‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ Prologue Teased by Bryan Singer

Published 10 months ago by

X Men Apocalypse post credits scene four horsemen X Men: Apocalypse Prologue Teased by Bryan Singer

[Warning: The following article contains SPOILERS for X-Men: Days of Future Past.]

Between Captain America 3, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice and X-Men: Apocalypse, May 2016 is shaping up to be a pretty insane month for comic book movie releases. Twentieth Century Fox wisely decided not to go head-to-head with the other two titans in the ring, which means that we’ll at least get a couple of weeks off before being introduced to the next X-Men arch-villain.

That nemesis (in case the movie title didn’t already give it away) is Apocalypse, one of the first mutants ever born on Earth. Shown overseeing the construction of a pyramid in the post-credits sequence for X-Men: Days of Future Past, Apocalypse AKA En Sabah Nur is an Ancient Egyptian mutant gifted with immortality and a handful of other terrifyingly powerful abilities. Continuing the pattern of the previous two movies, X-Men: Apocalypse will jump forward another decade into the 1980s, where Charles Xavier and the team will face off against a 20th century incarnation of Apocalypse.

Aiding Apocalypse in his misdeeds are the Four Horsemen: mutants brainwashed into serving as his disciples, who were also glimpsed in X-Men: Days of Future Past‘s post-credits scene. As a very early tease for X-Men: Apocalypse, director Bryan Singer has posted a sneak peek at the script treatment on Instagram, which suggests that the prologue for the movie will pick up from what we last saw.

You can have fun filling in the blanks of that opening paragraph, but it makes it pretty clear that Singer and co-writers Simon Kinberg, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris currently intend to begin X-Men: Apocalypse with a prologue set around 3000 B.C., in order to show the powerful mutant’s early career in warmongering. The Four Horsemen are also given a mention, and it will be interesting to see which modern day mutants end up being drafted into Apocalypse’s entourage.

While it doesn’t give away too much that we didn’t already know about the plot of X-Men: Apocalypse, the tease does reaffirm that Singer is still attached to the movie, despite recent rumors that Fox was seeking a different director in the wake of sexual abuse allegations filed against him. With the lawsuit currently ongoing and a hearing set for August 4th, it’s possible that the scandal could still affect the future of the X-Men franchise down the line.

X-Men: Days of Future Past has set the series in good stead, having recently become the #1 highest grossing movie of the year so far at the worldwide box office with a total take of $712.7 million, just barely edging past Captain America: The Winter Soldier‘s $711.2 million. With fan favorite Quicksilver returning and Singer’s hints that Jean Grey and Cyclops will also be making a comeback, X-Men: Apocalypse might have what it takes to become an even bigger hit.


X-Men Apocalypse is slated for release on May 27th, 2016.

Source: Bryan Singer

Follow H. Shaw-Williams on Twitter @HSW3K
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. “Apocalypse AKA En Sabah Bur”

    Retcon or typo?

    • we don’t know if this is going to be the end of X-men movies the movie of X-men Apocalypse or is it going to be more movies besides this one too of X-men we don’t know yet well at least i don’t know yet sorry

  2. smooth move in getting the green light as a director

  3. This sounds cool! Looks like it will pick up after the end credits teaser in DOFP with a large scale battle going on near the Nile River? It might introduce us to Apocalypse’s four horsemen, but I doubt the movie will dwell too long in the past. Since the movie will include some of the older cast, I think they will use a pseudo time travel thing to make it work. I think after the prologue, it will cut to the point where DOFP concluded in 2023, with Charles asking Logan “what’s the last thing you remember”.

    • Really, the original cast is returning? All I’ve heard so far is that McAvoy, Fassbender, and Lawrence are the only ones returning from previous movies, due to their contract all the way back from “First Class”.

      Oh, and I think Evan Peters and Channing Tatum are in this one too. Not sure if they were signed on yet, but producer Lauren Shuller Donner said she wanted Quicksilver and Gambit to return.

      None of the old cast members, including Jackman, have signed on, I believe.

      • Fassbender, MacAvoy, Lawernce, Hoult, Peters, Jackman, Tatum and someone to play a young Jean Grey, Cyclops and Nightcrawler have all been unofficially confirmed.

        I think the original cast returning talk is speculation right now but it would be cool if Apocalypse goes into the future to grab 4 members of the original cast and has them fight the younger cast!

        • Also a younger Storm is gonna be a member of the team. But can you imagine that movie? I can’t even process Apocalypse going into the future to get old Jean Grey, Cyclops, Storm and Wolverine to use as the Four Horsemen and the younger versions of the four have to go against themselves. We won’t even know the basics of the movie until the beginning of 2015 at the earliest, but I am so excited.

            • I am not a fan of First Class. I am not fond of the “young X-Men”, but Days of Future Past made me more accepting of them. I want Apocalypse to go against the original team also. Storm fully powered, Cyclops alive and fully powered, Wolverine, Shadowcat, Colossus, Blink, Bishop, Sunspot, Warpath, all fully powered. Rogue was even supposed to fly and have super-strength as a second mutation, but was removed from the film so we would have that to look forward to. Also Jean’s hair at the end of Future Past was the same color as it was when she was possessed by the Phoenix force, so one can assume she mastered that part of her powers also. What is Apocalypse going to do with a inexperienced Storm, Cyclops, and Jean? He’s going to make puddy with them. Singer and co. should just scrap the 1980’s and let’s go to 2023 with mutants who have great power and can do great damage.

      • Watch Banshee and Havok get left out. Why do they always introduce these one-off characters!?

        • Uh, because there are hundreds of mutants to choose from?

        • Magneto said that Banshee was killed along with Angel, Emma Frost and a few others in DOFP. I’m sure Havok will have a small role to introduce his son, Cyclops as he will be in this one.

          • His son? Cyclops and Havok are brothers, not father/son.

            • In the comics. Havok was a young man in the 1960’s, Cyclops was a young man in the 2000’s. Do the math.

              • I wouldn’t say Cyke was a young man in the 2000’s. In his 30’s is more like it. But yeah your point still stands that Cyke would have to be the way younger brother in the movieverse.

                UNLESS like I’ve said all along…

                It would be cool to find out that the Summer’s parents knew Mr. Sinister wanted to kidnap the boys and needed them together because of their DNA. So they sought help from their friend Forge who built a time machine to time travel the boys into separate time periods. Scott into the future and Alex into the past. That way Mr. Sinister couldn’t get ahold of both of them in the same time period.

                So in a 10 minute or less exposition scene, the next movie could A) introduce Forge B) Correct things so Scott and Alex are older and younger brother (respectively), C)introduce Mr. Sinister, and D) show just how valuable and powerful Scott and Alex are.

                • 30 is still young. I like your idea.

  4. As follows is my explanation for the apparent timeline discrepancies and plot holes of the X-Men movie universe. X-Men Origins: Wolverine happened in a parallel dimension of some sort and isn’t a part of the official X-Men canon that includes the original three movies, The Wolverine, and DOFP. Unknown events happened that led to the initiation of the original X-Men trilogy (i.e. the events of First Class and that trilogy didn’t lead to the original trilogy); this is how Professor X was shown able to walk during his older years in The Last Stand, this is why Mystique had no signs of prior relationship to Charles on any occasion in the original movies, this is why, in the original movies, Moira was a doctor of some sort but was, in First Class, a CIA operative, and this is how Charles, in the first movie, once said that he met Erik when he was a teenager but seems to have met him in his twenties in X-Men: First Class. The only things that, for certain, happened to lead up to the original trilogy were the facts that Stryker bonded the adamantium to Wolverine’s skeleton and that Mystique killed Trask, leading to the creation of the Sentinels as a sort of last resort protective force against mutants. The Sentinels, though, were like the nuclear bomb of their day. They were such controversial subjects and weapons that the U.S. next to never pulled them out for use, only reserving them for the absolute worst of threats, threats for which things like the nuclear option would be considered (and over the time between the 70s and the warzone time period of X-Men: DOFP, the Sentinels were, though they were almost never used, consistently upgraded to be made more modern with the times, so that they’d be useful tools if they ever did become necessary for use). This explains why they were never brought in during the final battle of The Last Stand. The events of the first three X-Men movies happened. The Wolverine happened. The events leading to the warzone future of DOFP happened (those events including that, at some point, Magneto used his powers to bond more adamantium to Wolverine’s bone claws so that he could be of his optimal use in the coming war against the Sentinels). The Sentinels became deemed “necessary,” due to the growing mutant threat (due, perhaps, to public fear after the events of The Last Stand) and their consistent upgrades (which included being given Mystique’s DNA, which would have been acquired from her after she got her powers back following the events of The Last Stand [remember, the “cure” was only temporary]) finally created creatures that were almost unbeatable threats but also were almost fully independent AI that had the capability to reason for themselves. They eventually reasoned that all humanity needed to be exterminated because all humanity was a threat. The opening events of the warzone future of the DOFP movie occurred. Wolverine was sent back in time to stop Mystique from killing Trask. But Kitty and the other X-Men didn’t understand the full implications of time travel. Wolverine’s mind’s travelling in time caused a sort of temporal anomaly that messed up events in the timeline, not too drastically, but enough to change some key details. This caused the events of First Class to happen the way they did (Charles met Magneto in his twenties versus his teens, Charles had a relationship with Mystique, Charles lost the use of his legs decades earlier than he originally would have, Moira was a CIA operative, etc.). This caused the events that came in between First Class and Wolverine’s landing in his younger body to happen. Wolverine landed in his younger body. The rest of DOFP happened the way that the viewers saw in the movie. A new timeline was created. The day was saved. And now X-Men: Apocalypse can focus on what happened between Wolverine’s “drowning” in that river and the time that he landed back in his 21st Century body.

    P.S. To explain how Charles “survived” Jean’s killing him in The Last Stand, I posit that he did, indeed, use the mind transfer trick that he explained earlier in the movie and implanted his consciousness (apparently including his powers) into the body of that comatose patient from the end of The Last Stand. Charles then used his powers to consistently keep up around him a mental barrier that caused everyone who saw him to think that he still had the appearance of the elderly Charles that was familiar to them all and also had Charles’ voice. Either the comatose patient was a paraplegic (explaining why Charles would still need a wheelchair) or he was able to walk and part of Charles’ mental barrier gave the appearance of his still needing the wheelchair.

    • Ditto!

      But seriously, if Apocalypse is going to take place in the 80s, which Xavier are they going to use? Long-haired Xavier or cueball Xavier?

      • Maybe they’ll use receding hairline Professor X!

    • Whenever history is tampered with, a new timeline is created, much like a main road branching to many other roads. Events of the Original Trilogy stayed real but now there is also a new timeline after the events of DOFP where whatever is ‘wrong’ in the Original Trilogy is ‘fixed’ by Singer. Fox will continue the X-Men franchise in that new timeline.

      • Not given what we saw in this film. Your theory doesn’t support the fact that Logan’s mind reentered his future body in the changed timeline.

        I mean, if what you say is correct, wouldn’t Logan’s consciousness go back to his ORIGINAL body in the ORIGINAL timeline, whether or not he changed the past or not. Logan’s mind should’ve gone back to the dystopian Sentinel future, if you’re suggesting that it splits into a different timeline.

        • No, because Logan’s consciousness lived through the events of DoFP, so he doesn’t belong to the original timeline anymore, therefore he can’t return to it.

          • Not to mention that Kitty and Prof X literally tell Logan that when he wakes back up in the future, everything will be different and no one but he will remember any of it.

    • Really good post! But I would encourage you to divide the first section of your post into separate paragraphs for our reading convenience :)

      I like the idea about Charles creating a mental-barrier around him, sort of a projection-force field that allows others to see him as he is. It makes a lot of sense.

      But I would have to say that some of the other claims you make are a bit unnecessary. For one thing, Logan’s arrival in the 70s doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a time-anomaly that goes to before he appeared in the 70s and thus eliminating Charles and Mystique’s relationship and the Charles/Erik meeting. Remember how future war-zone DOFP Prof X, which is part of the original trilogy + The Wolverine continuity, says that Mystique was like a sister to him? That alone, for me, is enough to establish the Charles / Mystique relationship in the original trilogy, because in the other 3 films the two characters never really met each other.

      Secondly, X-Men Origins: Wolverine need not exist in a “parallel dimension” since it can easily be part of the official X-Men canon. Charles’ experience in Origins can very well be a mental projection. Charles and Erik’s meeting of the Greys in X3 could very well be during a time when Charles was recruiting students for his reopened school, and hence took the paralysis-removing drug again but had become strong enough to use limited telepathy while on the drug. Just like how “Dr. Hank McCoy” makes a cameo as a human in X2: X-Men United, as explained by DOFP, he retains the ability to switch between forms. By X3 he either cannot turn human or he chooses not to. It doesn’t really matter to the story. Moreover, Moira could have easily become a doctor who specializes in mutants in a post-CIA career. These facts

      Now after all that, the biggest problem is Prof. X’s claim that he met Erik when was 17. I postulate that there are 2 possibilities: i) Charles simply messed up history, and ii) We have yet to see Charles when he was 17. Remember he says “I met a young man named Erik Lehnsherr” “I met” – he could easily have encountered Erik before the events of First Class. We just don’t know when or how. It could’ve been brief, like his meeting with Wolverine at the bar in First Class. It doesn’t matter because they were strangers and didn’t really give each other much thought until later.

      In my opinion, everything before DOFP is, as irksome as it gets, still canon and within a single continuity. Everything after DOFP is the reboot with a changed continuity. It’s as simple as that.

      AND NO. She has never been called Emma FROST.

      • I don’t get the ‘Emma FROST’ part?

        • In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, there was this character along with younger-Cyclops who was called “Emma” and had the same powers as Emma Frost, problem is that contradicts with X-Men First Class where Emma Frost is around the same age as Prof. X , but in X-Men Origins, she’s around the same age as Cyclops. But “Emma” had no lines (if I’m not mistaken) and they never mentioned that she was Emma FROST, though of course, the director of that film intended her to be Emma Frost.

          • Just like the black high-ranking military in X2 (or was it XO:W?) was simply called Trask and obviously wasn’t DoFP’s Bolivar Trask.

    • WOW… Best explanation of the holes I’ve read to date! I don’t believe Singer had this much thought when putting the movie together but thanks for that. It allows me to enjoy the DOFP and not over analyze anymore.

      • I disagree mate, I think that DOFP actually goes meta on the franchise and acknowledges the reboot within continuity… WITHOUT being JJ Abrams’ Star Trek where everything else is in a separate contiuity. It’s meta because, sure in some sense Hugh Jackman is passing the torch onto McAvoy and Fassbender, and the future is now different from before, and altogether uncertain. The franchise, in its older “course through time” was literally dying and now there’s hope that our beloved characters, although changed and existing in a separate continuity, will have happy endings.

        As for confusing audiences, no not at all, it’s like Star Trek next gen. And I think most people, the general audience, just loved the movie because it had at the end of the day a beating heart and a soul. Film audiences are familiar with continuity-changes, they remember The Terminator, they rememebr Back to the Future , Looper, etc. And comic-fans remember the actual DoFP book. I think the movie helped more than it caused harm.

  5. So what previously stated (or rumored, cant remember) about the boy who played Apocalypse in the after credits scene wasn´t returning for the Apocalypse movie is false…

    • You tell ’em Wade.

    • Seems lately someone has been peeing in the pool…

  6. I just hope that the boy depicted as Apocalypse at the post-credits teaser in DOFP is an early version of Apocalypse. He needs to be a huge monster like in the comics.

  7. I feel like Singer’s rushing this. Apocalypse shouldn’t be a one-off villain. He needs at least two films imo. How come Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games and now this Divergent crap can make two-parter finale films while comic books get quickly slapped together crap movies?

    • We don’t know what Fox’s plans are after Apocalypse. So he might be back around lurking in the shadows or might be in another X-flick with the originals. By the way, this isn’t a finale film. And those franchises except for Divergent had HUGE followings that studios knew they could use to their advantage in breaking the finales into two parts. Apocalypse may be a part of the New Mutants or X-Force film. You never know.

      • Yaa, I guess you’re right.

    • To be honest, I hate it when studios pull their punches and split a film into two. Why not release a 4-hour long movie instead? Movies should stand on their own, this whole “shared-universe” fad is okay for the comics, but movies should stick to trilogies.

      • Four hours is waaaay too long to sit in a theater – even for a really good movie. You’re bound to miss some of it while going to pee.

        • There was a time, before the multiplexes’ capitalist greed came into play, when really long films were split into two with an intermission of about 15-20 mins. This was much better than one year and prevented moviegoers from either peeing their pants or missing a few scenes. But what do you know, money ruins everything.

          @Nave Kent: Movies SHOULD stick to trilogies? Why? Also, I for one am very thrilled that movie studios, thanks to Marvel paving the way, are beginning to try their hands at building shared universes: it makes for huge sagas on an unprecedented scale, and this is good.

          • @bfg666 – granted, that needs more explanation. Um, a shared universe is fine but along with that you have the convulated franchise-continuity problem, the same sort of problem that has plagued comics since forever. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is thus far a very simple universe with arguably 4 movies that are interlinked, and even still there were moments in The Avengers when it felt like they could only do so much. Thor had to have his powers reduced (Loki slices him in the arm, probably with poison) just to be able to function on the same level as the other characters. X-Men DOFP is a film specifically made to address continuity problems and it’s just within it’s own franchise.

            The point that I’m making is that larger, serialised storytelling is fine but it should be something that’s unique to Television, like an HBO mini-series. On the larger film canvas, I think characters and films deserve to explore their own genres to their outmost potential, and in a shared-universe, not only do we get stuck with a singular genre, but we see characters who are under-utilized. Hawkeye is another example in TA. Mind you, I love the movie, and I think that the characters in the Marvel Universe, all created under the watchful eye of Stan the Man, lends easily to crossovers and a shared universe, but to see other studios jumping on that bandwagon is a bit hard. For one thing, I don’t think that the DC Universe has a pantheon that naturally blends together, but largely because each character began from a different sort of imagination: Batman is a detective, he lends easily to film noir and crime sagas and yes, to “realism” to an extent. Wonder Woman is from the realm of high fantasy and gods and feminist political points, to mix a god with Batman is just… reducing Batman’s entire genre of a realistic world of criminals and mob-bosses. There are more. In a film trilogy which stands on its own, say for Wonder Woman, they could explore the extent of myths in our world today without needing to acknowledge Batman; similarly, a film trilogy of Batman’s worked best as a stand-alone venture where they could change the stakes according to the demands of the story. No one asked “where is Superman when Bane took over?” Well he doesn’t exist. And that’s fine. Gotham relies on Batman. He’s sort of a mythical god to them as he is, but as soon as Heracles exists in the same world, Batman’s “mythical status” is reduced to that of “just an urban legend – a dude in his tights.” That’s just my opinion of course.

            I love shared-universes, but I think film adaptations should be much more focused on the sort of character traits that made these superheroes unique, not the same. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has thus far been pure science-fiction, even with Thor (and that’s fine as long as it’s true to the source), which is why I’m extremely excited about Dr. Strange.

            Over on Arrow and The Flash, the CW network is thinking that the Flash series can be “original” because they’re introducing superpowers to their world for the first time. Well… that isn’t entirely true. I started watching Arrow because I heard they got Barry Allen in it, I was excited, but the more I think of it it seems that metahumans with superpowers… is… in today’s Hollywood… the norm instead of the exception.

            I know I’m saying a lot of unpopular things here. But I think that films benefit more artistically if they stick to trilogies with a single director’s vision.

            • I’m sure continuity issues can be worked out much easily in the movies. Marvel is currently releasing only 2 movies per year and will supposedly increase their schedule to 3 or 4 per year in the near future. Compare that to the sheer number of comics they release each year. Citing Fox’s X-Men as an example is ludicrous since they’ve never been bothered by continuity, contrary to Marvel who are trying their best to build a universe as cohesive as possible. Granted, this modus operandi is giving directors less headroom to express themselves and experiment but then again, when you want to do something this big properly (read: unlike Fox), this is a very small price to pay.

              Again, why should serialized storytelling be limited to TV? In the name of what should we be deprived of the possibility of watching huge sagas on the big screen? Hollywood has more financial resources than TV, which means among other things more epic action and better visuals/FX, stuff that is inherent to superheroics and obviously better appreciated on larger screens. Something as epic as the Supes vs. Zod fight in Man of Steel could never have been made for TV.

              You claim that we get stuck with a singular genre but this is just not true. We’ve had monster movies (Hulk), techno-thrillers (Iron Man), fantasy epics (Thor), war pulp (Cap 1), espionage (Cap 2), an ensemble film (Avengers) and we’re soon to get a space opera (GOTG) and what is billed as a comedy (Ant-Man). By the way, sci-fi is erroneously categorized as a genre in itself. In fact, it’s a setting from which any genre of story can be developed. I don’t see much in common between Alien and Transformers, for example. Do you?

              You want more variety in tone. I hear that but the main bulk of Marvel comics more or less share the same blend of humor and action with only slight variations between titles. Why should it be different on film? I have to admit I’m somewhat less acquainted with DC but their superheroes also do exist in their own shared universe in the comics. Batman is already mixed with a god and it doesn’t reduce him one bit.

              Something’s definitely wrong with your logic. Here’s two more examples:
              1) “Thor had to have his powers reduced (Loki slices him in the arm, probably with poison)” Uh, they’re both Asgardians, so of course Loki can wound Thor! Actually, Loki’s really a Frost Giant plagued with dwarfism and Asgardians fear Frost Giants, which implies that the latter can hurt the former. On the other hand, when the big, mean Hulk from Earth repeatedly smashes Loki on the floor, the guy gets a bit dizzy but he doesn’t even have a scratch.
              2) “it seems that metahumans with superpowers… is… in today’s Hollywood… the norm instead of the exception.” OK, first, take the total number of superhero movies made since X1 (the first film in the modern wave of CBMs), including original films not adapted from comic books, like Hancock. Now compare it to the total number of films made during the same period. Metahumans are a far cry from being the norm. They’re just a new popular trend of the medium, among many others.

              You’re not saying unpopular things, you’re saying wrong things, which makes them unpopular by definition. Case in point: “films benefit more artistically if they stick to (trilogies with) a single director’s vision.” The Transformers saga comes from the one neuron in Michael Bay’s brain. Now tell me with a straight face that it benefits artistically from Bay’s vision. Conversely, many people find Aliens to be an improvement over Alien, but it wasn’t made by Ridley Scott. The Animatrix comes from a host of creators and it enriches the Wachowskis’ world greatly with different perspectives, different tones and new stories that expand what was shown in the trilogy.

              And again, why trilogies specifically? Standalones, duologies, tetralogies, pentalogies etc… are just as worthy as trilogies. Or ongoing shared universes.

            • *much more easily

              PS: Apparently, Hawkeye’s role will be expanded in AoU. His part was limited in Avengers because the story demanded it, not because of the shared universe.

        • Also, you can bring an empty bottle to the theater… 😀

  8. “With fan favorite Quicksilver returning and Singer’s hints that Jean Grey and Cyclops will also be making a comeback,…”

    Jean Grey and Cyclops?… or Famke Jannsen as J.G. and James Marsden as Cyclops?
    Here’s hoping for a recast.
    Don’t get me wrong, they did a good job, they had their moment in the spotlight (may it be too short for Cyclops and badly used for Phoenix), but now it’s the kids time to shine. :)

      • LeBlanc still the funniest of the bunch.
        Can’t wait for season 3 of ‘Episodes’.

  9. 4 people to write one screenplay?

    • it says treatment. they’re all just developing the story together. kinberg will probably take script duties.

      • Ahh, good call. I stand corrected.

  10. They should shamelessly tease Wolverine’s death 2 years ahead of the movie release. And who’s that woman with katana that no one knows or cares about except the idiot editor in chief. I hope Fox keeps the movie rights for decades to come. Screw Marvel Studios

  11. Hope FOX keeps the rights for decades to come. They could be like Marvel and tease the death of Wolverine 2 years ahead of the movie. Eff off Marvel Studios

    • Don’t you want the X-Men to finally be done properly at some point? I think it’s fair to assume now that it’s never gonna happen with Fox.

      • I disagree. After Days of Future Past, and taking into consideration that the movies take place in an alternate universe from the comics, I’m willing to give Fox another chance with the X-Men franchise.

        • Considering Apocalypse will be a continuation of the existing films, what makes you think they’ll stop messing things up?

          I’ll continue watching Fox’s output and enjoy what’s to enjoy in it anyway, but I’ve shed my blinders a long time ago and I take this series for what it is: a cash cow that has very little to do with the original material and is persistently raping the timeline and characters sideways with a rare constancy.

          • It’s kinda popular to hate on Fox, but then again most studios do impinge on the creative process, even our precious Marvel Studios. It’s all what Kevin Feige thinks is okay to put in there, which is fine but then you have excellent filmmakers like Branagh, Norton, Patty Jenkins and now the ex-director Ant-Man refusing to work with the studio because they refuse to bend their rules.

            In contrast, what Fox did with X-Men DoFP (i loved the movie) was actually stay true to the world they were building. Yes it’s a separate world that’s different from the comics. It’s like the Teen Titans Go! dilemma — on one hand, older comics fans argue that the show as terrible and should be forgotten because it resembled nothing like the comics, but on the other hand you have an entire generation of fans who grew up watching the show and feel extremely nostalgic about it. Neither party is wrong.

            Same with the X-Men franchise, there are fans who grew up with Bryan Singer’s X-Men, who happened to love DoFP.

            • I don’t hate Fox, I just wish that they stayed more true to the source material. Or better yet, that the rights reverted to Marvel, if only for the sole reason that Wolverine could be an Avenger. I don’t want the movie universe(s) to be a carbon copy of the comics version but Fox have watered down, and even downright butchered, many of their core characters. Messing with the timeline is one thing but messing with the very essence of the characters is a whole different matter. Also, paying a little more attention to continuity wouldn’t hurt.

              I wasn’t aware that Norton was also a director but he didn’t refuse to work with Marvel again, he was cast aside because he tried to enforce his own interpretation of Banner, i.e. he didn’t care much for the character’s essence. Not many directors/producers would welcome such arrogance from their actors, hence exit stage left.

              Considering all that was wrong with the first Thor, I’m very glad the second installment wasn’t handed to Branagh. As for Patty Jenkins, the woman who hasn’t directed a single film since 2003’s Monster, I honestly don’t think she was fit for directing Thor 2. I see her more at the helm of a smaller, darker, even grim character-driven story (Man-Thing?). Also, she too didn’t refuse to work with Marvel, she was dismissed and I hear that she would still be open to considering working for them in the future.

  12. My prediction of the four horsemen are the four mutants that Mystique found in Vietnam: Spike, Ink, Toad, and Havok. Why else were they not seen after their two minute cameos?

    • That’s actually not a bad thought, although Toad seems a little “under-powered” for the usual horsemen grouping of Apocalypse.

  13. Looking again at the photo of young Apocalypse in the Egyptian bathrobe, I’m still not sure if that is a guy or girl.
    Bringing Cyclops back is a MUST! Wanna score with the fans, then bring him back and do him good!
    Would love to see Mr. Sinister and Omega Red in an X-Men movie!

      • Yeah, I don’t know many girls whose name is Brendan…

  14. As a young teen trying to further his egyptian supermodel career, Apocalypse was teased by Bryan Singer, The Four Horsemen stood by to make sure he complied. Say it Ain’t So!

  15. Just hope Wolverine doesn’t save the day again as it seems he does in pretty much every X Men movie and I am getting bored of the central focus on him…..

    • X-Men – Wolverine saves the day, but the central focus of the story was the establishment of the X-Men, we hardly got anything Wolverine. He was basically our eyes and ears, a character we were a long for the journey with.

      X2 – Nightcrawler and Storm, and technically Prof. X, save the day. Central focus was Humans vs Mutants.

      X-Men: The Last Stand – Wolverine saves the day. Central focus was Phoenix and the Cure.

      X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The Wolverine – Okay, I’ll give you these ones.

      X-Men: First Class – Prof X saves the day. Central focus: Prof X and Magneto early relationship

      X-Men: Days of Future Past – Professor X/Raven save the day. Central focus: Professor X (once again, Wolverine is our eyes and ears, and the character who serves as the bridge between the film and the audience)

      • Someone finally said it. Wolvie sells tickets, he’s not the central focus of all of the films.

        • Wolverine sell tickets?
          dont you know that The Wolverine is the lowest x-men movie of the whole franchise in USA?

          the fans give him too much credit, lol.

          The movie was saved by the increasing international market, but that USA lowest point speaks volumes.

          • Yes, Wolverine sell (sic) tickets. Merica think they the whole world. Merica wrong.

  16. I will show my excitement when they cast Archangel, James Marsden Cyclops, AND Femkes Jean, Nightcrawler, Gambit, Anna Paquinne as a powerful Rogue, Gambit, Beak, Nathaniel Essex Sinister, and Juggernaught. Psylocke and Husk would be amazing too but maybe for a X-Force film.

  17. I like how you guys actually make articles about this stuff instead of just showing the pic and typing “discuss” like most other comparable sites.

  18. As I’ve said many times before on other threads I think the 4 horsemen will be Havok, Ink, Toad, and the spikey haired duded. (The tail wing on back of the plane they got on in the movie was initialed AH. Could that be a clue Apocalypse Horesmen)

    However, during the prologue (Egyptian times) I think there will be 4 other original horsemen who will be non mutants and will be Apocalypse’s guardians/servants. The Egyptians will kill Apocalypse’s 4 guardians and “kill” Apocalypse too. This will cause Apocalypse to hate humans and also make him create 4 mutant horsemen in the future.

    I think the new altered timeline from DOFP somehow allowed Apocalypse to be resurrected during the 20th century (maybe by Mr. Sinister?). Sinister will be tasked with rounding up 4 horsemen for Apocalypse during the 80’s. However, Sinister will have his own agenda which he will use Gambit as his minion/spy to capture some of Xavier’s X-men. (Cyclops?)

    • Also, I think both past X-Men and Future X-men will deal with fighting Apocalypse. The future ending of DOFP has all of the X-men happy in the X-Mansion. This implies that Apocalypse wasn’t a threat during the 80’s otherwise the future wouldn’t be happy. But what if that scene is too good to be true? What if the new future is not happy for humans but happy for mutants. Maybe in the future Apocalypse is a world leader and all humans are slaves? Maybe Professor has learned to live with the fact that Apocalypse is the mutant leader of Earth. OR maybe Apocalypse has brainwashed all mutants to follow his command.

      So when Logan wakes up, Xavier tells Logan what he has missed over the many years. Maybe Logan will learn that Apocalypse and his 4 horesman have led mutants to rise up and be in charge on earth. Logan will be mad about this so he and Cable (and a small team of mutants) travel back in time and stop Apocalypse from doing all of this.

      All in all you could make all of this a 2 part movie.

      Movie part 1- (in the 80’s) featuring new students of young Cyclops, young Jean, young Storm, young Nightcrawler. Prof X and Beast are teachers/mentors. Villain is Mr. Sinister with his minions being Juggernaut, Avalanche, Gambit, Sauron, (or whomever) to gather up mutants for Apocalypse.

      Movie part 2- (set in present day) featuring original cast and Wolverine. Apocalypse is main villain and he creates his 4 horseman in this movie. Archangel being one of them.

      • Umm, that’s a false assumption that Apocalypse couldn’t have been a threat in the 80’s because everything is happy in the present. Why couldn’t he have been a threat and defeated, and that is why everyone is happy now. Although I do like the possible twist of everyone being happy because mutants rule the world now, very “twilight zone-ish”.

        • Lol! I guess you’re right about my assumption Apocalypse can still be a threat. However, I meant to convey that, Apocalypse was one of the nastier and strongest villains ever faced by the X-men, right?

          So, having viewers watch a movie set in the 80’s but already know that the movies events end up where things are great in the present day (cause of DOFP) kinda takes away the suspense of what will happen in the said 80’s movie.

          In other words, we see Cyclops, Jean, Professor, Beast, Logan and Storm all ok at the end of DOFP. So we know that those characters don’t die at the hands of Apocalypse in the 80’s. Since the 80’s set movie is supposedly featuring a young Storm, young Jean, and young Scott we know they end up ok so we know there lives aren’t ultimately in any danger.

          Make sense?

          • I love your idea about there being a mutant-dominance in the future, or the fact that we have more Future-verse stories at all, because to me DoFP was a nice way to end the old X-Men universe and give them the “happy ending” they deserved. I wouldn’t mind if they left us at that and continued the franchise specifically with McAvoy-Xavier’s timeline. I know most fans dislike the younger teenaged X-Men, but they’re one of my favourites, and to be able to see Cyclops and Phoenix and Storm and Beast as these younger X-Men would be a blast.

            I don’t think that a “happy ending” in the future necessarily means that we can’t have threats in the past. For one thing, what DoFP establishes is that the future is ever-changing, if Apocalypse comes in he could very well disrupt the current “happy” timeline and usher in the Age of Apocalypse in the future — yet another change in the continuity. Apocalypse could very well be unleashed in the 80s BECAUSE events in the timestream changed, and whereas the original X-Men trilogy probably never had to deal with Apocalypse because he remained dormant, the fact that DoFP ends with a different sort of 70s with a different political perspective means that now anything goes. Apocalypse could be a threat because he is in the 80s and his presence threatens the peaceful future — something that the Hugh Jackman cast isn’t even aware of.

            Just because they’re happy in the future doesn’t mean it cannot be changed. Although I really, really, REALLY dig your idea about there being a Mutant-domination that Wolverine isn’t aware of in the future. He wakes up in the Age of Apocalypse! Love it.

    • (Sorry about that — I didn’t read this post before I wrote the other one)

      Yeah exactly — the altered timeline from DoFP could allow Apocalypse’s resurrection, and because of that whatever he does in the 80s could in turn alter the Future and future-XMen have no way of knowing that. It’s up to the 80s team to save the day.

      I highly doubt they would want to rehash the concept of time travel yet again in the new movie. Singer and co. keep comparing this to a disaster movie, and First Class and DoFP both addressed Cold War themes… maybe with the 80s we finally see the bomb go off, and Apocalypse dominating.

      Gambit is definitely one of the 4 Horsemen. Maybe even Cyclops (since in the movies, he’s constantly a dude-in-distress)

  19. What happened to the japanese girl in the second wolverine movie?And if timeline is readjusted please bring back viper.

    • Wolverine should be given a helmet like magneto’s in that it protects him from psychic attack. Make it metal colored and at the end of the movie paint it. In later movies they can get other characters more streamed lined phychic denfesive helmets like Scott Summers wears typically.