Re: Logan (2017)
Posted: January 19th, 2017, 12:32 pm
So it's confirmed that this takes place decades after DoFP's epilogue, not one year after like previously stated
Discussion forums for the premiere fan community for and by fans of film director Christopher Nolan.
http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/
Xavier's in his 90's and he was born in the 30's (I think), so that would make this take place in 2020's (shortly after the epilogue of DoFP). Not entirely sure.Now Where Was I ? wrote:So it's confirmed that this takes place decades after DoFP's epilogue, not one year after like previously stated
2029.Bacon wrote:Xavier's in his 90's and he was born in the 30's (I think), so that would make this take place in 2020's (shortly after the epilogue of DoFP). Not entirely sure.Now Where Was I ? wrote:So it's confirmed that this takes place decades after DoFP's epilogue, not one year after like previously stated
http://comicbook.com/2017/01/19/wolveri ... -revealed/"There's an epilogue scene in Days of Future Past which is 2024, or 2023, something like that," Mangold said. "I just wanted to get far enough past. My goal was real simple: it was to pick a time where I had enough elbow room that I was clear of existing entanglements. Part of the way I think this films stop being fresh (these films being franchise comic book movies) is when you find yourself making essentially a television series with $200 million episodes where you're literally just picking up where the last one left off and you're making a mini-series. Then, it's impossible to do something fresh, meaning essentially you're just a director on the 14th episode of a television show picking up where the last one left off and people are going to be really startled by any discontinuity or changes."
In this third Wolverine film set in the “near future,” which is vaguely post-apocalyptic in tenor, mutants are on the fringes and seemingly all but extinct. In fact, there’s a “Children Of Men”-like narrative: no new mutant has been born in over 15 years and the rest of the remaining species (there’s an implication that many have died) seem to have scattered and splintered off. And Logan (Hugh Jackman), is finally old enough that his powers seem to have weakened – he can’t mend all various cuts, gashes and injuries, of which he seems to have plenty of. And the lacerations seem to go beyond the physical, as he also wakes up from trauma-induced nightmares.
Mangold’s “Logan,” at least the first forty minutes screened for critics late last year, is bleak and far, far darker than any preceding “X-Men” film. And truthfully, those forty minutes alone were better than most superhero movies in full, but let’s see if Mangold can stick the landing.
As “Logan” begins, the character has given up superhero mantle and has become something of a drifter. Perhaps somewhat unintentionally comical, Logan has now essentially become an Uber-driver chauffeur (no, really). He drives goons around who party in his limo, drinks, and then eventually returns to New Mexico near the tip of the border.
Before all this, the movie begins with a drunken Logan and a bunch of thugs and gangbangers threatening to ruin his rented car. Following the brutally violent skirmish, Logan dispenses with all of them in bloody fashion (note the bone claws are gone and the adamantium talons are back, but it’s never explained why). Logan doesn’t regard human life in this hostile clash, because humanity doesn’t regard him. The costumes are gone and the rules have changed.
yeah, i'm pretty fond of the second film up until that stupid metal robotPeace wrote:I hope this one is actually worth a damn. That last one was so close. Deciding to have some faith in this one.