Which series do you think has the worst continuity?

I'm not too sure which one I'd give it up to. The X-Men films had characters sort of all over the place (eg Shaw and Frost appeared in two separate films, irrespective of their time period), while the Transformers more or less had a retcon with each successive film. Which would you say?

 

The X-films, beyond the second film, I hated. And even the second film had a lot of boring scenes.

In terms of actual continuity, Transformers is probably more cohesive, since they never really tried to maintain a continuity beyond the bare minimum. Things don't go especially wrong, because they never really tried to link them together with much finesse.

 

Welll X-men ignored the first movie but there was a sign of progression and events of the second did effect the third...

Meanwhile the Bay series has no refrence to prior movies.

X-men is better in my view.

Also; "successive film"

 

I can't really think of anything outside of the X-Men that tries to be heavy on continuity. Terminator 3 and 4?

u srs?

 

X-3 was not good. It had a ton of action but thats it, they should have never changed directors. X-1 was good, but X-2 was my favorite by far. The Wolverine movie was not good imo, but necessary. Nothing ever happened it seemed. The pre-quels they're doing look/are good. I loved the one they just did and there are more to come.

The TF movies are about as good as they can be for live action movies. Think about it, how far in depth are audiences supposed to want to go into about characters that aren't on screen? Mutants have actual actors on screen, TF has complete CGI'd characters. Its a little differnet.

 

The continuity in the Bay movies have problems to be sure;
but the X-Men films are all over the map with each other. They really put that tired idea of "storytelling over continuity" bullcrap to the test.

The Bay films are self contained and are in no way *continuity* related to anything prior.

 

How does that make any sense? What's the difference between a loveable CGI character in a CGI film and a loveable CGI character in a live action film? It's not different at all. A loveable character is a loveable character.

 

Roger Rabbit would like to have a chat with you.

 

It does make sense. Although the elements of CGI are in both movies, theres a big difference between the two franchises. In order to not make the central story about the humans in TF, they would obviously have to make it about the robots. Few people would go to see a live action movie about characters that are fully CGI'd, they aren't even there technically. X-Men, on the other hand is about people, humans. There is CGI but it just changes their appearance a bit, not completley creates it from nothing.

There has to be an innate humanness, a person/actor people are actually watching on screen otheriwse they genrally aren't as interested.

 

How did X-Men ignore the first movie? It was explicitly stated that Jean Grey's powers had grown exponentially as a side effect of being immersed in the wave from the machine on Liberty Island. Rogue's hair still has a streak of gray from the same event. The whole relationship between Wolverine and Jean was started in the first movie - same for Bobby and Rogue. Mystique was still using the body of Senator Kelly in the beginning of X2. Magneto was in his plastic prison in the end of the first movie, and escapes it in X2...

Should i go on? There's more continuity between the first two than between X2 and The Last Stand.

 

Comparing the properly done X-Men trilogy to the three virtually stand-alone episodes of Bay's Transformers is like comparing The Godfather to Twilight. X-Men had continuity, that can't even be debated. Transformers, on the other hand, had nothing more than the same characters show up in each awful movie with virtually no continuity to be found.

 

Bellpeppers brought up Roger Rabbit.

A good movie is a good movie. Why would people be upset if, say, they went to see a live action movie and then were completely blown away by a CGI character? How is a character being made of CGI indicative of how interesting a character is or how well they're written? By your logic, full CGI movies such as Finding Nemo have no soul or humanness because it's all made from scratch with no one on the set and no one goes to see them because they just aren't interesting.

 

There's more to the humanity of a character onscreen than them being a person who occupies the meatspace. Otherwise, that whole cinema thing would have never caught on compared to theatre. The reason there were human characters in a live-action film was because if every character was CGI, it'd be easier to make it an entirely CGI film, not live-action.

Additional counterpoints: Gollum, Yoda/R2D2, PIXAR.

Counterevidence: The trials and life of Sam Witwicky. And that whole "multiverse" thing Hasbro's been harping on about since what, Energon? But that'd be more of a certainty if we'd seen a Unicron in the Bayverse.



I'm pretty sure Puck was arguing each Bay movie was related to the one before it, though I'm not sure what Scorpio was going for.

 

X-Men have far more continuity problems. The first two films tie together fairly good even if they decided to go in a very different direction. The third film I refuse to watch but what a mess. Then toss in that they want to link the Wolverine movies to the X-Men movies. Ha ha, and even X-Men First Class seemed like it wanted to say the first two movies were okay but ignore the third film.

While the Transformers movies might have problems with continuity even with in one film they still work together better than the X-Men movies since Dark of the Moon tried to clear up why Megatron needed the Cube in the first movie.

 

X-Men and X2 are marvelous films and work perfectly together. X-Men: the Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are terrible films that contradict what the other two great films set up. X-Men: First Class and likely X-Men: Days of Future Past are more reboots then anything else, but they do seem to ignore X-Men: The Last Stand and work fairly well with X-Men and X2, which suggests a retcon in order to forgot the horror that was the 3rd and 4th movies. The Wolverine is apparently a sequel to X-Men: The Last Stand, but if First Class proved anything, its that the third film should just be forgotten. Coincidently the three fantastic films; X-Men, X2 and X-Men: First Class all work together and allow you to completely ignore the BS that X-Men: Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine were.

As for people who think X-Men and X2 don't continue from each other, you clearly paid no attention to the movies. They are exactly how sequels should be done and work perfectly together and continue the themes of eachother and move the characters along their development. X-Men: Last Stand and X-Men Origins broke this wonderful story, but X-Men: First Class is putting the pieces back together as well as making up for the story-telling failures and character destroying moments in 3 and 4, although I think its more of a reboot then anything else.

 

I dunno about you guys, but I'm perfectly okay with ignoring X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins. I like to do this thing, where if a sequel/prequel is particularly awful, I pretend it never existed.

 

If I could destroy every copy of X-Men; The Last Stand, I would gladly do it. I'm glad the writers of X-Men: First Class never graced that movie with acknowledgement. It's also noteworthy that the the two films that screwed up the X-Men continuity were the two that were gigantic clusterfucks of fail in the middle of a great movie series.
The only true continuity error that is what I view as the proper series (X-Men, X2 and First Class) is that Hank McCoy hasn't turned furry in X2, but that is a two second shot of a TV screen in the background, so its hardly a big deal. If you decide to include the horrors that are X-Men: Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, then the continuity errors become so many and so huge that it breaks the whole continuity line of the films, so its good that so far the writers have decided to just ignore their existence/retcon them away.

 

That's pretty much how I felt about Spider-Man 3, too. Me and a friend, who were die-hard fans of 1 and 2, wanted to seek out and destroy all memory of SM3, 1984-style. So, I just try to shun it from existence, and when I watch the end of 2, I'm just all "Well, it's a shame that Peter and Harry's rivalry never gets resolved..."

Also, I might have to rewatch X2 now, because I never even realized McCoy was in it. I've yet to see X-Men: First Class yet unfortunately. It is absolutely at the top of my list should I ever have Netflix again, or should it reappear at Redbox.

 

I am unfortunately one of the few people on this Earth that actually sort of likes Spider-Man 3. It's a guilty pleasure of mine. It is in no way as good as Spider-Man 1 and 2, but I don't think it is anywhere as hugely horrific as X-Men: The Last Stand was and I accept it for what it is; a movie that tried to do many things at once and failed to do any of them well, but still is watchable. X-Men: The Last Stand is just... Just... Unbelievable.

You really should! After the BS that X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins were, it's like a heavenly breeze to watch; Great characters, great story, great use of important elements of the comics and is just a pleasure all up. I rank it up there with X2 as one of my all-time favourite movies.

Hank is giving a speech on the TV in the background of the bar scene in which Mystique injects the security guard. It's a blink and you miss it thing, so I can understand why they chose not to stop them from using him in X-Men: First Class and explaining his furry origins the way they should be (Thank you, X-Men 3 and your "it's his mutant ability" crap).

 

X-Men was fine with continuity (not great, but... okay) until both the Origins movies took continuity, had its way with it, and left it tied to the bed covered in candlewax with a ballgag in its mouth.

... also, the third and fourth Wolverine movies were terrible. I did love First Class, though. Which surprised me immensely.