Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Wolverine ends up changing history from 1973 and manages to change the outcome of the future. In the scene where Wolverine gets pulled from the bottom of the bay and onto the boat, General Stryker (Mystique in disguise) takes Wolverine from there.

Most will agree that she probably does this so Wolverine wouldn't have to suffer being taken by the real General Stryker. Does that mean that Wolverine doesn't end up in the hands of the real General Stryker at any point in time from that day and the future when he returns? If so, wouldn't that mean that he never gets the adamantium injected into him? This could only mean that Wolverine ends up returning to the future having only his claws of bone because he doesn't go through the adamantium procedure. Is that right or there is an alternate possibility.

share|improve this question
2  
Somewhat related with slightly overlapping answers: movies.stackexchange.com/questions/19701/… and movies.stackexchange.com/questions/20078/… –  KeyBrd Basher Jun 17 at 11:23
2  
@KeyBrdBasher The first one seems unrelated, but the second one is indeed an exact duplicate. –  Napoleon Wilson Jun 17 at 11:48
1  
@NapoleonWilson as per the quality of the other question, i will say we should close that one or remove question no 1 from it. –  Ankit Sharma Jun 17 at 12:31
2  
I agree with Ankit Sharma. This one, albeit with a little editing has much better potential as a question. –  KeyBrd Basher Jun 17 at 12:55
2  

1 Answer 1

I wouldn't think so because;

  1. the writers at Marvel (presumably) understand how time travel works. Meaning if Wolverine wasn't saved by Stryker in the movie and ends up not having Adamantium claws that would mean that all of the Wolverine movies as well as the first three X Men movies have an inconsistency.

  2. He could meet Stryker again in the future/past(?) which would mean he would get the claws.

  3. Hopefully it will be explained in the next movie (I haven't read the comics).

share|improve this answer
    
Your first two reasons sound like the first sentence should actually read "would" instead of "wouldn't", otherwise there would seem to be a rhetorical inconsistency. And as to 1), why should those movies have an inconsistency, they didn't even happen in that timeline at all, so there particular plot is completely irrelevant, if inconsistent or not (remember how Jean and Scott are alive, too)? –  Napoleon Wilson Oct 16 at 8:27

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.