The future of the X-Men on the big screen

[Xelossik]

This is marvel comics after Disney bought marvel? I prefer X-Men's Iceman before the Disney buyout.

X-men first issue:
RCO006_1469326824.jpg

Iceman is as always very sad./s
He is not lighthearted./s

[Jokerz79]

This is marvel comics after Disney bought marvel? I prefer X-Men's Iceman before the Disney buyout.

Januray 1994 issue where Jott got engaged.

https://images.app.goo.gl/DcqdguAesqLBekPR8

[Beaddle]

X-men first issue:
RCO006_1469326824.jpg

Iceman is as always very sad./s
He is not lighthearted./s

This is not Ice Man's full biography. His history is not lighthearted.

[CRaymond]

This is not Ice Man's full biography. His history is not lighthearted.

Yep boring.

KB, I wasn’t talking to you.

There’s a lot of resistant learning on CBR and it comes from people hanging onto trees rather than imagining forests. Yes Bobby's past can be described as tragic, but humor comes from pain and he’s effing funny and wants others to be happy. Hearts have layers.

[U.N. Owen]

Let's not forget humor is a coping mechanism. It's why people make jokes or laugh at inappropriate times.

[Xelossik]

This is not Ice Man's full biography. His history is not lighthearted.

History and character are two differen things.

Think about this situation:
You had a car crash and lost both legs.

Some people can gave up and never do anything more in life. Some may try to commit suicide.
but
other can act like Stephen Hawking and have great life.

Yeah some bad things happen in marvel universe
but so what?
if everyone would react to this excatly the same then we wouldn't need more than 1 x-man.

You especially (as a Person who believes that X-men should be mature) should prefer version where X-men have different characters, different beliefs. Some X-men should be lighthearted and some should be not.

[Beaddle]

There is no miscommunication





Remember Hiro from Heroes remember how lightheart that characters was? Yeah a bunch of people on the list are that lighthearted. The world tone has nothing to with a character being lighthearted some people make the best of things. .

Remember Hiro's best episode from the entire show? Five years gone. A fantastic time travel dystopian story that Endgame couldn't be. Hiro got a lot of criticism in season 3 and 4. Most and if not all of us hated , when he became a child trapped in a man's body. It was one of the worst storylines of the show.

The X-men is so not a lighthearted world that they don't find time to play baseball and go to mall

You know some of the main problems I have heard with far from home? Its not just the humor, its how lighthearted it is as a Spiderman film. Marvel is not as lighhearted as MCU wants you to think.

[Frobisher]

This is even more confusing than the time I found out what a "shipping war" is.

[Killerbee911]

Iceman is literally used a quipper and comedic relief in books, Nightcrawler optimism, and positivity is the core to the character . Beast key descriptor for awhile was" fun loving". Maybe I am reading a different X-men book

[WebLurker]

Time travel is such an overused trope in stories. Standards are brought in to try and separate the best cliches from the worst cliches of the trope.

Actually though Endgame was one of the better time travel stories out there. Avoided a lot of the plot holes in such stories (like too much power to the characters and the Star Trek-style time travel reset button trope) and it was a clean model of travel that actually made sense with the internal logic (old Cap notwithstanding).

The Mirror Universe, Yesterday's Enterprise.

Spock and McCoy bickering (both versions), the amusement park planet, Sigma Iota II, "Spectre of the Gun," the Animated Series, How Much For Just the Planet?, The Voyage Home, the Klingon Dictionary, the Ferengi, Data misunderstanding human nature, Picard threatening Ferengi pirates with Shakespeare (and winning), Worf's stoic nature, Q, "Cause and Effect," Spot, "A Fistful or Datas," Worf being a midwife, Quark and family, Morn, Dax's irreverence, "plain simple" Garak's handwaving and obscuring his past, "Who Morns For Morn," "In the Cards," Paris and his hobbies, the holo Doctor being himself, Neelix, Future's End, Seven of Nine being a den mother, Captain Proton, Dr. Phlox, Trip, Porthos, Shran and his loathing being in someone's debt, first visit to Risa, "In a Mirror, Darkly," Kelvin Scotty's suffering, Jeyla, weaponizing Beastie Boys.

Raimi only made 2 films to cast a long shadow on other Spiderman movies. Fox made about 6 films that would cast a longer shadow, among the 6 films was Logan, in contest to be a more important film than The Dark Knight. Logan didn’t have the Heath Ledger momentum to drive it.

I was generalizing about the Raimi trilogy as a whole vs. the two most beloved installments of it. Logan is still too new to know what it's legacy will be and until an X-Men reboot happens, we don't really know what kind of shadow the original series will cast. I mean. when the ASM movies first came out, the most vocal voices were the ones who though that they were so much better then the Raimi movies on all levels, while now, ASM is a footnote while the Raimi movies are still recognized for their impact.

X-Men 2 is the best thing X-Men had to Spiderman 2...

Personally, I don't know about that; X2 seems to have lost a lot of its shine over the years. Still think its good, but I'm not sure its the best of the best, something Spider-Man 2 can still claim.

...there are other heavy contenders like Days of future past, a mature time travel dystopian film Endgame couldn’t be.

No, I think Endgame did Days of Future Past one better in several ways (and not just in giving everyone something to do). The aftermath of the disaster is explored far more and how it affects the survivors. It also plays more to the personal level then the larger scale. We get whole scenes just devoted to character development and wrestling with problems, on a scale that Days of Future Past never did. (Bear in mind that I would still place Days of Future Past way ahead of Endgame on my personal favorites list.)

There are the crazy kids like Deadpool that turned humor into the street art of the 80s SNL not treat humor as a cheap trick for immaturity.

Never saw those, so I can't comment, although it sounds a lot like the Guardians of the Galaxy movies in that regard. (Seriously, watch that first movie and examine how humor is used in regards to the different characters and what we learn about them through it.)

[QUOTE=Beaddle;4448708]There was X-men 1, a film that set the entire genre on full reverse, an impact that still holds up today on how to make a serious film about comic book characters.

It is these 6 movies that has made most come to the conclusion X-Men is more mature than the MCU. It is what made me personally come to the conclusion MCU needs to use their mulitverse concept to create an adult contemporary universe of not just X-men but for Blade, The Punisher and Daredevil.

I guess where I stand is that while the X-Men movies may deal with more "important" topics, I think a case can be made that the MCU has more "emotional" maturity, at least in the sense of going broke on their characters and developing them considerably over the course of the movies. The Guardians of the Galaxy may be sillier then the X-Men, but they're also far more fleshed out characters on the whole who've been explored in far greater detail then Wolverine, Magneto, Professor X, and the other major characters were in two or three movies. (Also, personal opinion, while I do think Jennifer Lawerence's Mystique's story arc of villain to hero is one of the good things the X-Men series, I think Nebula's similar story arc did it a lot better, in a far more moving way, and in a fraction of the screen time to boot.)

Only slightly better than the ASM movies. The idea implanted that reboot xmen will only be slightly better than the last Kinberg reboot xmen is nauseating to me. Can FFH be worse than dark phoenix? I can see it with captain marvel,not a spiderman movie.

Yeah?

I expect Spider-Man. The Spiderman.

Tom Holland certainly seemed to fit well into the spectrum the franchise has established for the character. He works really well in both comedy and drama, as well as dramas with elements of comic relief. The latter being why I keep comparing him to Pixar movies. While he does have his differences as a character from many of the Pixar ones, the way the two franchises combine clever premises with stories that balance out the humor with serious plots and emotions are pretty similar. I mean, Toy Story 4 has plenty of side-busting scenes, but explores some pretty serious stuff through Woody dealing with his loss of meaning in life under his new circumstances.

Toy story and Up have some mature moments with beautiful light spins that does not need to fracture the mind of young viewers.

Toy Story 3 trash compactor scene, anyone? Besides, why does a story having maturity in its plot and themes have to automatically be something that would upset younger audiences?

The old xmen cartoon was far from my mind, I remembered it when you brought up the old batman cartoon. Its a first instinct if you are on a board about X-Men talking about cartoons. 90s X-Men was one of the best shows of the 90s, it never wished it could be batman because it was great on its own. If Marvel's present entertainment had any resemblance to 90s xmen, maturity won't be a topic.

Fair enough. Was never able to get into that cartoon; IMHO, it has not aged well at all in terms of the animation and acting, but I probably should do a deeper dive into it for a more informed critique. Heck, I love the Evolution cartoon, which did angle more to the character beats and fun aspects of superhero stories then social commentary, so there it is.

We are talking about movies.

What if an X-Men movie was made in the mold of Winter Solider? That had its share humor, but it was still a more serious-toned movie then others in the series.

The sense I get around here is where do you go from the original movies, ''make xmen movies great again'' by using the immature formulaic MCU is not a default.

Not sure what everyone saying has in mind when they venture this opinion, but the gist from the postings that they think the Fox series messed out the source material and/or went downhill beyond redemption and that Marvel Studios were do the franchise justice. Make of that what you will.

''Serious'' is one important building blocks of maturity. I don't know why you keep using pixar, are you saying pixar is still a lot more mature than the MCU? X-Men is not going to Pixar, it is going to marvel studios. Pixar is not a real part of the conversation.

It's an example of how mature doesn't have to be serious. My point is that the MCU style could work for the X-Men in terms of telling a meaningful story that has more value then just the fleeting entertainment.

[Beaddle]

Actually though Endgame was one of the better time travel stories out there. Avoided a lot of the plot holes in such stories (like too much power to the characters and the Star Trek-style time travel reset button trope) and it was a clean model of travel that actually made sense with the internal logic (old Cap notwithstanding).

Its one of the worst to me. My taste in time travel movies is just bigger than what Endgame did.

I was generalizing about the Raimi trilogy as a whole vs. the two most beloved installments of it. Logan is still too new to know what it's legacy will be and until an X-Men reboot happens, we don't really know what kind of shadow the original series will cast. I mean. when the ASM movies first came out, the most vocal voices were the ones who though that they were so much better then the Raimi movies on all levels, while now, ASM is a footnote while the Raimi movies are still recognized for their impact.

Logan is not still too new. Logan is not ASM. Logan was more than The Dark Knight. ASM honestly is too similar to MCU. Endgame is supposed to be an instant classic and Logan is not. The Logan of 2017?

Personally, I don't know about that; X2 seems to have lost a lot of its shine over the years. Still think its good, but I'm not sure its the best of the best, something Spider-Man 2 can still claim.

X2 is one of the the great classics of comics, so is Spiderman 2. X2 was a film released at a time comic films had to be Aristotle to escape mockery. Comic films don't have to be Aristotle anymore. Many films today will struggle to be called a classic.

Toy Story 3 trash compactor scene, anyone? Besides, why does a story having maturity in its plot and themes have to automatically be something that would upset younger audiences?

Toy story is not drawing complains from the parents council association.

Not sure what everyone saying has in mind when they venture this opinion, .

To me those opinions are too much about getting X-Men in the MCU , than critiquing the implications of X-men in the MCU. I just step above those opinions and offer a MCU adult contemporary universe for X-Men , that solves all the problems.

but the gist from the postings that they think the Fox series messed out the source material and/or went downhill beyond redemption and that Marvel

Redemption was easy. Fire Kinberg. How hard was it to fire Snyder?

How much redemption is needed when Dark Phoenix is not that different from Captain Marvel.
What was the gist about DC after JL? Give it to Disney or give DC a better head runner?

It's an example of how mature doesn't have to be serious. My point is that the MCU style could work for the X-Men in terms of telling a meaningful story that has more value then just the fleeting entertainment.

It still sounds like an endgame struggle to the original movies. MCU should be reborn when they bring in X-Men.

Iceman is literally used a quipper and comedic relief in books, Nightcrawler optimism, and positivity is the core to the character . Beast key descriptor for awhile was" fun loving". Maybe I am reading a different X-men book

Beast and Iceman have many quip moments. It does not mean giving them a Thor 3 movie is the best thing to do.

[WebLurker]

Its one of the worst to me. My taste in time travel movies is just bigger than what Endgame did.

What do you have in mind?

Logan is not still too new.

At two years old, yeah, I'm pretty sure it is. We still don't know how it'll stand the test of time or what legacy, if any, it'll lead. I mean, Avatar was thought to be the next Star Wars back in '09 and a mere ten years later, it generally regarded as a joke that James Cameron is still trying to make the next big thing.

Logan is not ASM. Logan was more than The Dark Knight.

Yeah? Thing is, Dark Knight isn't the only way to do a good genre movie. Logan wasn't good because it was like The Dark Knight, but because it pulled off the execution of its premise well. Batman vs. Superman was made in the mold of the Dark Knight and we know how that turned out.

ASM honestly is too similar to MCU.

Well, it is more colorful and lost the brooding and angst that the original was saturated (also, it had brighter colors and less of the nighttime scenes). However, I don't think it was as well-crafted as the MCU's usual standards are. For starters, less experimentation and flatter characters.

Endgame is supposed to be an instant classic and Logan is not. The Logan of 2017?

They're such different movies and had different objectives, what's the point in comparing them? They each nailed their goals quite well and both have claims to being well-made. We've got room for both.

X2 is one of the the great classics of comics, so is Spiderman 2.

Their reputations have survived so far.

X2 was a film released at a time comic films had to be Aristotle to escape mockery. Comic films don't have to be Aristotle anymore. Many films today will struggle to be called a classic.

Not all classic films are "Aristotle." Ghostbusters, for example, has no high aspirations beyond being funny and it's a classic. Looney Tunes is classic and has even less substance. And, as kinda noted with Logan, we don't have enough perspective yet to note which modern movies will have staying power. IMHO, I think the original Avengers movie, the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and Captain America: The Winter Solider will probably become genre classics, but that has yet to be proven.

Toy story is not drawing complains from the parents council association.

Okay, but that doesn't mean that it has depth to the story and themes, which has been my main point.

To me those opinions are too much about getting X-Men in the MCU , than critiquing the implications of X-men in the MCU.

Well, until we know what Marvel Studios plan is, we don't have any data to base an assessment on, making it very had to know what the implications will be.

I just step above those opinions and offer a MCU adult contemporary universe for X-Men , that solves all the problems.

It might be a nice pipe dream, but we factually know that Marvel wants the X-Men in the MCU and it will happen, so what's the point of wishing for something we can't get?

Redemption was easy. Fire Kinberg.

If only. It's not a one-man problem.

How hard was it to fire Snyder?

Seeing as he left the DCEU because his daughter took her own life, we can't even begin to comprehend it all. In a better world, that wouldn't have happened and if her living meant we got Snyder on Justice League to the end and maybe as the DCEU's main leader, it would've been worth it.

How much redemption is needed when Dark Phoenix is not that different from Captain Marvel.

Can't say I see that many similarities. Thought the latter was better then the former, but that's be.

What was the gist about DC after JL? Give it to Disney or give DC a better head runner?

Is there a Kevin Feige for the DCEU? Everything seems to be pretty isolated in that franchise these days.

It still sounds like an endgame struggle to the original movies. MCU should be reborn when they bring in X-Men.

Maybe?

[Jackraow21]

Because they have to wait five years from the last time that the property was used. For the X-Men, because of New Mutants, that won't be until 2025. Fant4stic came out in 2015, so they'll be able to use F4 content as early as next year.

The waiting five years thing was for the rights to lapse and go back to Disney. No longer an issue as they acquired FOX. So they can use the properties at any time now that the deal has closed and they own the IP outright.

[Killerbee911]

Beast and Iceman have many quip moments. It does not mean giving them a Thor 3 movie is the best thing to do.

Giving two characters who use comedy a movie with comedy isn't the best thing? You are missing the only thing close to reasonable complaint about Thor 3. If Thor 3 starred Hercules people wouldn't have complained. It is fair complaint to not like the tone of the movie of Thor 3 for the character but it is also a fair complaint to point out Thor 1, Thor 2, are the worse two combine grossing MCU movies for series and Thor in Avengers 1 and 2 where bland. If They left Thor as is he would have been first MCU property to probably fail. You can't talk about Thor without mentioning it saved the franchise.

It is clear that Fox didn't make an adjustment for the audience that Thor Ragnarok did with Dark Phoenix. Humor was the easy thing missing from Dark Phoenix and big drama doesn't work because X-men doesn't feel close to each other. It is humor and banter between characters that is what shows you their camaraderie and friendship.

[Ambaryerno]

So CBR had an article about who could be the next Thanos in the MCU, and it got me thinking about an idea I'd had for the XCU which could work here:

Selene.

While she might require a power boost to be a Thanos-level threat, there's already a story for that in Necrosha, where her entire goal was to become a Goddess. There's nothing to say the MCU version couldn't tweak the story to boost her even further. And since Selene often works from the shadows, her MO would make her ideal as an arc villain acting through proxies before she's fully revealed; perhaps because her powers are weak after a defeat, imprisonment, etc. Finally, because Selene may be the oldest mutant (she's what, at LEAST 10,000 years older than Apocalypse? I know in-universe she was born long before Conan in the Hyborean Age) they could also use her to establish the origin of mutants in the MCU (hell, maybe tweak Sinister's origin so that rather than Apocalypse, he was serving Selene instead).

Another thing that adapting Necrosha to a Thanos-scale event could do would it would give a fun way to bring back some of the heroes and villains who have died already. Imagine Peter coming face-to-face with a revenant Tony Stark.

The question is who would play Selene? They could always go for the in joke of using Kate Beckinsale, but it's kind of a shame they already used Cate Blanchett as Hela.