'Wolverine' Director Says Sequel to Shoot After 'X-Men: Apocalypse'
Last year, when The Wolverine hit theaters, it featured a credits bumper that led into this summer's X-Men franchise mash-up sequel X-Men: Days of Future Past. And with Fox putting together their own Marvel universe, that will likely mesh with the reboot of Fantastic Four, it was no surprise to hear from director Bryan Singer that a sequel called X-Men: Apocalypse would arrive in May of 2016. But outside of the mutant ensemble, The Wolverine director James Mangold and star Hugh Jackman were already looking at a sequel for the adamantium-clad hero, and now we know more about the production timeline.
While X-Men: Apocalypse will be moving quickly towards production after Days of Future Past hits theaters, James Mangold recently answered a fan question on Twitter confirming that The Wolverine 2 (which would be the third standalone Wolverine film if we include the abysmal X-Men Origins: Wolverine) is still a few years away. Mangold said, "We are figuring it all out. At the moment, I'm shooting The next
#Wolverine after #XmenApocalypse." That means production on The Wolverine 2 probably couldn't begin until early 2016, so we could see the sequel arrive in 2017, but, but that's just speculation.
That brings up the question as to whether or not Wolverine will appear in X-Men: Apocalypse. We're betting no since the film is supposed to follow the younger X-Men: First Class cast. And while the consciousness of Wolverine is being sent back in time to the 70s in X-Men: Days of Future Past, the gruff, clawed mutant didn't really get involved with the team until a couple decades later. However, if X-Men: Days of Future Past creates a new timeline (a la the reboot of Star Trek), then that might explain how he's able to stick around. Time travel is tricky, so who knows.
Another question that will become more relevant as time goes on is just how much longer Hugh Jackman can play Wolverine. It's been 15 years since he first started shooting X-Men, and this summer will mark his sixth big screen appearance as the character. Not only does Jackman probably want to do other projects, but he's aging just like anyone else. At some point, Jackman will have to be recast, and that's a point he's said is inevitable. So we'll just have to enjoy Jackman's performance as Wolverine while we can. We'll do our best to keep you posted on all things X-Men. Thoughts?
Dougray Scott just hung himself reading this article.
Duane on Mar 17, 2014
seriously, how long does Fox have these guys for? I'm really ready for Marvel to get their properties back...
ColtNoir on Mar 17, 2014
Ok sure, so marvel gets X-men back. Please tell me when they will fit it into their already packed schedule? Marvel studios, has films planned for the next few years and getting properties back such as x-men, fantastic 4 or spiderman will not help get the properties made anytime soon. Daredevil reverted back to Marvel studios, and that property is going to sit unseen (theatrically) for a while.
cg on Mar 17, 2014
Assuming there's no sarcasm in your reply - this is the internet so that's likely the case- Marvel has and will continue to be able to shelf movies. you better believe if they had the opportunity to do so they would be producing an X-men, or spiderman movie over let's say a Doctor Strange, ant-man, or Black Panther movie that's been gestating. Marvel has no problem with turning out movies and there's always room for them to do that because they make tons of money from them. Daredevil is getting a Netflix show culminating in a Defenders show. who's to say if Marvel had the xmen or FF properties back that a TV show similar to Agents of shield could be produced? I'm personally not worried about them having time, it's just I'd rather see Marvel get a chance to produce something with them before Fox or whoever else burns us out on those characters.
ColtNoir on Mar 27, 2014
LOL WHY? His movies are awful.
Brian Sleider on Mar 17, 2014
Nothing against Hugh but im ready for a new Wolverine. He has done a great job with the character but it seems hes just not destined to be apart of a great X-men/Wolverine movie. It always seems to fall short IMO. And with Mangold holding onto wolverine, makes me have in less faith in the future films. I'm ready a for a shorter, muscle-bound, raspy-voiced, cigar-smoking, yellow & marroon suited hardass backed behind a great script writer and a director.
Rock n Rollllll on Mar 17, 2014
Id like to see a movie With just Logan, on an adventure, no over arching story or grand plot. Like a dark gritty detective noir, Or maybe a hunter/hunted style flick.
Brian Sleider on Mar 17, 2014
Dark and gritty would definitely do justice to the Wolverine character we all know and love from the comics. I'm so tired of comic book movies being made PG.
Rock n Rollllll on Mar 17, 2014
I agree. I think blade one came the closest.
timnimbus on Mar 17, 2014
Poor Jackman. Give the man a rest!
DAVIDPD on Mar 17, 2014
I am a HUGE Hugh Jackman fan. Well, not huge as in crazy obese or even muscular. I just love Hugh's performances. You get the idea. His take on the character of Logan is fantastic and he makes the character believable despite being over a foot taller than the comic persona. BUT I am ready for Hugh to step down from the role. I would love to see another studio, director and actor take the reigns on this character. Fox has many flaws but the key ones are they go too big, too colorful, shove CGI up your ass, and they keep trying to make Wolverine some kind of leader. HE IS NOT A LEADER. He is the chaos that leaders such as Cyclops need to control and then let loose when necessary. Now if he came back for the Old Man Logan storyline...I could dig that. Would love to see Aronofsky come and direct that one.
Maxx on Mar 17, 2014
I do think that there is way too much talk about sequels 2 or 3 down the line. When I'm reading that Singer is talking about the film after the next two X-Men and that the bad guy from Cap Am 2 is signed for a 6 or 9 picture deal, it really does kill any tension from the franchise. It's almost like the 'Lost-ification' of the films that they are such cash cows that we'll keep milking them (and the punters) for all that they are worth. Granted I know that fans like ourselves feed this hunger for more info but you'd think the chaps at Marvel would have enough confidence in their products that they didn't need to keep blurting everything out and making the interested viewers feel that they were on some endless money generating carousel. I mean look at Loki in Thor, dominates both films and then Avengers and yet still isn't dead and ready to dominate even more of the franchise. Look at The Wolverine. I've not seen it and I know the trailer talks about him losing his ridiculous immortality and near instant rehealing. We know that he's in all of the following X Men films, and now another Wolverine film, so what is the motivation to see the first film? Just to see some empty, soulless 'cool' stuff? I saw a trailer for Cap Am 2 and despite having huge Marvel branding on the screen, they still had to say 'from the makers of Avengers'. Really? Do they really need to tell us this. What kind of dullards are they marketing this to? And rant over...
Payne by name on Mar 18, 2014
Josh Holloway to replace Jackman when the time comes!
JBrotsis on Mar 19, 2014
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.