Mamo #358: X7

Can you believe we’ve already used the title “X-Mamo” for a show? Of course you can, there’s been like a bazillion of these things. What is the state of the longest-running in-continuity superhero franchise? Mamo travels through time…

To download this episode, use this URL:


  1. Gotta agree with Brown, the 1 on 1 character conversations in the X-Men films is why its my favorite superhero franchise. X-Men, the Raimi Spider-Man movies, the scenes with Alfred in the Batman movies , and to some degree the Hellboy movies all grab me in the discussions they have within those scenes. The Disney/Marvel films are always using 1 on 1moments to just push plot along or spew quips, which is still entertaining, but I gravitate to the movies reaching for emotional investment and to show us that these characters care about each other beyond a means to achieve a common goal.

    • One might argue that as a generally good rule of thumb for popular narrative cinema in general. Considering someone like Quentin Tarantino structures his entire filmography of scenes of basically two people talking to each other, and that is what makes his films so compusively watchable.

    • I like the smaller scenes as well, but Singer’s approach/rhythm/way of engaging his actors all seems off to me. Oh, and I know this is sacrilege, but I don’t and have never felt that Stewart is particularly good in these films. He just looks the part, but acting wise he’s just a TV actor trying to fit into a movie role.

  2. Its not Lost or Bond it is COMIC BOOKS

    This is the first movie that jumps right into the deep end like it felt walking into a grocery store and pulling a random issue off the magazine rack.

    The different feeling between this and Marvel is a fantastic thing.

  3. What do you guys specifically think someone coming into that movie blind wouldn’t get that isn’t minutae that doesn’t matter to the overall movie?

  4. OK, I should let it go, but I listened to the show again and since the whole thing was basically a 40-minute two-hander of Price saying “THIS element of the movie doesn’t work!” and me replying “Oh, I thought it did!”, I need to respond to something I didn’t have much to say about at the time:

    Price’s contention that Bryan Singer makes movies where none of the events actually happened and therefore he (Price) doesn’t ever care about the outcome, and further, that audiences will shy away from DOFP once they learn that the “only thing you need to know about the movie is that at the end, none of the other movies actually happened.”

    1. Excluding The Usual Suspects, name one other instance of this in Bryan Singer’s filmography.

    2. If this idea applies to X-Men: DOFP, explain why it doesn’t apply to Back to the Future, Terminator 2, Star Trek IV, “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” Time After Time, Superman 1, Back to the Future II (Price’s favourite), the Planet of the Apes franchise, Primer, and for that matter, the time Mamo went through the wrong tunnel in North Carolina and came out in 1976.

    This isn’t directed specifically at Price, just at the internet. Fucking explain shit to me, Internet, I’m in a mood.

    • Add Princess Bride to your list. The only difference between it and Usual Suspects is when you find out the story was false. It makes no difference to my own emotional investment, both on initial watch or rewatch.

      By “fixing” the timeline, Wolverine is essentially the only survivor of a very very long dream. If someone told me the Wizard of Oz was dissatisfying because it was just a dream and nothing happened, they’d get a funny look. It happened because we saw it happen.

      • I don’t object to DOFP (I said several times in the podcast that I liked it overall, but why listen when you can all take me out of context to help make your own points?) but I mentioned that the handling of the opening scene made me think about Usual Suspects. Or at least, that’s what I meant to say, but y’all can feel free to throw my own words back at me here.

        For the record: I like large swaths of this movie, but it didn’t play perfectly for me, and like a lot of what Brian Singer turns his hand to there were elements that felt off in this dramatically. Those elements may feel perfectly right to you, as you, the last time I checked, continue to not be me.

    • I didn’t understand it either so I will let someone else do it.

      I can also think of a great many movies that do that without even resorting to time travel that are great so I am at a loss.

    • I can explain, even though I was specifically excused from having to. The explanation is simple, and applies to every thing I have ever said on any subject:

      “I am making this shit up as I go along”

      Please put this on my headstone.

    • This movie jumping forward erases X-men 3 and moves the timeline around a bunch of things but all the X-men movies still happened.

      Also while using characters and actors from the other X-men movies, this movie is the direct sequel to X-men: First Class. While the future timeline (2023?) no longer happens, the storyline continues for these 1973 characters. X-men: Apocalypse will apparently take place in the 1980’s although personally I think they are jumping through the decades too fast.

      As mentioned Mystique as one of the biggest story archs and I imagine they will continue the evolution of her character as well as others in Apocalypse. The movie ends with Mystique pulling out Wolverine who won’t remember any of the events. I imagine the next movie with either have Wolverine working with Mystique or possibly pissed off for something that happened between 1973 and the 1980’s. Either way, that storyline will be picked up in the next movie.

      Anyways, Matthew Price is the only one I’ve heard from that is trying to say that this movie doesn’t matter that you can just skip it. The more common reaction that I’ve seen is that this is the best X-men movie since X2 and that people should check it out.

  5. Because you wanted to know.

    Bishop the guy with the Rifle has the mutant power of being able to absorb and release energy. (hence why he was sitting in the middle of those 3 Sentinels and not melting)

    He is from a separate dystopian X-Men future and was smashed into this one because he is cool.

    Also I find the Kitty Pryde thing hilarious because my bet on the reason they did that is the character who has that role in the original story is such a pandora’s box of continuity that they wouldn’t even dare opening that can of worms.

    Secondary Mutation good job everyone!

      • He was basically absorbing energy and then using it to power his weapons. That is why before a battle someone else on the team would hit him with some sort of energy boost. It’s too bad the movie did a bad job of explaining it.

        Also one of the times that he is killed, it’s from several Sentinels shooting energy blasts at him until he can’t absorb any more energy and blows up.

  6. Here’s a crazy giant info graphic showing who made up the X-men line up from 1963 to present day:

    I read X-men as a kid and teenager in the late 1980’s and the early 1990’s and the line-up was rarely the same. X-men was one of those comics that you would look at the heads of the characters in the left hang corner to find out who was in the team. Plus Marvel was often switching out characters from X-Men to X-Factor to X-Force and any of the many other spin offs.

    Plus then going back to read classic storylines, the 1990’s X-men cartoon, then not reading hardly any X-men until Joss Whedon’s run with a different line-up. So for me, it’s expecting that any line-up especially in the movies will be different from the line-ups before.

  7. My formative X-men years are the early 90’s, or what appears to be the beginning of the way-too-fucking-many X-men era.

    Thus, my emotional response to every movie is always GIVE ME MORE X-MEN!


Leave a Comment.

Prove you're human... * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.