6

We first encountered Moira MacTaggert in the 2006 X-Men: The Last Stand. The movie takes place sometime in the "near future" of the 2000's.

She appears to be a 30-something year old doctor on Muir Island. She is played by a then-36 year old Olivia Williams.

Olivia-Moira supposedly 70-something years old

In the 2011 X-Men: First Class, we meet Moira MacTaggert again. Here, she is 30-something, but this time is an American CIA agent in 1962. She is played by a then-32 year old Rose Byrne.

Rose-Moira

The X-Men Movies Wikia claims that these two characters are the same person in-universe.

Sometime after the events of First Class, MacTaggert left the CIA and ultimately became a medical scientist and doctor. She establishes her home and workplace on Muir Island in northern Scotland, and eventually works alongside Charles Xavier again — this time in an educational capacity.

But they provide no citation or explanation how the character would span the 40+ year time gap without aging.

The Days of Future Past timeline re-write is not likely a good answer here, as we catch up with Moira in 1983 during the events of X-Men: Apocalypse, where she is still a CIA agent.

What evidence is there that these two versions of Moira depict the same in-universe character?

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    The continuity of the x-men universe is pretty bad. I'm not sure there is anything else to say on the matter
    – Matrim Cauthon
    Commented Mar 29, 2018 at 13:03
  • “The Days of Future Past timeline re-write is not likely a good answer here” — why not? Wibbley-wobbley, timey-wimey. One set of consequences of time-travel is as believable as the next, because in the real world, time travel doesn't exist. So unless you set rules about how it works (which the X-Men universe hasn't), anything's fair game. (In my head, Dr McTaggart just aged incredibly well by taking as good care of herself as she does of her patients.)
    – Paul D. Waite
    Commented Mar 25, 2019 at 10:25

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
6
+50

There's probably no evidence.

As has been discussed before on meta before, for example here, which is talking about Memory Alpha (the Star Trek wiki) (and I'm sure there is a better meta reference) but I can't find it now, fan-sourced wikis are not primary references. What we have here is an unsourced statement by a fan who merely connected the dots that there are two mentions of Moira MacTaggart with seemly irreconcilable differences and then made the statement:

Sometime after the events of First Class, MacTaggert left the CIA and ultimately became a medical scientist and doctor. She establishes her home and workplace on Muir Island in northern Scotland, and eventually works alongside Charles Xavier again — this time in an educational capacity.

as you noted.

But in fact there's probably no evidence at all for that and it's just an inconsistency like many others.

The problem here is that someone on the Wiki took it upon themselves to take continuity in-universe too seriously and therefore make the conclusions they stated. The attitude is essentially: We saw these two things, that we must assume are true and consistent since we saw them, so I'm free to state as fact whatever explanation can make both things true, regardless of how logical the result is. (Note, they equally well could have just assumed there are two different Moira MacTaggarts and it would have been an equally valid conclusion -- but the default assumption is same name = same person.)

With this attitude, effectively any inconsistency becomes a factory for more and weirder inconsistencies -- instead of just accepting that the continuity is lacking.

Here is another answer talking about how wikias are not primary sources and are fan written.

Improve this answer
10
  • 2
    I’m not sure your point is necessarily good evidence for your claims. “Wikis are fan written therefore this is fan written” doesn’t seem like the best standpoint to take. You could be right, but it’s unconvincing.
    – Edlothiad
    Commented Mar 29, 2018 at 15:20
  • 1
    @Edlothiad: I'm saying there's probably isn't any evidence and then giving the explanation -- what other answer can I give? -- particularly since this is almost certainly correct (unless demonstrated to be wrong).
    – ThePopMachine
    Commented Mar 29, 2018 at 16:59
  • The question is completely different and would warrant an answer if it were, for example, a canon statement. But it's not, and it's very possible the poster isn't aware of the quality of statement in the wikias. In other words, the premise of the question needs to be straightened. If the poster knows this and asks anyways, then the answer is probably "there's no evidence" and you can ignore the rest of my answer.
    – ThePopMachine
    Commented Mar 29, 2018 at 16:59
  • I'm aware that there is a possibility this is correct, I'm not convinced this is a good argument though. That proving a negativity because "Someone said they're inaccurate" seems like circular logic, no? Some randomer said they're all inaccurate because they're written by randomers.
    – Edlothiad
    Commented Mar 29, 2018 at 18:18
  • @Edlothiad: I don't know what to say. The poster is asking a question asking for the evidence that a pointless conclusion is true.
    – ThePopMachine
    Commented Mar 30, 2018 at 15:06
2

The best evidence we have is that she's not the only one to suffer from the seemingly inconsistent timelines. Angel is an example of another character that is also subject to this, given his age and appearance in both 1983 and 2011. However, only the 2011 version of the character is confirmed to be Warren Worthington III.

A counter-example to Angel would be Emma Frost, who appeared in X-Men: First Class as an adult, but Wolverine: Origins as much younger. Despite the same first name and powers (and the implication of who they were), they were actually cited by the executive producer as different people.

The X-Men movie universe, and ultimately the comic universe as well, are commonly known to have a very loose relationship to time and aging. Given the history of such things, if anything their full name alone should be enough evidence to confirm they are in fact the same people. Unless explicit writer/director confirmation is given that they are not, it's usually safe to assume they are.

Improve this answer
3
  • Both versions of the character are confirmed to be Warren Worthington III. There is no evidence there that they are. Read the article Praxis linked. The article writer claims it, but there is nothing to support it. Even official cast lists simply list the Apocalypse version simply as "Angel" while everyone else has both names.
    – phantom42
    Commented Mar 29, 2018 at 15:01
  • It would be more worthwhile looking for explicit writer/director confirmation that they are not (which given they chose the names they did for a reason, is highly unlikely). That would be exactly the type of evidence we're looking for here.
    – phantom42
    Commented Mar 29, 2018 at 15:01
  • @phantom42 Missed that comment, good point. Edited to reflect. Also looked into Emma Frost and added her as a notable counter-example (same first name, same powers, but cited as different characters).
    – Mwr247
    Commented Mar 29, 2018 at 15:23
-2

The answer is simple.

The first X-Men trilogy was in a different continuity/universe separated from the X-Men First Class film series.

The depiction of a future in film "Days of Future Past" was a parallel universe of Patrick Stewart's Prof. X.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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