss record, bub.

  • Rob Payne

    NERD ALERT: Blink first appeared, and apparently died sacrificing herself, in the storyline “Phalanx Covenant” that introduced the bulk of the Generation X comic book cast of characters. She was re-introduced about a year later in the “Age of Apocalypse,” and I believe both versions have made appearances since then. Her and Bishop’s appearance in the future/present is a little wonky, but not so far removed from Rogue, Kitty, and Bobby all being the same age and Havok being Cyclops’s way older brother. That chronology boat sailed way back in X1.

    If you’re gonna pedant, at least do it right.

  • Anonymous

    It’s also problematic, Adam. So shove it.

  • MeatyStakes

    So instead of trying to build another character, you pile it on all again on Jackman. That’s not fair to anyone, maybe specially Jackman himself. Over exposure man!

    It just reeks of pandering and Wolverine publicity (yeah, that phrase was a thing even before the movies)

  • Cellism

    Her second, current mohawk? http://imgur.com/r/comicbooks/HEXeFPI

  • Anonymous

    “What, now you ladiez want to have stories told about and from the feminine perspective?! Omg!!” Would we have this same talk about masculine characters? Lol NO. >.>

  • Anonymous

    You need to hinge two timelines and all that chaos together. Do you do it with a character that has appeared in every X-men movie. Or one that has a small part in one movie and a cameo as a different actress in the other.

  • Anonymous

    Exactly. It’s like “lol whut” O.o

  • Rob Payne

    Since Jennifer Lawrence is the biggest star in Hollywood right now, what are the chances we’ll get a solo Mystique movie ever? She’s got absolutely one of the best power sets for all kinds of stories — an Ethan Hunt-like spy who doesn’t need silly, unrealistic masks; a Danny Ocean-style master criminal who doesn’t need 10 other people to pull off her heists; a Wolverine-esque ageless warrior who doesn’t need healing powers to stay young and pretty. Etc., etc…

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    I don’t usually take requests, but just this once: where shall I shove it?

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    (Horrible) People put down their animals when they’ve gotten lame, yet this franchise rolls on.

  • Ross Van Loan

    We’ve secretly replaced our storyline with business decisions! Let’s see who notices!

  • LizbethAnne

    But, exactly as I said in my comment, I’m not advocating removing Wolverine from the film and titling it “Shadowcat”. It’s in no way similar to having a Beta Ray Bill movie–it’s not even having a female-led movie. The X-Men movies have alread shown that they don’t *need* Wolverine to be successful, as First Class was popular and literally features 10 seconds of Logan (and that was not advertised).
    A comic-based DOFP script would still feature Logan (he basically has an epic battle against Sentinels and ends in a heroic sacrifice). He could still be the “star” and in all the ads. I just think it’s ridiculous to say that it’s somehow a huge risk to give a plot line to a female character, within a film series that also has dudes.

  • Randy

    Wolverine wasn’t the “protagonist” for First Class… why throw him in the mix again? Don’t like this at all.

  • Anonymous

    Ellen Page is a pretty well known name, and Shadowcat is as marketable as Thor, Iron Man, or Blade were prior to their movies. Ellen Page is more well known than Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, or Harrison Ford were when Star Wars came out, and Shadowcat is more well known than Luke Skywalker was. You don’t have to have a well known star with a plot everyone knows and characters that are hugely popular in order to have a popular movie. You just have to have a good movie.

  • Jessy Southard Strohmeyer

    I think a lot of people are ignoring the fact that Ellen Page SUCKED as Kitty Pryde. I can’t stand Page at all, and I’m betting others feel the same. I certainly wouldn’t watch an XMen movie with her as the main lead. It makes sense for the filmmakers to go with the biggest, most bankable fan favorite, and that it Jackman.

  • Cellism

    As others have suggested, you could have done it with Mystique. Jennifer Lawrence is one of the biggest names in Hollywood right now. Justifying male centrality in narratives can become a slippery slope very quickly, you end up at ‘Wonder Woman is a really tricky property to get right’ before you know it. I’m not saying that it doesn’t make sense for it to be Wolverine, I’m saying that it shouldn’t need to be.

  • Anonymous

    Ok, I’m not trying to justify a male centric narrative.

    This is the same logic that put Wolverine as the protagonist seat during Scott Summer’s iconic story line.

    If I were writing it, I’d love to put Kitty in the driver’s seat. I think it would be more interesting. I think sending the future Kitty back to the 70′s in body and mind would create way more interesting drama to have to deal with a sexist prick Xavier.

  • KF

    Yeah, but if they did it in the films, there’s no reason they’d have to go that route. And outside of continuity, Marvel went that route because it was a resurrection of an old look, which they do periodically for various characters (including Wolverine’s current costume).

  • Anonymous

    They are making a product that has to sell, and from the perspective of storytelling, it has to appeal to a wide range of people, not just feminist-leaning Internet users like yourself. Wolverine is the most popular. Annie is right, they would have changed it to Wolverine no matter who was in the original comic.

    It was a sensible, “strong” creative AND business decision, and if I worked as an artist for that studio, I would applaud it as the right one.

  • Anonymous

    Simon Kinberg co-wrote “X-Men: The Last Stand” so this shouldn’t come as that big of a surprise.

  • Anonymous

    Technically her third. She adopted the mohawk again when she was still married to Black Panther, I guess because she felt a bit suffocated and wanted to get back out there and do stuff: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h_4LI9FCco8/S-4xXQt5jaI/AAAAAAAAFoY/7YPztEqtqSk/s1600/ASTONISHING_X_MEN__XENOGENESIS_2.jpg

    http://4colorfashion.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/astonishing-x-men-xenogenesis-001-002.jpg

    The third, current one seems more a reflection of her cutting loose (again), and reads more to a throwback to the 80′s bad-ass Storm now that she’s becoming headmistress, than some Sandy Olsson/Grease transformation. In fact, I wager that every time it gets brought back, it signals that, rather than the “I need a makeover for a boy” trope.

  • Cellism

    Given Wolverine’s recent movie run (and this story, in fact) if we can trace something back to Wolverine they will.

  • KF

    In this case, I doubt it. Could be wrong, of course. Also, from what I understand, he current mohawk has more to do with the end of her marriage to Black Panther than it has to do with Wolverine. (Have they done more than kiss? They used to do that from time to time, back in the old days.)

  • Anonymous

    Kitty did have prominent roles in “X-Men: Evolution” and “Wolverine & the X-Men” cartoons on top of showing off her powers in each movie in the original trilogy (albeit played by different actresses).

  • KF

    Not really.

  • Travis

    It wasn’t about gender when Kitty Pryde got kicked out of her role as Wolverine’s teenage buddy in favor of Rogue.
    It wasn’t about gender when Cyclops was kicked out of his role in the Dark Phoenix Saga in favor of Wolverine.

    Guess what. This isn’t about gender either.

    I could make the same comment about Nightcrawler getting kicked out of his role as the team’s teleporter in favor of Blink, and it would be just as asinine.

  • kat

    From my own huge timey-wimey justifying of the storyline, going off what’s been shown in the trailers, is that the ‘world’ of XFC is essentially an alternate timeline to the ‘world’ of the first three films; hence the huge discrepancies like Xavier getting shot in his late 20s in XFC but still being able to walk in his late thirties and forties in the original X-Men films. So in the alternate timeline, which will be undone by Wolverine going back to change the past, Havok very well could have been Cyclop’s older brother or even father but that will have no bearing on the original ‘world’ of the first films (similar to how Moira is in her forties and Scottish in the first three films but suddenly in her early 30s and American in XFC). That or I’m reading way too much into things.

  • Jeyl

    So…. First Class was a critical and commercial failure?

  • Jeyl

    They play a role, but that doesn’t make them interesting characters. Characters have strengths, flaws and potential for character growth. There is no character growth for any of these characters.

  • Not Impressed

    No, he’s a man. Anyone who doesn’t agree with him doesn’t deserve to speak.

  • http://technicalluddite.com/ Hannele Kormano

    Shirtless is not scantily clad. Hell, it’s manly! Look at him beat hairy chest!

    Show me Wolverine in a banana hammock, that is scantily clad for a male character.

  • Anonymous

    Well, tbh he the only consistent thing and I cant see anyone else playing Wolverine (and The Wolverine has been pretty successful). So they obviously using for marketing and making excuses. Hugh Jackman will sell more tbh. But I like it with him, due to him having a decent back story in the movies already and how it connected through the movie The Wolverine – with him seeing Magneto and Charlies at the end.
    However it could still be a disaster of a movie, that even Jackman cant save with his pure awesomeness. Last Stand, was one of the worst things I have ever and will ever see.

  • Anonymous

    Eh- I don’t see why everyone think’s X-men is “led” by Wolverine. It’s a multi-hero story (see Firefly, Avengers, etc.) and it always bothered me that they have put the focus so much on him. It’s short sighted and sloppy writing.

  • Anonymous

    I like how they open with the actual truth: Wolverine is and will always be THE hero of the franchise, with the Xmen playing supporting characters (ugh) but then they try to justify it by throwing in some nonsense about Kitty Pryde’s age. As if, in a sci-fi movie about time travel, they couldn’t change that and explain it away by some gizmo or another. Please.

    I think they should also rethink the “probably the most beloved character to a mass audience” because that is simply not true. Solo movies numbers as exhibit A.

  • Anonymous

    And yet Hollywood took a big chance by having a complete unknown Aussie actor as the protagonist in the firm Xmen movie. And you know what? People ate it up. Why? Because they were not psychics and couldn’t foresee the damage the HughJackmania would do to the franchise? Maybe. But most of all because if the character is well conceived, interesting and well acted (which he was back then), it doesn’t matter if there’s a “big name” to attract the audience and please them. Big names only matter when the movies suck and they want to hide that fact by throwing names around.

  • Anonymous

    That’s somewhat debatable after the Phoenix-was-turned-into-a-wolvie-storyline debacle.

  • Anonymous

    Nope. Wolverine has two solo films because Hugh Jackman’s agent, upon discovering the Marvel Universe after Xmen was released, realized the character had several solo titles and decided to exploit that to make money. Jackman is on the record in several interviews saying that the solo movies were his agent’s idea.

  • Anonymous

    That’s boring though. Perfect heroes who win all the time? What is this? Harry Potter?

  • Anonymous

    Sure, they would have done the same if Colossus was the main character. But not if it was Kitty or Rogue or Storm or Mystique and considering the number of Oscar wins and nominations between the 4 ladies playing those parts, it’s not because they are lacking in notoriety.

  • Anonymous

    That just made me roll my eyes. Hard. Please. If they wanted Kitty, they could have made it work easily enough.

  • Melynda

    Not a Wolverine fan but surprisingly I don’t care about the change. I honestly can’t stand Ellen Page so if this means less of her, I’m okay with that. They could have easily have chosen an older female member of the team though.

  • Jamie Jeans

    *reads the reasoning*

    Hmmm… okay… my simple response.

    Bullshit.

  • Raiden

    If they do the “Age of Apocalypse” Story-line following this, Kitty could still play a big role. She is a total badass in that AU.

  • Charlie

    I love the x-men but turning rogue into a timid waif and then this is just blatant sexism. I’m just sick of it.

  • Charlie

    Just thought about that mindswap episode of ultimate spiderman where he stabs himself about five times in the course of the episode.

  • Charlie

    They could have used Forge? It’s a comic book universe there is time travel possibilities everywhere.

  • Travis

    They de-aged Iceman and Pyro more than they de-aged Rogue. I’m not sure if that actually says anything… oh wait. Yeah I am. It doesn’t.

  • Charlie

    I love x-men and it’s female characters but this, on top of what they did to Rogue, is just kind of disgusting. My point was that if they never let a female superhero have her own film then she’s never going to have as big a media presence as the male heroes.

  • Travis

    It should have been Kitty in the very first X-Men movie. And she should have had a larger presence in X2.

    “It should have been Kitty” could basically be the motto of the movie franchise. Doesn’t mean there’s anything sexist about it.

  • Travis

    Mark Millar is working for Fox on X-Men/Fantastic Four stuff. It’s not like they don’t know what’s what.

    Either way, Wolverine being the centerpiece of the X-Men universe is hardly a recent event. It’s probably the most accurate thing from the comics to the movies.

  • Travis

    To be fair, who really cared about anybody but Magneto and Prof. X in First Class?

    The whole movie could have been just about those two. Everybody else was just window dressing.

  • Brent

    I don’t understand why Fox Studio keeps trying to push Hugh Jackman at us. They have a movie with both Ellen Page AND Jennifer Lawrence in it and they decide that the person movie goers will respond to most is the aging star Hugh Jackman. It’s the sort of sexism that’s hard to define as it’s a sexism of limited imagination. Their male-centered world view doesn’t see that the appeal of the X-Men has always been its strong feminine energy and that Ellen Page is a much stronger choice to frame a story around.

  • SCP3

    How?

  • SCP3

    “If the people behind DOFP had really wanted Kitty, there are a
    whole pile of ways they could have managed it and made it work within
    the world of the film.”

    It’s all well and good to say there are a whole pile of ways, but what are they and what would adopting any of them have done in terms of requiring rewrites, etc. to make it work within the world of the film?

    I’d be willing to bet money that at no point did anyone involved in the movie say or think “A woman? No way, make it guy.” Instead, I suspect the thinking was more along the lines of “Do we want to go through lot of extra work all on behalf of a character most moviegoers aren’t familiar with and probably barely remember was in the movies, or just swap them out with the most recognizable (and bankable) character we have? Um… let’s go with with option two.” Laziness and the bottom line drove this decision, not gender bias.

  • Mr The Batman

    I understand why they did it, Wolverine is a bigger draw than Ellen Page as Kitty, only because she featured in ‘Last Stand’ and we’ve had at least 5 films featuring Wolverine quite prominently.

    Then they do their time travel rubbish. There has been so many examples of time travel in Marvel history ranging from Bishop in the animated series and his time bracelet and the time pad (I suppose) for Age of Ultron.

    No problem with Mr Jackman, but the character is over saturated both in film and comic land.

  • Anonymous

    Ah, but then it will be time for a reboot! So the real question is…who will be the next Wolverine.

  • Anonymous

    My guess is that “they” (producers, studio execs, etc.) don’t expect to. They’re out to make money, not out to help female characters. In their minds female X-men aren’t what’s selling tickets.

  • Charlie

    Well then they are sexist. The success of films doesn’t rely on gender. Hunger Games and Frozen just proved that.

  • tickles

    guys the entire franchise is an analogy for the gay rights movement, if we’re going to cut a series some slack, it should be the x men.

  • FiachSidhe

    Mark Singer cares so little about making good X-Men films, that he actually banned any comics from the set of this film.

    http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=80192

  • The Disciple

    Has nothing to do with Hackman it’s pure logic. They wanted and intended to use as much as the original cost from the original xmen movies as they could (mainly for redemption) so logically the only one they could send back in. Time in wolverine which is Jackman.

    Plus kitty pryde is a boring character and was never meant to be a leader/main character

    Frankly they should make an all female. Focused x-men movies that’s be cool

  • Sojibby

    Completely BS. If they couldn’t use Kitty Pride because of her age, they could have, you know, chosen a different storyline.
    Days of Future Past is part of Kitty’s introduction story, it happened very shortly after her character’s introduction when she was still “Sprite”.
    I get that movies aren’t made for the comic fans, but they are the only ones who would even know the story in the first place. By using the story and making it about Wolverine yet again they just piss them off. Better to not use the story at all.

    When exactly did it become wolverine….oh yeah and some other guys.