Are the X-Men defined by their powers?

[xiyon]

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?

[SpiderClops]

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.

[Purplevit]

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.

[passerby]

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.

[Sandfall]

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.

[Ricochet Rita]

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.

[xiyon]

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...

[Geek Mangacomic]

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.

[Dementia5]

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.

[MyriVerse]

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.

[Triniking1234]

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.

[CuteClops]

movies ≠ comic books

[Captain Nash]

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.