Dark Phoenix is based around an idea from Days of Future Past

SPOILERS for Dark Phoenix.

I just rewatched the film recently and I noticed something I didn’t catch in the first viewing. Like most of the X-Men films it has an opening narration, but this time the narrator isn’t Charles Xavier but Jean Grey.

Jean Grey: “Who are we? Are we simply what others want us to be? Are we destined to a fate beyond our control? Or can we evolve, become something more?”



This narration echos the opening narration of X-Men: Days of Future Past, which had Professor X asking if we are destined to be one we are or if can we evolve into change our fate.



Charles Xavier: “Are we destined down this path, destined to destroy ourselves like so many species before us? Or can we evolve fast enough to change ourselves… change our fate? Is the future truly set?”

Both films also have closing narrations that answers this question. That we are ultimately not destined to a fate beyond our control.

Jean Grey: I know who I am now. I am not simply what others want me to be. I am not destined to a fate I can’t control. I evolved beyond this world. This is not the end of me, or the X-Men. It’s a new beginning.

Charles Xavier: The past: a new and uncertain world. A world of endless possibilities and infinite outcomes. Countless choices define our fate: each choice, each moment, a moment a ripple in the river of time. Enough ripples, and you change the tide… for the future is never truly set.



These narrations are referring to a theory about time travel that was mentioned in Days of Future Past by Beast, which led him to believe that Mystique might be destined to be who she is the original timeline.

Beast: There’s a theory in quantum physics that time is immutable. It’s like a river — you can throw a pebble in and create a ripple, but the current always corrects itself. No matter what you do the river just keeps flowing in the same direction. …What if the war is inevitable? What if she’s meant to kill Trask? What if this is simply who she is?



The filmmakers behind Days of Future Past have commented on this and said that there is some true behind this statement. Such as writer Simon Kinberg in 2014:

The end of Days of Future Past in 1973 does change the timeline of the established film universe. But one of the things we posit in the film is the immutability of time. So what you see at the end is a future that has been shifted but not completely transformed. Our characters are back in the mansion, as we saw them in X1-3, with some obvious changes (like certain characters being alive). So the answer is yes and no. Yes it changes the timeline. No it doesn’t completely erase everything…



And in 2016, Simon Kinberg and Bryan Singers that it is something they are exploring with these prequel films and that they are going in the same general direction as the original trilogy.

Simon Kinberg: It’s not leading necessarily toward exactly where we found Patrick Stewart and the X-Men at the beginning of X-Men 1. There are some things that lead in that general direction, that was part of the philosophy we had at the end of Days of Future Past is that you can’t fully change the course or current of the river, but you can just divert it a little bit, and we diverted it a little bit. So some things will be surprises; people could die that were alive in X-Men 1, 2 and 3, or people could survive that died during 1, 2 and 3.

Bryan Singer: So what I’m doing with these in-betweenqueels is playing with time’s immutability and the prequel concept, meaning that yes we erased those storylines and anything can happen. That means the audience goes into the movie thinking that anything can happen. I mean anything, anyone could die. Any possibility could occur, but characters are still moving towards their immutable place. Jean and Scott, are they meant to be together? Is Scott this guy who hates schools, who ahtes authority, destined to become a leader? You don’t know. Is Jean ever going ot disover the full potential of her power? You don’t know, but we move in those direction character wise but then we have the freedom story wise to do whatever the fuck we want because we erased those three movies.



For example, in both timelines Jean predicts that something bad is going to happen as her powers go out of wack.



Just like Days of Future Past questioned who Mystique was, Dark Phoenix does the same with Jean. Is she meant to become Dark Phoenix and hurt her family like in the original timeline? The blatant X3 parallels will have you thinking that and she does accidentally hurt her family(her mother and Mystique) make it seem that is the case but the answer it ultimately gives is the same as Days of Future Past. Jean does not go down a dark path and instead is the hero thanks to Xavier believing her in this timeline and she saves the day, just like Mystique. He made enough ripples in time to change Jean’s fate and she never becomes the Dark Phoenix.

The film is an exercise of “bait & switch” and it’s very apparent in it’s marketing. Look at the second trailer for example.

In the trailer Xavier says “she’ll kill us all”, then switches to Jean crushing Magneto’s helmet while he is still wearing it. On the train Magneto says “she’s coming” and switches to the train being attacked but they don’t show you who is attacking, then shows a shot of Jean lifting the train which gives the impression she is the one attacking them.

If you’ve seen the movie you would know that this was all misdirection. They are in fact referring to Jessica Chastain’s character Vuk and the D’Bari empire, the film’s true villains.

Like Mystique, Jean never really crosses that line and becomes the psycho we see in X3 uses her power to turn her family into dust for no reason. Jean instead uses that power to protect her family. Similar to the Jean we saw in X2, where the X-Men also thought she was dead but in reality she had evolved and became a Phoenix. According to Simon Kinberg it’s about Jean taking control of her destiny.