The future of the X-Men on the big screen

[Killerbee911]

Repeat after me:

"The movies are not the comics. The movies are not the comics. The movies are not the comics..."

That is kinda insane, Source material exists for a reason. Lotor, Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, They all followed the general source material. If you don't respect the source Material don't do the freaking movie. Adapting content for TV or Movie is fine, Comics is told over multiple issues(and years) and often isn't a clean story to tell. So yes writers have to condense stuff and change stuff when it is time to make a movie. But if you don't have to make a change to the source material you don't because the thing is being a made for a reason. X-men was made earlier and not Eternals or Inhumans, not Harbringers, Not Wildcats, Not Youngblood, not Cyberforce for a reason. If you just need a superhero universe that you can bend and change anything could be used. The X-men is good stories not a concept box. X-men is popular because of good stories and good characters in those stories. And has a fan base of people who almost instantly make a movie a success when you do it right to the source material. Fans go see movies multiple times, buy toys and merch. Those other universes and concepts I mention don't have that is why Hollywood hasn't made them into a movie.

[yogaflame]

Hear, hear!

Fox wasted the X-Men IP because they never truly appreciated it. Thank the Goddess this 20 year period is coming to an end(really, NM, just go away).

[Killerbee911]

Hear, hear!

Fox wasted the X-Men IP because they never truly appreciated it. Thank the Goddess this 20 year period is coming to an end(really, NM, just go away).

Yup X-men was always to them Toybox/Concept box/Spec Concept with the silly goofy stories not good enough and need to be "fixed" for Fox as someone mentioned Singer banned comics

Hugh Jackman

Bryan Singer had this thing that people would think he really wanted to take comic book characters seriously, as real three-dimensional characters, that people who don't understand these comics might think they're two-dimensional, so no one was allowed [comics]. ... It was contraband. I'd never read X-Men, so people were slipping them under my door.

Which sounds good until you realize it means he didn't respect the content/source material.

[Xelossik]

Fox didn''t know who x-23 is when they were looking for Wolverine replacement.

Logan co-writer and director James Mangold has revealed to Fandango in a new interview that 20th Century Fox had zero clue who X-23 was when he asked to use her.
https://thegww.com/logans-x-23-might...e-who-she-was/

[Snoop Dogg]

Fox didn''t know who x-23 is when they were looking for Wolverine replacement.

Logan co-writer and director James Mangold has revealed to Fandango in a new interview that 20th Century Fox had zero clue who X-23 was when he asked to use her.
https://thegww.com/logans-x-23-might...e-who-she-was/

[Wolverine12]

True. But I feel like if you’re going to adapt something to love action you should be familiar with the source material.

That is kinda insane, Source material exists for a reason. Lotor, Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, They all followed the general source material. If you don't respect the source Material don't do the freaking movie. Adapting content for TV or Movie is fine, Comics is told over multiple issues(and years) and often isn't a clean story to tell. So yes writers have to condense stuff and change stuff when it is time to make a movie. But if you don't have to make a change to the source material you don't because the thing is being a made for a reason. X-men was made earlier and not Eternals or Inhumans, not Harbringers, Not Wildcats, Not Youngblood, not Cyberforce for a reason. If you just need a superhero universe that you can bend and change anything could be used. The X-men is good stories not a concept box. X-men is popular because of good stories and good characters in those stories. And has a fan base of people who almost instantly make a movie a success when you do it right to the source material. Fans go see movies multiple times, buy toys and merch. Those other universes and concepts I mention don't have that is why Hollywood hasn't made them into a movie.

I have a few issues with the no comics policy argument being made as a negative. The first is, this was done during the first X-Men film, the one that opened the floodgate for the current market of comic films so really there is no guidelines to follow, they are creating the idea from scratch. Second, it specifically says Singer wanted people to take it seriously but some how we are drawing the conclusion he didn't respect the source material? That seems like backward thinking.

Back in the late 90's and early 00's comics were coming off a big low point (the whole reason Fox had the movie rights in the first place) and to me that quote from Jackman says Singer appreciated the comics and wanted others to as well, not the opposite, again, he had no formula to follow Fox did what they thought would work and it worked. Finally this is the same director that did X2, and DoFP as well which the vast majority of people agree are good if not excellent movies, and the same studio that made Logan, which is pretty much universally agreed upon to have broken a mold in the genre and was nominated for an Oscar.

I can understand thinking the no comics policy is weird or even a bad idea, but to draw the conclusion he didn't respect the source material when they guy made 3 films that were all very successful when they came out is just wrong imho.

Repeat after me:

"The movies are not the comics. The movies are not the comics. The movies are not the comics..."

I could not agree more with this statement

[WebLurker]

True. But I feel like if you’re going to adapt something to love action you should be familiar with the source material.

If the movie is good on its own terms, does it really matter how much like or unlike the source material it is?

Yeah, imagine if a director of a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings movie said they never read the books or forbade the actors from reading them.

Those were intended to be retellings of the same story, not so much new stuff based on the old. (I mean, how many comic book movies are truly based on a specific story?)

No one here is advocating for a one-to-one translation from comic to film, but it is a stupid for the director and writers to not know the general history, powers, family, and personality of the characters they're adapting.

Seriously, even people on The Gifted read the comics. Emma Dumont says she read the comics via the free subscription given to her through the Marvel Unlimited app and Percy Hynes White, despite losing his password according to an interview, read trades and floppies, and he played a mostly original character.

I guess my first response would be what I'd bring up here. I mean, what's the end goal of the film and all that? An adaptation with zero fidelity to the source material can still be a legitimately well-made and worthwhile story on its own merits, just like how the X-Men movies stood and fell on how well they were made and produced, not on how "accurate" they were to the old comics.

[Killerbee911]

I can understand thinking the no comics policy is weird or even a bad idea, but to draw the conclusion he didn't respect the source material when they guy made 3 films that were all very successful when they came out is just wrong imho.

Because Singer( to a lesser degree) and Fox didn't respect the source material. Singer only cared about social commentary and X-men as metaphor minorites and LGBTQ community other than he didn't do the X-men that well and yes X2 and DoFP are great movies but some of that in spite of him and fox not because it is no accident that two movies that most closely resemble comic plotlines are the strongest in the franchise.

The X-men isn't just social commentary doing just one aspect well isn't enough. Fox didn't care about the general storyline of the franchise, Fox didn't about characters major characters like Sabertooth, Colossus, Storm, Kitty, Jubilee, Nightcrawler not being 2 dimensional side characters, They were shame of the comic book aspects like costumes, cosmic elements or silly family connections,They though storyline and characters where interchangeable,etc.

In reality they just wanted do "Heroes" style superhero story heavily grounded in reality just enough elements of the comics to make a fan take a look at it. X-men name was just bait fans while they use the property characters as toy box for writers to attach general scripts to it. I am not saying I am completely right that how I feel about the movies. Something like X-men First Class for me was a good movie but a bad X-men adaption.

Nobody is saying movies have to be one for one retelling of the comics, The Avengers and most of Marvel movies aren't that but these movies carried the spirit of the comics and they weren't ashamed of the source material(except Thor 1).

[Celestial]

If the movie is good on its own terms, does it really matter how much like or unlike the source material it is?

Not saying it has to be word for word exactly like the source material. But I feel like you should be familiar with it. With characters and stories. Them not paying attention to the source material is why so many X-men where unrecognizable. As a Storm fan, I never truly felt we saw Storm on the big screen.

[MarvelMaster616]

Fox didn''t know who x-23 is when they were looking for Wolverine replacement.

Logan co-writer and director James Mangold has revealed to Fandango in a new interview that 20th Century Fox had zero clue who X-23 was when he asked to use her.
https://thegww.com/logans-x-23-might...e-who-she-was/

I'm not too surprised, but I'm curious to know who specifically he was referring to when he says "20th Century Fox" didn't know who she was. Simon Kinberg clearly knew who she was. Hutch Parker knew, as well. But who else didn't know? I wouldn't be too surprised if Bryan Singer hadn't kept up with the comics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the other studio heads didn't know because they're probably not the ones keeping up with the comics. They deal in movies and leave the comics stuff to others. You think Bob Iger has followed closely the recent happenings of the comics? I think that's expecting a bit much.

[Jokerz79]

If you ignore the source material then why do an adaptation? Just make something original in that case.

[Xelossik]

I'm not too surprised, but I'm curious to know who specifically he was referring to when he says "20th Century Fox" didn't know who she was. Simon Kinberg clearly knew who she was. Hutch Parker knew, as well. But who else didn't know? I wouldn't be too surprised if Bryan Singer hadn't kept up with the comics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the other studio heads didn't know because they're probably not the ones keeping up with the comics. They deal in movies and leave the comics stuff to others. You think Bob Iger has followed closely the recent happenings of the comics? I think that's expecting a bit much.

In November 2013, 20th Century Fox initiated discussions over solo film starring Wolverine, with James Mangold as director. Maybe that's when Kinberg learned that she exists? I don't know who.

Bob Iger? I don't think that anyone is sending their scripts to him.
He has people who works for him and they are responsible for accepting scripts etc. I believe that they have knowledge about characters who had some solo series and were in tv. Very basic knowledge of course.

[Rincewind]

I'm not too surprised, but I'm curious to know who specifically he was referring to when he says "20th Century Fox" didn't know who she was. Simon Kinberg clearly knew who she was. Hutch Parker knew, as well. But who else didn't know? I wouldn't be too surprised if Bryan Singer hadn't kept up with the comics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the other studio heads didn't know because they're probably not the ones keeping up with the comics. They deal in movies and leave the comics stuff to others. You think Bob Iger has followed closely the recent happenings of the comics? I think that's expecting a bit much.

Olivia Munn had similar comments about Singer and Kinberg not knowing the details of Psylocke.

https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2019/...y-frustrating/

[Ambaryerno]

Because Singer( to a lesser degree) and Fox didn't respect the source material.

It was because X-Men was made in the aftermath of Joel Schumaker and was deliberately trying to distance itself.

[Beaddle]

Bob Iger knows little about Marvel but Feige has significant knowledge about the series to Kinberg, who has zero knowledge about the series. Fox should have put someone in charge who had a sufficient amount of knowledge about the series when they decided to reboot it. I stopped taking the franchise seriously after the apocalypse reboot. Feige is just stuck with making juvenile immature movies about marvel stories.

It was because X-Men was made in the aftermath of Joel Schumaker and was deliberately trying to distance itself.

The Joel Schumaker mess made everyone distance itself from the genre. Blade was the first movie in the aftermath, Comic movies had to be Aristotle post Schumaker. Schumaker never got the chance to make a third film. Batman was rebooted 8 years after by another director who had a good knowledge about Batman. If Disney had not bought Fox. High chances that, this is what would happened. Fox will no longer have a choice. it would have been better than a MCU reboot though looking at Holland's Spiderman struggling under the shadows of Raimi.

Fox like Warner brothers problem was changing the head runner or director. Marvel's problem is changing the entire structure. Fox did not know who X23 was, but putting her in a movie was not a big deal after Mangold explained the character. Marvel may know who she is since she is their character but Marvel would never put her in any movie or use her as Mangold did.