Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    997

    Default Are the X-Men defined by their powers?

    I stumbled on this article writing about Mark Millar's response to why MCU works and DCEU doesn't.

    https://www.cinemablend.com/news/231...e-comic-writer

    This got me thinking. I know the article does briefly mention the X-Men and implicitly states they work, but hear me out for a bit. Personally, I think this does concern the X-Men as I believe the X-Movies, barring Deadpool, have been largely underwhelming. Yes, even Old Man Logan, though I find it more as a proper send-off than a classic. I chalked the X-Movies' lack of success to working with too-large of a cast without developing them individually, but this article made me think:

    Are the X-Men defined by their powers? Can you watch an hour-plus movie without Cyclops nuking a swarm of sentinels? Without Storm throwing the mother of all lightning bolts? Without Wolverine tanking bullets or popping his claws?

    Or is Mark Millar wrong about characters defined by their powers faring poorly on the big screen?
    Don't like? Don't read. Let your wallet talk.

    When will Logan call out Jean for putting his clone and his clone's underage clone in an X-Squad?

  2. #2
    Peter Scott/Scott Peter SpiderClops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,143

    Default

    First of all, f$%k Mark Millar. The way he writes comics, I wouldn't want to hear any of his opinions, one way or the other.

    Second, no X-Men aren't "defined" by their powers. But that doesn't mean powers are irrelevant. Interesting powers sure do help make the character itself interesting. Bare in mind, interesting powers, not how much powerful they are.
    “Indifference and neglect often do much more damage than outright dislike.”
    -Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

  3. #3
    Extraordinary Member Purplevit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,651

    Default

    Depends from character.
    Gambit is not defined by his power. I remeber how Asmus told that he wrote first draft of script for #1 and realized that Gambit wasn`t even using his powers yet.
    So he added powers a little bit.

    Claremont`s depowered Gambit was great without powers too. He was dangerous without them.

  4. #4
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xiyon View Post
    I stumbled on this article writing about Mark Millar's response to why MCU works and DCEU doesn't.

    https://www.cinemablend.com/news/231...e-comic-writer

    This got me thinking. I know the article does briefly mention the X-Men and implicitly states they work, but hear me out for a bit. Personally, I think this does concern the X-Men as I believe the X-Movies, barring Deadpool, have been largely underwhelming. Yes, even Old Man Logan, though I find it more as a proper send-off than a classic. I chalked the X-Movies' lack of success to working with too-large of a cast without developing them individually, but this article made me think:

    Are the X-Men defined by their powers? Can you watch an hour-plus movie without Cyclops nuking a swarm of sentinels? Without Storm throwing the mother of all lightning bolts? Without Wolverine tanking bullets or popping his claws?

    Or is Mark Millar wrong about characters defined by their powers faring poorly on the big screen?
    I don't think you've grasped what Millar was saying. His main thrust wasn't that DC's heroes, Batman excepted, were not successful because they were based around their super powers, but rather, they were not successful because they were not based around their secret identities. Marvel's heroes, on the other hand, were based around their secret identities, thus making them relatable.

    So you've created a thread asking a question that is not even pertinent to Millar's point. His point was DC heroes' (except Batman) lack of focus on their secret identities.

    But to answer your question anyway, no, X-Men are not defined by their powers. They are defined by their personalities, which are bound up in their identity as mutants.

  5. #5
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    454

    Default

    This is from the article.

    I think it's really simple the characters aren't cinematic and I say this as a massive DC fan who much prefers their characters to Marvel's. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are some of my favorites but I think these characters, with the exception of Batman, they aren't based around their secret identity they are based around their super power. Whereas the Marvel characters tend to be based around the personality of Matt Murdock or Peter Parker or the individual X-Men, it's all about the character.

    How ignorant is this guy. The hate on DCEU is just cynical.

    The question about xmen is NO. they are not defined by their powers. they are defined by their personalities and drama filled up lives.
    Last edited by Sandfall; 02-28-2018 at 04:00 AM.

  6. #6
    That's what makes it fun! Ricochet Rita's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Interdimensional
    Posts
    2,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xiyon View Post
    Are the X-Men defined by their powers?
    Short answer: NO. Thank goodness (I mean, thank Claremont).

    Extended answer: there's all that about lethal powers and weird physical traits, but still NO, they're not defined by their powers.

  7. #7
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ricochet Rita View Post
    Short answer: NO. Thank goodness (I mean, thank Claremont).

    Extended answer: there's all that about lethal powers and weird physical traits, but still NO, they're not defined by their powers.
    So, if Fox/Whoever has the X-Men's movie rights now were to create a film where all the X-Men are depowered, do you think fans will still call them the X-Men? Would fans even be willing to watch such a film? The franchise hinges too much on lethal powers and weird physical traits (for good reason) but, for the life of me, I can't think of any other direction they can be taken in...
    Don't like? Don't read. Let your wallet talk.

    When will Logan call out Jean for putting his clone and his clone's underage clone in an X-Squad?

  8. #8
    BANNED Geek Mangacomic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    First of all, f$%k Mark Millar. The way he writes comics, I wouldn't want to hear any of his opinions, one way or the other.

    Second, no X-Men aren't "defined" by their powers. But that doesn't mean powers are irrelevant. Interesting powers sure do help make the character itself interesting. Bare in mind, interesting powers, not how much powerful they are.
    What’s wrong with Mark? Most of his comics are great.

  9. #9
    Jubilant Member Dementia5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    3,055

    Default

    The X-men are fairly unique among superheroes - they’re defined more by their personalities and how they relate to each other than by their powers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fokken View Post
    Yer bonkers and you need a sandwich.

  10. #10
    MXAAGVNIEETRO IS RIGHT MyriVerse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xiyon View Post
    Are the X-Men defined by their powers? Can you watch an hour-plus movie without Cyclops nuking a swarm of sentinels? Without Storm throwing the mother of all lightning bolts? Without Wolverine tanking bullets or popping his claws?
    Storm was depowered back in the 80s for about 40 issues. IMO, that was pretty much her pinnacle. Nono Storm fans, this isn't a dis to the goddess.

    Anyway, it does get sort of confusing at times, because often mutants hold their mutations to be so sacred that they're treated as defining more than their personalities.

    But no, we love (or hate) Scott because of his leadership and character decisions; we love Ororo because of her regality and other qualities; we love Kitty because Professor Xavier is a jerk and she was the first to tell him so; we love Logan because he's a no-nonsense, grizzled old soldier; etc.

    I'm not even sure I agree with Millar about the DCU characters. It's Diana as a person that gets me to like her. It's Clark Kent that is the draw. Maybe that's what he's saying-- I might agree that the recent Superman movies fail because they're too Superman and not enough Clark.

    I want more from a superhero movie than superpowers. This is why Logan was better than any other Fox Wolverine.
    Last edited by MyriVerse; 02-28-2018 at 07:12 AM.
    f/k/a The Black Guardian
    COEXIST | NOEXIST
    ShadowcatMagikДаякѕтая Sto☈mDustMercury MonetRachelSage
    MagnetoNightcrawlerColossusRockslideBeastXavier

  11. #11
    The King Fears NO ONE! Triniking1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,204

    Default

    The powers are what make most of the X-Men identifiable but you can say that about most superheroes. I don't think that's their only defining trait.

  12. #12
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    3,873

    Default

    movies ≠ comic books

  13. #13
    Incredible Member Captain Nash's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    549

    Default

    I think there may be a handful who are, but by and large, no, I think they are more defined by their experiences and their personalities. Off the top of my head I could say that it's possible that Iceman is the only high profile X-Man who might be considered defined by their powers, or the potential of them. that's not to say he hasn't had any personal development, by no means is that the case, just that when I think of him, I think of his abilities first. Everyone else, personality traits and experiences come to the fore beforehand. Granted as we move along into less profiled X-Men there could certainly be other circumstances but even then, that's not the majority.
    Viva la ResurreXion!!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •