Whenever you deal with time travel in a narrative, things can quickly spin out of control. So after heavily featuring the concept in X-Men: Days of Future Past, director Bryan Singer and writer Simon Kinberg are now having to explain where the story picks up in this summer's sequel X-Men: Apocalypse (it's set in 1983, continuing from the events of the '70s as depicted in the previous film) and how the plot isn't necessarily heading in the direction some might think. Kingberg told Collider:
“It’s not leading necessarily toward exactly where we found Patrick Stewart and the X-Men at the beginning of X-Men 1. There are some things that lead in that general direction, that was part of the philosophy we had at the end of Days of Future Past is that you can’t fully change the course or current of the river, but you can just divert it a little bit, and we diverted it a little bit. So some things will be surprises; people could die that were alive in X-Men 1, 2 ,and 3, or people could survive that died during 1, 2, and 3.”
Singer jumped in to elaborate:
“So what I’m doing with these in-betweenqueels is playing with time’s immutability and the prequel concept, meaning that yes we erased those storylines and anything can happen. That means the audience goes into the movie thinking that anything can happen. I mean anything, anyone could die. Any possibility could occur, but characters are still moving towards their immutable place. Jean and Scott, are they meant to be together? Is Scott, this guy who hates schools and hates authority, destined to become a leader? You don’t know. Is Jean ever going to discover the full potential of her power? You don’t know, but we move in those directions character-wise but then we have the freedom story-wise to do whatever the fuck we want because we erased those three movies.”
This franchise was so screwed up by the events of X3 that I think they were basically forced to introduce time travel in order to have any hope of getting things back to a workable semblance of order. Still, it's a little disheartening to hear the guy who made the first two films seem so happy about erasing the events of those films — why should we care about anything that ever happens in this franchise if there's the possibility it'll all be wiped out just so someone else can tell a different story later on?
For me, the ending of Days of Future Past — in which Wolverine wakes up in the "corrected" future — marked a clear new future point of the franchise, meaning that the events of Apocalypse will take place in the 1980s of that timeline. Kinberg seems to agree:
“All these movies now exist in the same timeline and certainly the intention at the end of Days of Future Past was that final future we saw was the destination for the characters. So barring another time travel or something else that would upset the timeline, that would be the fate of those characters.”
But Singer doesn't like to make that assumption, and in fact he sounds downright giddy about the possibility of switching things up yet again:
“Time can always be fucked with, we’ve now learned that. We’ve now learned that once you alter time that could be the future, but I don’t believe if you look at all the X-Men movies and Days of Future Past, I don’t believe that’s definitive.”
“I’ll kill any of those characters any day I want. They’re all fair game. Anything can happen. When two things are happening simultaneously in quantum physics it’s what’s called the Super Position and when the Observer finally observes the outcome that’s called the ‘Collapsing of the Super Position’ which is what happened when Wolverine woke up and saw all the happiness. So yes that is the outcome we hope for, that is the outcome we aspire to, and that’s the outcome we are moving towards, but we saw in Days of Future Past another dark world. What says that can’t happen again? What says the awakening of a being that has such power and can acquire the power to destabilize that? So anything is possible. That’s what we’d like to think happens, that’s what Simon would like to think is a good outcome, but to me it’s fair game.”
On one hand, this sets up an interesting dynamic moving forward in the franchise were you know that no one is safe, so it removes the worst aspect of prequels (knowing that certain characters are going to live and evolve into characters we've already seen), which is sort of a cool way of handling this. I like the idea of being so invested in the story that I'd be on the edge of my seat to see if someone will get killed off, and that possibility now exists. But again, the other side of that equation is a sort of nihilistic, "who cares about anything anymore?" line of thought when it comes to this franchise, because now anything can seemingly be erased at will, so it removes any sense of finality.
What do you think? There's more in the full interview, so check that out if you're interested.
X-Men: Apocalypse hits theaters on May 19th.