Is X-men name outdated?

[From The Shadows]

I feel like it's also important to note that the X-Men is already a well known brand with merchandise being put out now with well known characters. It's easier to sell a change if few knew about it beforehand.

Exactly.

(ten chars.)

[WallStreeter]

there are various team names. no need to zero in on one name only.

The films could be named after the storyline, as well. This of course, was tried with Dark Phoenix, to mixed results for the box office, though I doubt it was due to the name.

Sophie Turner is not a box office draw. Dark Phoenix had a first time director. The film was delayed for over a year due to poor tear audience reactions and reshoots. Frankly, it just sucked.

Solo X-characters like Deadpool and Wolverine did well at the box office.

In fact Deadpool did well enough to carry over and Deadpool 2 had the beginnings of X-Force!

[WallStreeter]

I think the X-men IP is incredibly powerful and it’s a broadly recognized brand, so it would be hard for Marvel to move away from it.

Having said that… if they were bound and determined to do so, they absolutely could. I mean, this is a group of folks who made Black Panther a household name and just produced a Shang Chi film in the middle of a pandemic that broke box office records. Shang-f@#$ing-Chi! So you better believe that if they launched an X-men film with the title of ‘The Mutants’ and never once used the X-men name in the film it would still be freakin’ huge. Honestly, I don’t get bent around the axle about stuff like this. If they want to ditch the X-men name in favor of The Mutants that’s fine. Just make it awesome and do my mutants justice!

I can actually see them leaning into the Krakoan status quo too as a way to further differentiate from FOX’s X-men franchise. So perhaps you’d have ‘The Mutants: House of X’ as the first film, then ‘The Mutants: Dawn of X’ as the sequel, with perhaps ‘The Mutants: Reign of X’ as the third one. And so on and so forth. While it would no doubt positively inflame the purists, it would still be huge with audiences. Furthermore, it’s not like they have to throw the baby out with the bath water. They could do an X-men: Hidden Years show on Disney+ which might go back and fill in the gaps of the pre-Krakoan era, back when they operated out of the school in secret and did call themselves the X-men. They could even have a tongue-in-cheek reference from Jean or somebody how the name feels a bit… patriarchal. Which explains why they ditched it later on when they became a nation-state. This would fit alongside the rumored Wolverine anthology series, filling in his MCU history throughout the decades, quite nicely. And then of course they could do an X-Force spinoff, either as Dis+ series or more likely films which follow the whole mutant CIA concept.

Could be a lot of fun actually, depending on how they end up folding mutants into the MCU (multiverse merger? House of M reveal that explains they were always there until Wanda wiped them out? Etc.). Whatever they do, I think they’re going to have to establish that mutants have been there for some time. I don’t think you can use The Snap as the catalyst for mutations popping up because then older characters like Magneto, Xavier, Wolverine, etc., have no MCU history whatsoever. They just essentially became mutants in the present day like all the rest. That’s too radical a departure IMO and erases all their history. I suppose they could do that, and take more an Ultimate Universe approach to things (e.g., Logan was just a normal human operative for Department H until he became a mutant after The Snap, and then Weapon X took him and bonded the adamantium to him sometime in the past five years). But like I said, that would be a radical departure. Then again, so is the whole Krakoa thing. So who knows?

Honestly, I can’t wait to find out how they’re going to introduce mutants to the MCU and am keeping an open mind because thus far Feige has delivered. At least IMO.

Agreed! They don’t need the men in the title. It would not surprise me if Reign of X, House of X, and Dawn of X were not conceived of as potential movie titles. X of Swords too.

Marvel has remade the mutants into something resembling Star Wars in the Krakoa era, particularly with planet Arrako. And I think this is to inspire movies radically different from Fox X-Men.

[toddcam]

I probably wouldn't care if they change it as long as it doesn't sound stupid. I'd be fine with X-Women. What I would hate is something like X-Folx.

[Alpha]

I feel like it's also important to note that the X-Men is already a well known brand with merchandise being put out now with well known characters. It's easier to sell a change if few knew about it beforehand.

What do you mean by "sell a change"?

Why did "The Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises" earn much more money than any other Batman movie? They didn't even have the Batman name. It's almost like people follow these franchises because of the characters and not the name of the movie

If tomorrow they released a movie called " X-Nation: Mutant Massacre" or " X-Factor: Second Genesis" what would be the hard thing to sell? People would see the X logo and professor X and maybe Wolverine and either would or wouldn't wanna see it. Maybe I'm wrong about this but I don't think people have this inherent desire to buy something because of the name "X-men". If you released a movie called X-men: Extinction" starring the Hellions kids with Emma Frost as the leader, I don't think the name X-men would have that big of an impact. People care about the characters they know, not the name of the movie.

[Silver Phoenix]

The film definitely doesn't have to be called or titled "X-Men," but I want to see a group assembled and referred to as the X-men.

I agree with others that the brand is to important to ignore, everyone is waiting for the X-Men to debut in the MCU. I mean, Marvel/Disney punished them in the comics to thumb their nose at Fox when they had them, now Disney/Marvel has them, use them, use the name, there is power in the name!

I actually like "Dawn of X" for a first film title, it alludes to both the team and the X-gene. This film should present mutants, and the reveal/discovery of, as something out of left field for the public at large and a cat-out-of-the-bag for world governments.

Mutants definitely need to be seen as a shift in the MCU on many levels.

[Starfish]

As long as it's obvious the films will feature X-Men characters, I don't think it matters much what they'll be titled. Yes, "X-Men" is a well known brand name, but I'm pretty sure the general audience had no idea who or what the Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, or Shang-Chi were before their movies became huge successes. People have been waiting to see mutants in the MCU for a long time now. They could name the movies anything and be certain to make billions.

[ComeOnBunny]

No the only change I would accept is X-Man to represent being Ex-Human in humanity's eyes because that would be dope imo.

[Castle]

X-MEN is X-MEN now and forever. It is timely-timeless and not dated.

[Omega Alpha]

Why did "The Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises" earn much more money than any other Batman movie? They didn't even have the Batman name.

First of all, the Dark Knight and Man of Steel were already very well known names for Batman and Superman- probably the most famous ones for a fictional character this side of 007.

Second, the first movie of the trilogy wasn't The Dark Knight begins...

Third, in at least some parts of the world, the movie was called Batman: The Dark Knight (in most of Latin America, for example).

[cranger]

So is everyone just talking about film titles or how they market the team?

Because you could make a case for using something other than the team name in the title of the film itself, although Marvel has not really shown any example of being able to do that, people do refer to the Spider-Man movies by their secondary titles. However, the character is still Spider-Man, so then the question is could you avoid saying X-Men in the title but also avoid saying X-Men in the script, marketing, licensing, etc etc.

[TheDeadSpace]

What do you mean by "sell a change"?

Why did "The Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises" earn much more money than any other Batman movie? They didn't even have the Batman name. It's almost like people follow these franchises because of the characters and not the name of the movie

If tomorrow they released a movie called " X-Nation: Mutant Massacre" or " X-Factor: Second Genesis" what would be the hard thing to sell? People would see the X logo and professor X and maybe Wolverine and either would or wouldn't wanna see it. Maybe I'm wrong about this but I don't think people have this inherent desire to buy something because of the name "X-men". If you released a movie called X-men: Extinction" starring the Hellions kids with Emma Frost as the leader, I don't think the name X-men would have that big of an impact. People care about the characters they know, not the name of the movie.

By "sell a change", I just meant having people move onto another name instead of X-Men. That being said, there will be merchandise, and that's where the change would also matter.

As for selling items by just X-Men alone, it already happens. There are items you can buy simply labeled X-Men. The brand sells.

Also, if the name truly doesn't matter, why change it? If it has no affect, there isn't a reason to change anything. I'm not sure I understand this frame of thinking? If feels like a contradictory point.

Either way I agree, the characters matter more. That being said, you see Wolverine, you also usually think X-Men.

As for your movie examples, those were just titles for the films. Batman and Superman were in those movies. They weren't called something else.

So is everyone just talking about film titles or how they market the team?

Because you could make a case for using something other than the team name in the title of the film itself, although Marvel has not really shown any example of being able to do that, people do refer to the Spider-Man movies by their secondary titles. However, the character is still Spider-Man, so then the question is could you avoid saying X-Men in the title but also avoid saying X-Men in the script, marketing, licensing, etc etc.

I'm not sure, but you're right. Movie titles are generally broad with Marvel, but they generally retain the brand. That being said, the toys or shirts will need something other than the movie name. I feel like fans by default will refer to everything as X-Men.

[Alpha]

First of all, the Dark Knight and Man of Steel were already very well known names for Batman and Superman- probably the most famous ones for a fictional character this side of 007.

Second, the first movie of the trilogy wasn't The Dark Knight begins...

Third, in at least some parts of the world, the movie was called Batman: The Dark Knight (in most of Latin America, for example).

Wait what? Show me a piece outside comics where Batman is called "The Dark Knight". The only thing I know know is an episode of Batman the Brave and the Bold s01e05, which I don't think is proof that he was widely known. I'm absolutely sure that 80% of the people that saw the name The Dark Knight had no idea what it meant. I sure didn't at the time since I had never read a comic book.

I don't think Man of Steel was a widely known term either in reference to Superman. The only time I remember seeing it was in the John Byrne book, and most people watching the movie obviously never read John Byrne. Yes, the name existed long before that, but in 2013 I didn't know that, nor did my dad or mom or my friends, nor most people outside comics.

Plus are you really telling me that in 2008 non comic fans know who "the dark knight" was but don't know the name "X-Force" nowadays?

And how does Batman Begins factor into this? You are the ones arguing that people won't know it's a movie about Professor X and Wolverine and Cyclops unless it's called "X-men"

[Alpha]

As for selling items by just X-Men alone, it already happens. There are items you can buy simply labeled X-Men. The brand sells.

Also, if the name truly doesn't matter, why change it? If it has no affect, there isn't a reason to change anything. I'm not sure I understand this frame of thinking? If feels like a contradictory point.

Either way I agree, the characters matter more. That being said, you see Wolverine, you also usually think X-Men.

As for your movie examples, those were just titles for the films. Batman and Superman were in those movies. They weren't called something else.

I'm not saying they have to change the name, I'm saying they can and that if they do it will still be a success. And I assume that if they changed the movie title then the team would also be called X-Factor or X-Nation. Or maybe not, who knows

[cranger]

but don't know the name "X-Factor"?

That is that Simon Cowell show, right?