Who believes these movies are a metaphor on sexual orientions?

[Hordakfan]

I do! i think the X-Men movies have that GLBT rights subtext in them thanks to Bryan Singer who is totally gay and knows about the comics as a metaphor on his sexuality, hiding and all that.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

As a whole, I don't think that the movies, or comics, or cartoons, or any form of X-Men are specifically a metaphor on sexuality. However, it's relevant because the X-Men are symbolic for minorities in society that are shunned and oppressed simply for being different, and as such are feared and hated. That applies to blacks during the Civil Rights Era (and even women, Hispanics, Native Americans, or any other oppressed group), homosexuals in today's age, religious groups (Nazi Germany is directly showcased in X-Men lore).

I don't think the X-Men mythos targets one group specifically, but rather is a metaphor for the oppressed minority in general. There is a leaning towards homosexuality because that's what's relevant in today's society, and yes, Bryan Singer is gay himself. But I don't view these movies, or the comics, to be specific towards the homosexual plight.

[blueserenity]

As a whole, I don't think that the movies, or comics, or cartoons, or any form of X-Men are specifically a metaphor on sexuality. However, it's relevant because the X-Men are symbolic for minorities in society that are shunned and oppressed simply for being different, and as such are feared and hated. That applies to blacks during the Civil Rights Era (and even women, Hispanics, Native Americans, or any other oppressed group), homosexuals in today's age, religious groups (Nazi Germany is directly showcased in X-Men lore).

I don't think the X-Men mythos targets one group specifically, but rather is a metaphor for the oppressed minority in general. There is a leaning towards homosexuality because that's what's relevant in today's society, and yes, Bryan Singer is gay himself. But I don't view these movies, or the comics, to be specific towards the homosexual plight.

^This. Some the LGBT allusions might come out a little more obviously through quotes ("Have you tried not being a mutant?" and "Mutant and proud!" come to mind.). But it's not the only group they're trying to represent with mutants.

It also may have been a little more noticeable in XFC because of the romantic aspect of the movie, an element that was certainly intentional. And I'm not referring to Hank/Raven.

[henzINNIT]

The first two absolutely are. It isn't a secret, Singer and McKellen have both talked about their personal connection to these characters because of their orientation.

That said, the X-Men have always been a place-holder for any kind of outcast, which I believe is part of their appeal.

[psylockolussus]

I do! i think the X-Men movies have that GLBT rights subtext in them thanks to Bryan Singer who is totally gay and knows about the comics as a metaphor on his sexuality, hiding and all that.

Hell yeah!

I'm gay so I can relate to the situation of the mutants. Especially the scene where Mystique told Beast that "we shouldn't be trying to fit in society, society should aspire to be more like us, mutant and Proud".

[Silvermoth]

I do! i think the X-Men movies have that GLBT rights subtext in them thanks to Bryan Singer who is totally gay and knows about the comics as a metaphor on his sexuality, hiding and all that.

Well, just for the record, it wasn't just Bryan Singer who nuanced the X-men as a gay metaphor. Writers have been doing it for years. Even in the days of Stan and Jack when they said people find out about their mutants gifts usually around puberty.

[akfj]

It's more about prejudice in general and a fight for equality. I don't think there's just one minority group you can point to.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

^ Agreed.

[CGHulk]

Anyone find it a bit disturbing that this movie is about teaching equality but the only black character in the movie was killed off. Here's a movie that teaches equality, but is racist, like a lot of Hollywood films in that the black character is usually killed off! Here's the short list I can think of right now where this has happened.

Super 8 (the only two black characters)
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park 3
The Shining
King Kong (1995)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Of course, X-Men: First Class!

That's all of what I can think of right now I know there's more a lot more.

[blueserenity]

Anyone find it a bit disturbing that this movie is about teaching equality but the only black character in the movie was killed off. Here's a movie that teaches equality, but is racist, like a lot of Hollywood films in that the black character is usually killed off! Here's the short list I can think of right now where this has happened.

Super 8 (the only two black characters)
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park 3
The Shining
King Kong (1995)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Of course, X-Men: First Class!

That's all of what I can think of right now I know there's more a lot more.

Can I also throw in that it'd be really nice to see some ASIAN characters in the X-verse? I don't know if there are many Asian characters to choose from in the comics but there's gotta be at least ONE. The only one I can remember from the film series is Striker's claw gal and the spikey guy in X3. Neither one is killed off first (I can't remember if spikes is killed at all) but the fact that I had to struggle to remember them is not a good thing.

I'm sure they will have many Asian characters in Wolverine as it takes place in Japan but I have a sinking feeling it will be one of those situations where the important characters are only half-Asian cuz Hollywood believes audiences can't handle a non-white non-black main character. :/

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Jubilee (cameo through the entire main trilogy)
Lady Deathstrike (X2)
Psylocke (X-Men: The Last Stand)
Quill (X-Men: The Last Stand)
Agent Zero (X-Men Origins: Wolverine)

And I dont think Quill or Agent Zero are Asian in the comics.

I dont think there are many Asian characters to choose from in the X-Men world. Lady Deathstrike, Sunfire, Yukio, Mariko, and the rest of Wolverine's Japan run are about all I can think of.

[henzINNIT]

Darwin was a nice guy and a natural born hero. His death was mourned by people who barely knew him and inspired bravery in those he left behind. It didn't feel racist to me.

[Deathlok]

Hell yeah!

I'm gay so I can relate to the situation of the mutants. Especially the scene where Mystique told Beast that "we shouldn't be trying to fit in society, society should aspire to be more like us, mutant and Proud".

I really enjoyed First Class, but found that statement of Mystique's to be as bad as those who hate the mutants. Other side of the coin, granted, but just as racist.

[merbass]

Can I also throw in that it'd be really nice to see some ASIAN characters in the X-verse? I don't know if there are many Asian characters to choose from in the comics but there's gotta be at least ONE. The only one I can remember from the film series is Striker's claw gal and the spikey guy in X3. Neither one is killed off first (I can't remember if spikes is killed at all) but the fact that I had to struggle to remember them is not a good thing.

I'm sure they will have many Asian characters in Wolverine as it takes place in Japan but I have a sinking feeling it will be one of those situations where the important characters are only half-Asian cuz Hollywood believes audiences can't handle a non-white non-black main character. :/

Lady Deathstrike was a cool character. I'd rather have one cool Asian characters than just throwing in characters like in X3. Hopefully The Wolverine will feature many Asian characters both action and non action ones.

[blueserenity]

Speaking of LGBT themes...
At SDCC Zack Stentz, a screenwriter for X-Men First Class, pretty much confirmed that the relationship between Erik and Charles is more than just bromance, referring to it as a "romantic tragedy". He also stated that if conflicting ideologies hadn't driven the two apart, they would be together, as in, involved.

Personally this was the impression I got from the film as well. I'm reeeeeally not into "slash" or what have you; I genuinely felt that the romantic angle of their relationship was intentional and well played in its subtlety.

Thoughts?

[Loganbabe]

Speaking of LGBT themes...
At SDCC Zack Stentz, a screenwriter for X-Men First Class, pretty much confirmed that the relationship between Erik and Charles is more than just bromance, referring to it as a "romantic tragedy". He also stated that if conflicting ideologies hadn't driven the two apart, they would be together, as in, involved.
Interesting. I wonder if they really had that intention when they started writing the script, or if they're being influenced by the general climate post-movie. Because the whole internet agrees that First Class was kind of a romantic tragedy, and that Charles and Erik were much more than just good friends.

Although, when you think about it, even before the movie was released, James gave an interview in which he talked about FC as a "love story". Maybe it was his own perception, or maybe they were really going for it.

I think it's wonderful. I wonder if they have this idea of addressing it at the second movie, kind of giving their bitter break-up at the beach some closure. At the end Charles was left completely broken, being abandoned by the people who probably he loved the most in life. I wonder if Erik will deal with his guilt and help Charles somehow.
At least that's what I'd like to see. :awesome:

Personally this was the impression I got from the film as well. I'm reeeeeally not into "slash" or what have you; I genuinely felt that the romantic angle of their relationship was intentional and well played in its subtlety.
I have no problems with slash - when I read fanfiction, the only think that bothers me is bad writing. I've been reading some wonderfully written stuff regarding their relationship, quite powerful, emotionally speaking.

I agree that in the film it was quite subtle and well done. We have to thank the actors for that, I think.

[04nbod]

Homophobia is one of the biggest and most accepted forms for prejudice in this world. It is to today's audience what civil rights for blacks was to the very first X Men readers.

[blueserenity]

Interesting. I wonder if they really had that intention when they started writing the script, or if they're being influenced by the general climate post-movie. Because the whole internet agrees that First Class was kind of a romantic tragedy, and that Charles and Erik were much more than just good friends.

Although, when you think about it, even before the movie was released, James gave an interview in which he talked about FC as a "love story". Maybe it was his own perception, or maybe they were really going for it.

I think it's wonderful. I wonder if they have this idea of addressing it at the second movie, kind of giving their bitter break-up at the beach some closure. At the end Charles was left completely broken, being abandoned by the people who probably he loved the most in life. I wonder if Erik will deal with his guilt and help Charles somehow.
At least that's what I'd like to see. :awesome:


I have no problems with slash - when I read fanfiction, the only think that bothers me is bad writing. I've been reading some wonderfully written stuff regarding their relationship, quite powerful, emotionally speaking.

I agree that in the film it was quite subtle and well done. We have to thank the actors for that, I think.

I picture it as being intentional from the start, personally. I don't know anything about the comics but I've read enough articles by more dedicated fans than myself that suggest the romance is canon in most of the comics as well. I feel it makes things more tragic because the perspective I had settled on by the end is that they were quite aware that there were mutual feelings between them but they were kind of waiting, letting time be in charge of how it went. Erik's priority number 1 was revenge, Charles was number 2. I really believe that if Charles had been all "oh yeah screw humans I'm with you there", Erik would have kissed him right then and there. As it was I was actually pretty certain that there WAS going to be a kiss during that scene which was really what made me realize that this movie had been angling this the whole time.

I'm really not into slash at all (I still don't get why people pair up Sherlock and Watson, for example) and I'm also incredibly dense about subtext. So this movie's couple caught me by surprise.

Haha yeah James McAvoy has also stated that it's "a little bit of a mini-tragedy that Xavier and Magneto don't have sex, become married, and become best friends" which is perhaps even more telling. Fassbender has been particularly mum on the subject though as far as I can tell. I'd love director's commentary or even better McAvoy Fassbender commentary in the BR release. I think the two of them would have a field day with the UST in the movie.

Buuuut I don't think they could really address it directly in a movie, not yet. Sadly we still live in a society of far too many homophobes and the thought of two iconic male characters being romantically entwined would lose a huge chunk of the box office (especially from fanboys who seem the most defensive about it). I think what we'll get instead is the similar feeling from this movie, where it'll be so there you can practically touch it but still subtle enough that the denser people can walk away in denial. Either way they HAVE to address the fallout and the effect it has on both men and the fact that regardless they do still care about each other. Let's face it, the one thing lovers and haters of the film can all agree on was that the Erik/Charles stuff was brilliant. It'd be foolish to gloss over it in a sequel.

[redhawk23]

"Have you tried..not being a mutant?"

God, the scenes with Bobby's parents in X2 are genius, but tragic.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I did not pick up on any romantic undertones between Xavier and Magneto in the least bit. I don't care who says what about what, that is not a part of my viewing of X-Men: First Class.

[blueserenity]

I did not pick up on any romantic undertones between Xavier and Magneto in the least bit. I don't care who says what about what, that is not a part of my viewing of X-Men: First Class.

You don't believe the guy who wrote the screenplay?
that's kinda like being in denial about Dumbledore... :P

[Sentinel X]

It really represents all oppressed minority groups including (but not limited to) the glbt community. First class tried to emphasize this more so than the previous films, like when Hank says: "You didn't ask...so I didn't tell", it was a very tongue in cheek line but I thought it worked and was pretty damn funny.

[Pink Ranger]

Obviously, I don't have a problem with seeing actual gay relationships on screen, but when it comes to comic book movies, and comic books in general, the homoerotic themes have always been more effective when they've been more covert and, accordingly, more subversive.

Kind of like the classical Greek warriors that modern superheroes are pretty-much based on; the level of man-on-man love, in all its forms, is an integral part of that genre and mythology, but it's more fun when it is subtle rather than all Apollo-and-Midnighter "look at us, we're being edgy."

[StarkTheProdigy]

I honestly thought this as well, there's a lot of symbolism. Especially in X-Men First Class.
"They'll fear us...and that fear will turn into hatred." I get goosebumps whenever I hear that line.

[Wefflehouse]

I did not pick up on any romantic undertones between Xavier and Magneto in the least bit. I don't care who says what about what, that is not a part of my viewing of X-Men: First Class.

I would tend to agree with you. While I saw a definite affection for the other between the two, it was nothing greater than an appreciation that real friends have--where one feels lucky to have found someone who understands them.

[blueserenity]

I honestly thought this as well, there's a lot of symbolism. Especially in X-Men First Class.
"They'll fear us...and that fear will turn into hatred." I get goosebumps whenever I hear that line.

The obelisk scene is also frequently referenced. Sorry I'm not from the States, I don't know the name of it. Washington monument? And also the steps with Abe. This scene was apparently all greenscreen so clearly the symbolism was important.

I would tend to agree with you. While I saw a definite affection for the other between the two, it was nothing greater than an appreciation that real friends have--where one feels lucky to have found someone who understands them.

This was my perspective until the last beach scene. Something about it just screamed at me that something more had been building under the surface.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

You don't believe the guy who wrote the screenplay?
that's kinda like being in denial about Dumbledore... :P

No I don't. If I believed him, then I'd believe all the Matthew Vaughn talk about the movie being a reboot, which it is clearly not a reboot when it blatantly connects itself to the previous movies within the very first frame of film.

This is the same talk of Sam and Frodo having a homoerotic relationship throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's nothing more than a bunch of people looking too deeply into something to find something that's not really there and create controversy with it.

As someone said before, I have no problem with seeing homosexual relationships depicted on screen, but I do have a problem with it when it's done for nothing more than shock value, which is all a Magneto / Xavier homosexual relationship would be. It's not something that has anything to do with the source material, and it's not something that adds anything to the story being told on screen. It's just being done for the "omg'z!!!" reactions, which it is getting in this thread.

I see no homo erotic undertones in the movie, and I will not see any homo erotic undertones in the movie. Just because a couple of guys sit around playing chess together does not make them gay.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The obelisk scene is also frequently referenced. Sorry I'm not from the States, I don't know the name of it. Washington monument? And also the steps with Abe. This scene was apparently all greenscreen so clearly the symbolism was important.

The symbolism is what those monuments represent - America, freedom, land of the free and the home of the brave, not to mention the Civil Rights movement which spent a lot of time in DC; MLK's "I have a dream" speech was given from those same steps Xavier and Magneto were playing chess at - all underlying themes of the entire foundation of X-Men; freedom, and those who are born different that must fight for that freedom.

It has nothing to do with the rather immature notion that "OMG'z the Washington Monument looks like a peepee, lolz!!!"

[blueserenity]

No I don't. If I believed him, then I'd believe all the Matthew Vaughn talk about the movie being a reboot, which it is clearly not a reboot when it blatantly connects itself to the previous movies within the very first frame of film.

This is the same talk of Sam and Frodo having a homoerotic relationship throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's nothing more than a bunch of people looking too deeply into something to find something that's not really there and create controversy with it.

As someone said before, I have no problem with seeing homosexual relationships depicted on screen, but I do have a problem with it when it's done for nothing more than shock value, which is all a Magneto / Xavier homosexual relationship would be. It's not something that has anything to do with the source material, and it's not something that adds anything to the story being told on screen. It's just being done for the "omg'z!!!" reactions, which it is getting in this thread.

I see no homo erotic undertones in the movie, and I will not see any homo erotic undertones in the movie. Just because a couple of guys sit around playing chess together does not make them gay.

Frodo and Sam? See there's a good example of WTF are people slashing. I don't understand that, or the Sherlock pairings or Star Trek pairings. Those are all examples of great friends. Erik and Charles are more than great friends. If they had made it an obvious relationship it would not have been shocking. It would have been in my mind been quite natural. They aren't gay; Charles especially has been depicted in the film as a big fan of the ladies. It doesn't mean that he hasn't found his exception to that rule. I imagine the only reason they kept the relationship from being obvious because of butthurt fanboys who, to be fair, make up a decent portion of the moviegoers. And were probably also the ones tempted to walk out when they learned Havok was Scott's OLDER brother (oh god noez).

And by the way from what little I've seen of the source material, under a number of titles Erik and Charles definitely seem a little more involved than some of the other characters.

Matthew Vaughn can declare this movie a reboot as much as he wants. It can be a prequel or it can be a reboot. The things that tie it to the other series are just fan-nods that could be ignored if so desired.

It has nothing to do with the rather immature notion that "OMG'z the Washington Monument looks like a peepee, lolz!!!
It's not an immature notion. It's a common observation that the Monument is rather phallic. Phallic images are everywhere in art and architecture whether with sexual intent or not. You reeeally don't want to even think of the possibility of this do you? If James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Matthew Vaughn all came out and said "yeah it was the intent all along to play these guys as having romantic feelings for each other", would you accept it or still refuse to believe it?

[Thundercrack85]

I thought that was common knowledge... If it wasn't, they sure weren't being subtle. Between "the cure", and "have you tried not being a mutant?" what more do they need to do?

Mutant and proud, c'mon people.

[SuperFerret]

I was going to come in here and explain the difference between "homoerotic" and "homosexual", but upon looking them both up to have concrete evidence, I've found that there is almost no difference now. Apparently they've changed the definition of "homoerotic" since I was in high school (when we read Becket) and didn't tell me.

[X-Maniac]

There are some gay subtexts here and there but the films stand for all those who are different or who feel alienated.

The cure story also has some relevance to the deaf community, some of whom reject the idea of a cure for hearing 'problems' because they don't accept it is a problem.

I think the beauty of the X-Men stories - in the comics and on screen - is that they can be interpreted in many ways, particularly depending on the viewer's own lifestyle and perceptions. I don't think the X-Men were intended as a gay metaphor when Stan Lee co-created them for Marvel.

[Thundercrack85]

Given that the Washington Monument is modeled after the Egyptian obelisk, it's no surprise that it looks like a phallus. That was the point.

The Capitol Building looking like a "boob" was just a happy coincidence though.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Frodo and Sam? See there's a good example of WTF are people slashing. I don't understand that, or the Sherlock pairings or Star Trek pairings. Those are all examples of great friends. Erik and Charles are more than great friends. If they had made it an obvious relationship it would not have been shocking. It would have been in my mind been quite natural. They aren't gay; Charles especially has been depicted in the film as a big fan of the ladies. It doesn't mean that he hasn't found his exception to that rule. I imagine the only reason they kept the relationship from being obvious because of butthurt fanboys who, to be fair, make up a decent portion of the moviegoers. And were probably also the ones tempted to walk out when they learned Havok was Scott's OLDER brother (oh god noez).

And by the way from what little I've seen of the source material, under a number of titles Erik and Charles definitely seem a little more involved than some of the other characters.

Matthew Vaughn can declare this movie a reboot as much as he wants. It can be a prequel or it can be a reboot. The things that tie it to the other series are just fan-nods that could be ignored if so desired.


It's not an immature notion. It's a common observation that the Monument is rather phallic. Phallic images are everywhere in art and architecture whether with sexual intent or not. You reeeally don't want to even think of the possibility of this do you? If James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Matthew Vaughn all came out and said "yeah it was the intent all along to play these guys as having romantic feelings for each other", would you accept it or still refuse to believe it?

2 men who work together for a common goal, and respect each other's ideologies, does not make them some kind of homosexual relationship. That entire notion is absurd.

So if I work with another man towards a common goal that we both believe in, and we discuss our ideologies over a brandy and a game of chess, does that make he and I gay together? Or good friends and allies who respect one another? And if I become paralyzed in the process, and I cry because I'm watching my friend go down what I deem a dark road, on top of being freaking paralyzed, and he shows emotion because he sees that friendship and alliance falling apart, does that make us gay together? No, it doesn't. Once again, the entire notion is absurd.

[blueserenity]

2 men who work together for a common goal, and respect each other's ideologies, does not make them some kind of homosexual relationship. That entire notion is absurd.

So if I work with another man towards a common goal that we both believe in, and we discuss our ideologies over a brandy and a game of chess, does that make he and I gay together? Or good friends and allies who respect one another? And if I become paralyzed in the process, and I cry because I'm watching my friend go down what I deem a dark road, on top of being freaking paralyzed, and he shows emotion because he sees that friendship and alliance falling apart, does that make us gay together? No, it doesn't. Once again, the entire notion is absurd.

You're looking at this too black and white like there are rules for what kind of person you fall for and under what circumstances. There are no rules, and you can't define whether there is attraction or not just by summarizing scenes in the film. There's a *way* in which they do/say those things that suggest it. If one of them was a woman and did/said everything exactly the same way with the same shots, this would be a romance. Standard Hollywood audience limitations prevent that.

You never answered my question, if the director and both actors stated that it was the intent all along to play them romantically, would you still deny it? Would you still be able to enjoy the film?

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well I figured the question was already answered when I said that I do not see this as a reboot in any way, shape, or form, no matter how many times Vaughn rambles on and on about it being one. The elements of the film do not support his claim that the movie is a reboot.

Nor do the elements of the film support a claim that Erik and Charles had a "romance". So no, I would not accept that interpretation of the film even if Vaughn himself came out and said so. It's not in the film for me to interpret, so I could not interpret it that way, the same way it's impossible for me to interpret this film as a reboot, because there is no evidence of that in the film itself. In order for me to see this movie as a reboot, or in order for me to see Charles and Erik as "romantic", I would have to look for things that aren't in the movie, and be trying to see something that I want to see whether it's there or not.

And no, the relationship between Erik and Charles would not be viewed as a romance if it was a male and female. Some audience members probably would interpret it as such, because they have to make ANY relationship between 2 people as "romantic" because for some reason, audience members have a hard time accepting 2 fictional characters not being in a romantic relationship together (this current conversation is a perfect example of that), but there was nothing romantic about the relationship between Erik and Charles, and I would say the same if it was Charles and Moira, or Charles and Erika.

[Ultimatehero]

Definitely. I'm a bi guy and always related it to the X-Men. I'm sad to say I was also a lot like Beast in that for years I seeked out a cure by being nomadic and always on the move. On a lgbt site where people post their orientation I also inspired people to say "mutant and proud" instead (I was the first). Love the whole Hank/Mystique romance that seems like bisexuality (currently have my eyes set on a bi girl, we're both mutants).

As for the Charles and Magneto relationship? There was really nothing in it to show they're involved in that way. Charles has a thing for Moira and other girls. Eric had a thing for Raven that built up over time. Might be bi, but doubt it. They were just two really close friends, almost brothers. If it were brothers showing this connection, would you say they're gay for each other? Doubt it. Friends can have that deep a bond. This is also coming from a guy who really digs LGBT films and arcs in TV series. There just wasn't enough to show there being more to it beyond a brotherly bond.

I'm not beyond doubting it though if everyone notes it. Rebel Without A Cause is a bi film. James Dean and Nicholas Ray were bi. Sal Mineo gay. Dean told Ray to instruct Mineo to look at him like Natalie Wood does. Plus the studio blocked a kissing scene between the two. So, it has happened.

[Hordakfan]

What about in X-Men 1 where Kelly gave a speech on whether children should be in school with mutants and to be taught by mutants, another metaphor on people with different sexualities reflecting the 90's debate on whether gays should be allowed to teach children in school.

Who thinks Morph in the animated show is a metaphor for transgendered/transexual people? Morph had an ID crisis.

Let's not forget the infamous cure from X3 where it fits into this metaphor. Ian Mckellen in an interview said "I could relate to this idea and i think it's a terrible idea of curing someone who is different so they can fit in. It's like if someone was trying to cure me of my sexuality or if they would have black people take a pill to cure them of being black or if they could give shots to Jews to cure them of being Jewish".

[blueserenity]

Definitely. I'm a bi guy and always related it to the X-Men. I'm sad to say I was also a lot like Beast in that for years I seeked out a cure by being nomadic and always on the move. On a lgbt site where people post their orientation I also inspired people to say "mutant and proud" instead (I was the first). Love the whole Hank/Mystique romance that seems like bisexuality (currently have my eyes set on a bi girl, we're both mutants).

As for the Charles and Magneto relationship? There was really nothing in it to show they're involved in that way. Charles has a thing for Moira and other girls. Eric had a thing for Raven that built up over time. Might be bi, but doubt it. They were just two really close friends, almost brothers. If it were brothers showing this connection, would you say they're gay for each other? Doubt it. Friends can have that deep a bond. This is also coming from a guy who really digs LGBT films and arcs in TV series. There just wasn't enough to show there being more to it beyond a brotherly bond.

I'm not beyond doubting it though if everyone notes it. Rebel Without A Cause is a bi film. James Dean and Nicholas Ray were bi. Sal Mineo gay. Dean told Ray to instruct Mineo to look at him like Natalie Wood does. Plus the studio blocked a kissing scene between the two. So, it has happened.

I don't think they were involved during the film. But I do think that had they stayed together long-term, they would have eventually become involved. Yes, you could argue that they're brotherly but there is a certain electricity in their scenes together that bumps it up into another realm.

If anything Charles' and Erik's hetero "relationships" offer more evidence towards the idea of them having romantic feelings for each other. I know the Moira scenes were all cut out and will be on the DVD. But think about that.. it was so unimportant to the character that they just took it out. And when he kisses her to wipe her memory, it feels like the first time and it feels very out of place. Erik and Raven don't kiss out of romance, if anything it's a fairly manipulative move on Erik's part. Raven does it out of desperation for someone to accept her (on the eve of a battle she may die in). Erik's initial reaction to finding her naked in his bed is complete disinterest. I also don't believe the popular line of thought that they had sex, simply because it didn't fit where they were as characters and because a few minutes later we see Raven confronting Charles in the kitchen.

I would love it if they pursued Raven's sexuality but I really can't see it happening in this universe. They've got enough work cut out for them with whether or not Kurt will be her son and if so, how is it she's forgotten him and him her? Not to mention, these films are still supposed to be watchable by kids and apparently in this day and age too many people still believe that sexuality isn't something that should be brought up movies for kids... >_<
^This is actually one of the reasons I feel they kept the Erik-Charles romantic possibilities unbearably subtle. If general audiences were more open-minded I think there would have been a number more obvious things in this movie.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Just because a character doesn't have a heterosexual romantic interest doesn't mean that they are romantically involved with the same sex characters they spend time with.

I am not romantically involved with any females, but that doesn't mean that my close, brotherly relationship with my best friend who is also male has some secret homosexual undertones.

It means the romantic relationships weren't important in telling the story.

[blueserenity]

Just because a character doesn't have a heterosexual romantic interest doesn't mean that they are romantically involved with the same sex characters they spend time with.

I am not romantically involved with any females, but that doesn't mean that my close, brotherly relationship with my best friend who is also male has some secret homosexual undertones.

It means the romantic relationships weren't important in telling the story.

Ah I totally forgot to back up my point on that one, my bad. I meant that the scenes with these characters who these men are allegedly involved with pale in comparison to the electricity in their scenes together. That's why I felt the hetero relationships only made it clearer. The deleted scenes with Moira could totally prove me wrong on this (we'll have to wait till Sept to find out). But I've seen romantic comedies with half the chemistry these two guys have onscreen. Hank/Raven only had a tiny fraction of it, even.

Using your own real life bromance isn't good enough evidence against Erik and Charles as being more than bromantically involved.

TBH I still don't understand why you're meeting XFC's screenwriter's words with such adamant denial. Would Magneto and Xavier having the potential to be lovers really be offensive to you? If so, why? From snippets of things I've read in the comics and what I used to watch in the old cartoon, this isn't exactly a new idea between them.

EDA: This fan-perspective offers another reason the Erik Charles scenes feel laced with something more. The author veers off into a number of directions with it but here is the part I agree with. To open she discusses how had their relationship spanned several years and more than 6 months then she wouldn't be viewing it as anything more than platonic bromance. However...:

But six months--well, I mean. A relationship that last six months and ends with that kind of intensity and they both continue to care passionately about each other, in whatever way, for the rest of their long lives? It doesn't have to be sexual, and if it is sexual it certainly doesn't have to be consummated--a word for which I apologize sincerely--but it has to be more than what was shown onscreen. Some serious intimacy has to happen in between every single one of their scenes, to get them from where they are in the first to the so-much-closer in the next, and the next. They have to be some kind of in love.

Now, this doesn't actually help with how the timeline is totally ****ed--the whole team spends a week at the mansion? ONE WEEK, what even--and how slashier or not, cutting Xavier and Magneto's pre-split friendship to half a year sucks out a lot of wonderful things from their relationship as their usual old-guy selves. But I find it interesting, because it's so clueless. Like, what was the pitch here? "They have an instant intense connection, within a couple of days they develop a rapport and soon they're working together seamlessly, a few months later Charles cares about him A LOT, a week after that they share manly tears and vulnerability and passionate praise and Erik smiles and laughs in a non-creepy way (and is suddenly without his months-ago opposition to having his mind read), then they part ways forever for no apparent concrete and immediate reason really and spend the next several decades fighting and longing for each other."

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The chemistry is so intense because James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are good actors. Most romantic comedy actors... aren't.

And yes it is offensive to me, for the very reason that it's trying to imply something for nothing more than the "OMG'z!!! SHOCK VALUE!!!!1" of it.

Xavier and Magneto being gay for each other has nothing to do with the story, and has no source material implications. It adds nothing to the story, the same way Moira's relationship with Charles added nothing to the story and was cut. People just want to find sex in anything they can, so they are looking for it when it's not there.

A story about gay lovers doesn't bother me. I'm not offended by Brokeback Mountain. But when you're trying to toss in a whole bunch of "OMG'z SHOCK VALUE!!!!11" into my favorite universe for the sole purpose of "OMG'z SHOCK VALUE!!!!11" then yes it bothers me. It also comes off as incredibly immature to me that 2 men can't have a close relationship without it being "OMG teh gayz!!!!1"

I'm sorry if that's harsh, and I don't mean that towards anyone personally, but that's how I feel about the situation.

[blueserenity]

The chemistry is so intense because James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are good actors. Most romantic comedy actors... aren't.

And yes it is offensive to me, for the very reason that it's trying to imply something for nothing more than the "OMG'z!!! SHOCK VALUE!!!!1" of it.

Xavier and Magneto being gay for each other has nothing to do with the story, and has no source material implications. It adds nothing to the story, the same way Moira's relationship with Charles added nothing to the story and was cut. People just want to find sex in anything they can, so they are looking for it when it's not there.

A story about gay lovers doesn't bother me. I'm not offended by Brokeback Mountain. But when you're trying to toss in a whole bunch of "OMG'z SHOCK VALUE!!!!11" into my favorite universe for the sole purpose of "OMG'z SHOCK VALUE!!!!11" then yes it bothers me. It also comes off as incredibly immature to me that 2 men can't have a close relationship without it being "OMG teh gayz!!!!1"

I'm sorry if that's harsh, and I don't mean that towards anyone personally, but that's how I feel about the situation.

First of all, no one's saying that 2 men can't have a close relationship without being gay together. God there are a million pairs of friends in media that are certainly bromantic, in a platonic sense. Look at Sherlock and Watson, Kirk and Spock, Sam and Frodo. Those guys are not in love, they're all friends. Erik and Charles are different.

I think you're misunderstanding why they would put this pair in a relationship. Shock value has absolutely nothing, nothing, NOTHING to do with it and I'm bewildered by that accusation. Throughout their stories in the comics and cartoons, there has been SOMETHING there. A deep connection, sometimes hinted at romantic, sometimes as just good friends. But it's always there. Their connection is so deep that whether you interpret it as platonic or not, it's really not that big a stretch to assume they could also have feelings for each other. I'm not talking about sex, I get the impression that they've never done anything physical with each other. It's not about sex, it's about intimacy and ~~feelings~~. In ALL of the movies, you can feel them longing to be together on the same side. XMFC just made clearer the reasons why.

And again, as I quoted from that fanperspective, the timeline kind of backs it up. Like the author said, this relationship taking place over years and ending with such heartbreak and betrayal? Brotherly bromance. This relationship taking place over 6 months and reacting like that? Something was going on. For someone like Erik who TNO, he gets attached to Charles rather quickly. Charles can see Erik's whole life, but vice-versa isn't an option available to Erik. But he trusts him implicitly anyway, in such a short time. Something more is going on. It add SO much more depth to their relationship. Friends is one thing but if they went through this whole half-year with this kind of expectation that once Shaw was done with they could address whatever it was they were feeling and be together, only for it to end in every way they didn't want it to, it's that much more tragic. Erik has not planned his life beyond Shaw, Shaw has always been the number one goal in his mind, the only goal. I imagine he'd have been just as satisfied to die as to live as long as he got his revenge. But then Charles came in, and while he still took a very very farbackseat to Shaw, I imagine that Erik stopped thinking about life post-Shaw being irrelevant.

TLDR, I actually think the idea of Charles and Erik with ~~feelings~~ gives their characters MORE depth because it shows just how much they mean to each other on levels neither one thought they could feel for someone else (much less a man). Shock value really isn't a reason they would do it. If they wanted SV they'd have had much more success following comics and giving Raven a girlfriend and knocking her up by morphing into a man. but Fox is still a Family Values company on many levels, sadly. So in the meantime all we get is subtext. :(

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

First of all, no one's saying that 2 men can't have a close relationship without being gay together. God there are a million pairs of friends in media that are certainly bromantic, in a platonic sense. Look at Sherlock and Watson, Kirk and Spock, Sam and Frodo. Those guys are not in love, they're all friends. Erik and Charles are different.

I think you're misunderstanding why they would put this pair in a relationship. Shock value has absolutely nothing, nothing, NOTHING to do with it and I'm bewildered by that accusation. Throughout their stories in the comics and cartoons, there has been SOMETHING there. A deep connection, sometimes hinted at romantic, sometimes as just good friends. But it's always there. Their connection is so deep that whether you interpret it as platonic or not, it's really not that big a stretch to assume they could also have feelings for each other. I'm not talking about sex, I get the impression that they've never done anything physical with each other. It's not about sex, it's about intimacy and ~~feelings~~. In ALL of the movies, you can feel them longing to be together on the same side. XMFC just made clearer the reasons why.

And again, as I quoted from that fanperspective, the timeline kind of backs it up. Like the author said, this relationship taking place over years and ending with such heartbreak and betrayal? Brotherly bromance. This relationship taking place over 6 months and reacting like that? Something was going on. For someone like Erik who TNO, he gets attached to Charles rather quickly. Charles can see Erik's whole life, but vice-versa isn't an option available to Erik. But he trusts him implicitly anyway, in such a short time. Something more is going on. It add SO much more depth to their relationship. Friends is one thing but if they went through this whole half-year with this kind of expectation that once Shaw was done with they could address whatever it was they were feeling and be together, only for it to end in every way they didn't want it to, it's that much more tragic. Erik has not planned his life beyond Shaw, Shaw has always been the number one goal in his mind, the only goal. I imagine he'd have been just as satisfied to die as to live as long as he got his revenge. But then Charles came in, and while he still took a very very farbackseat to Shaw, I imagine that Erik stopped thinking about life post-Shaw being irrelevant.

TLDR, I actually think the idea of Charles and Erik with ~~feelings~~ gives their characters MORE depth because it shows just how much they mean to each other on levels neither one thought they could feel for someone else (much less a man). Shock value really isn't a reason they would do it. If they wanted SV they'd have had much more success following comics and giving Raven a girlfriend and knocking her up by morphing into a man. but Fox is still a Family Values company on many levels, sadly. So in the meantime all we get is subtext. :(

Have you never heard of drama?

Fiction and drama is full of powerful feelings between characters in a short span of time. It has nothing to do with undertones of homosexual, romantic feelings for each other, and everything to do with adding drama to tell a story and make it interesting. Erik and Charles want to be on the same side because they want the same thing. They want mutant prosperity. They are both working towards a goal that is much bigger than either one of them individually, and it is something that means the world to both of them. Their entire lives are dedicated to the betterment of this group of people.

However, they drift apart because they have different methods of achieving that goal, and their methods are so opposite of each other that they cannot work together. It is emotionally painful for both of them because for Charles, he is watching a man who he respects and admires going down a dark path. He's watching his friend go down a dark and dangerous path that he feels is going to be dangerous for both Erik, as well as their common goal combined. It is painful for Erik because he is watching the alliance and friendship with this man he respects and admires falling apart. Erik wants to work together with Charles, but doesn't believe in Xavier's dream of co-existence.

Their relationship is strong, to be sure, but there is NOTHING romantic about it. It is a relationship of common goals, of admiration, of working together to achieve their life's dreams for an entire world of people. Try attempting to change the entire world with someone, I'm sure there's going to be a powerful relationship there. That has nothing to do with romance. In fact I believe romance cheapens it.

[WildcatNC]

The X-Men have ALWAYS been metaphors for the downtrodden, marginalized, outcast. All those who are "different". Thats a large part of their appeal.

There are gay, racial, cultural, etc overtones in many different X-Men stories. I always thought this was well known. Considering a guy with major involvement in the franchise is gay, it wouldn't surprise me at all if its a little personalized and slanted toward that particular bent.

[blueserenity]

Have you never heard of drama?

Fiction and drama is full of powerful feelings between characters in a short span of time. It has nothing to do with undertones of homosexual, romantic feelings for each other, and everything to do with adding drama to tell a story and make it interesting. Erik and Charles want to be on the same side because they want the same thing. They want mutant prosperity. They are both working towards a goal that is much bigger than either one of them individually, and it is something that means the world to both of them. Their entire lives are dedicated to the betterment of this group of people.

However, they drift apart because they have different methods of achieving that goal, and their methods are so opposite of each other that they cannot work together. It is emotionally painful for both of them because for Charles, he is watching a man who he respects and admires going down a dark path. He's watching his friend go down a dark and dangerous path that he feels is going to be dangerous for both Erik, as well as their common goal combined. It is painful for Erik because he is watching the alliance and friendship with this man he respects and admires falling apart. Erik wants to work together with Charles, but doesn't believe in Xavier's dream of co-existence.

Their relationship is strong, to be sure, but there is NOTHING romantic about it. It is a relationship of common goals, of admiration, of working together to achieve their life's dreams for an entire world of people. Try attempting to change the entire world with someone, I'm sure there's going to be a powerful relationship there. That has nothing to do with romance. In fact I believe romance cheapens it.

I get that you really really reeeeally don't want to even consider the possibility but it's ridiculous to say there is NOTHING romantic about it when the director, two actors, and screenwriters have all said otherwise. The amount of romance is certainly up for debate but it's definitely there, infintesimal or epic as it may be. Just as it is in a number of the comic storylines.

Refuting the comments from the people who made the movie is baffling... how is it you know more than they do? They designed the movie and characters and relationships to be a certain way. If you didn't pick up on it then I guess it's your loss (or gain, seeing as how vehemently you are against a homosexual relationship between these two comic characters). But that doesn't mean it isn't there. Just as no matter how much you champion and defend X3, it doesn't make the general audience dislike it any less. It is what it is.

Looks like you and I are destined to disagree forever :o

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The general audience likes X3 and the positive audience rating on rotten tomatoes is evidence of that.

If they are claiming that it was there (which I have yet to see from anyone involved in the production, that Xavier and Erik were intended to be gay for each other), then they did a piss poor job of implementing it, since there is nothing in the film that even remotely implies they have romantic feelings for each other.

[Thundercrack85]

Their relationship is platonic in the film, but there are certainly undertones. The fact that the actors themselves say as much is telling.

[psylockolussus]

The general audience likes X3 and the positive audience rating on rotten tomatoes is evidence of that.

Yeah I noticed that! It has 73% while Spider-Man is below 70%

X3 and Wolverine were well-liked by casual viewers.
The X-Men have ALWAYS been metaphors for the downtrodden, marginalized, outcast. All those who are "different". Thats a large part of their appeal.

There are gay, racial, cultural, etc overtones in many different X-Men stories. I always thought this was well known. Considering a guy with major involvement in the franchise is gay, it wouldn't surprise me at all if its a little personalized and slanted toward that particular bent.
I agree! Thats why I love the X-Men movies.

[blueserenity]

Yeah I noticed that! It has 73% while Spider-Man is below 70%

X3 and Wolverine were well-liked by casual viewers.

I agree! Thats why I love the X-Men movies.

I can't tell if the first line is meant to be sarcastic or not... I mean the very fact that X3 has 73 and Spider-Man has 70 is pretty telling of how inaccurate RT is on this stuff.

Buuuut back to gay subtext, I'll try to dig up some quotes. I would think that Zack Stentz's ENTIRE PANEL would be enough, but apparently...

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The thing is, I don't care what they have to say even if they did say it.

Matthew Vaughn has used the term "reboot" in regards to the movie. It is clearly not a reboot, when it connects itself to the rest of the series with the very first sequence, recreating events from the first movie, and establishing it's events within the same timeframe and continuity of the original films.

They can call Xavier and Magneto gay for each other til they are blue in the face, but it's not there in the least bit.

[By your Command]

The X-Men have ALWAYS been metaphors for the downtrodden, marginalized, outcast. All those who are "different". Thats a large part of their appeal.

There are gay, racial, cultural, etc overtones in many different X-Men stories. I always thought this was well known. Considering a guy with major involvement in the franchise is gay, it wouldn't surprise me at all if its a little personalized and slanted toward that particular bent.

This, and I would also add that it's about the dangers of crazy mass mentality. I always found fascinating growing up that mutants had the ability to destroy buildings with their thoughts, but they still were second class citizens compared to an average guy who could barely scratch them, strenght and power aren't always the same thing, it's just another great layer of the X-Men mythos.

[blueserenity]

The thing is, I don't care what they have to say even if they did say it.

Matthew Vaughn has used the term "reboot" in regards to the movie. It is clearly not a reboot, when it connects itself to the rest of the series with the very first sequence, recreating events from the first movie, and establishing it's events within the same timeframe and continuity of the original films.

They can call Xavier and Magneto gay for each other til they are blue in the face, but it's not there in the least bit.

He has used the term reboot AND prequel on different occasions, and for good reason, it's both. It has the elements to be either one, though ultimately it probably will be a prequel. He wanted to make a movie his way without worrying TOO heavily about the connection to the other films. That's why the connections are slight-- Wolverine, Mystique cameos, and the near shot-for-shot Erik intro. But he also ignored film continuity in Xavier walking, the timeline he met Erik, and his relationship to Mystique. I don't think it's entirely legit to call this flick a reboot but it's definitely his own interpretation without much regard to the pre-existing movies.

BUT what can't be argued is the director's intention. Take a look at Harry Potter. After the books came out JK Rowling informed the world that Dumbledore was gay. I *GUESS* if you really squinted and had a slashy mind to begin with you could find examples of it in the books. I never did. But just because *I* never saw evidence that he's gay doesn't mean he's not. In all 8 movies there isn't a shred of evidence that he is. However, trying to argue that he's straight is ridiculous. Since Rowling has come forward and said so, it must be true.

Similarly with the people behind this movie. Vaughn has not referred to E&C as lovers or as gay because they're not. He and Zack Stentz have both referred to the movie as being something of a "romantic tragedy". James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender were aware of the subtext throughout filming and were in fact chosen because their chemistry was so intense that they were able to put in the subtext element quite easily. (This was touched upon at Stentz's panel).

We never see Dumbledore lust after a man in the movie, yet he's still gay. We never see Erik and Charles making out or professing their feelings yet they feel very much there beneath the surface. The great thing about films is reading between the lines and getting what isn't spoonfed to you.

[By your Command]

^ I don't want to insinuate anything about Charles and Erik with this, but comparing them to Dumbledore seems a bit extreme due to the fact that Dumbledore is like a gazillion years old, which is like a bazillion years past his sexual prime, so just wanted to comment that that seemed a bit unfair.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Not only that, but Dumbledore's sexual orientation has nothing to do with the narrative of Harry Potter in one way or another.

However, changing the relationship between Erik and Charles to an unspoken gay relationship totally changes the entire dynamic of their relationship, and I feel cheapens it.

They go from 2 men working together for a goal that is bigger than either of them, to secret butt buddies who hang around each other because they want the wang.

Not only that, but it's not in the source material, when Xavier has romantic relationships with at least Moira and Lilandra, and Erik has children through past romantic relationships and even has one with Rogue when he is Joseph. While I don't believe that Mystique and Erik kissing was a romantic thing as well, that doesn't mean it's because he wants to kiss Charles. A romance doesn't always have to be a part of a narrative, and that's what this whole "secret gay feelings" thing comes off as... since they weren't boinking women it must have been because they wanted to boink each other! (and... Charles was boinking other women, considering his ventures with the female gender was well documented... the 2 colored eye-possibly William Stryker's wife but maybe not, was shown at Charles' graduation party, presumably as his date. And we all know about the actual romance between Moira and Charles that was shot, but cut. Probably because a story doesn't always have to have a romantic interest.

Do Erik and Charles have deep feelings for each other? Yes. Are they romantic / homosexual feelings? No. They are deep feelings of respect and admiration. The same type of deep feelings of respect and admiration that would form between any 2 people (or group of people) who spend their life working together for a goal to help the world. The same deep feelings of respect and admiration that Frodo and Sam had for each other, or Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn. I would argue the evidence of underlying homosexual undertones is much stronger in Lord of the Rings with the way Frodo and Sam are always hugging on each other, and touching each other, or looking at each other when Frodo is lying in the bed at the end of Return of the King (as much as I don't agree with the relationship having homosexual undertones, the shot in Fellowship of the Rings of Sam rubbing Frodo's chest when the Mithril vest is revealed is much more homoerotic than anything in X-Men: First Class).

That's what the "deeper" feelings are between the 2, deep feelings of respect and admiration. The 2 men believe in each other, and what they want to accomplish. Having to split apart is hurtful to both of these men, because they both thought they would be working side by side for a greater good, but instead, they will be working against each other. Charles believes in co-existence between mutants and humans, and Erik wants to create a war between the 2. Erik is afraid to see his people, once again, oppressed, persecuted, and eventually killed off in genocide, and thinks that Charles' dream of co-existence is a naive point of view, and believes that Charles' course of action will lead to that genocide. The 2 men with an unbreakable level of respect and admiration are now enemies, and neither of them want it because they both know that mutants fighting amongst each other is not going to advance their cause. Their cause is so much bigger than either of them and their connection that is formed in working for that cause is bound for them to have a high level of respect and admiration for each other, an unbreakable bond.

That doesn't equate to underlying homosexual feelings. It couldn't be further from homoeroticism.

[Lord]

Come on! Even Mc Avoy said their story was a love story, i think of Charles Xavier and Erik as homo, depp inside they are and feel like that for each other but i sincerelly don't want to see more deep inside their relationship, its just somethin we all know is true but we don't want to see completelly happening

[RachelDawes]

If Charles is gay, why was he hitting on Amy and Moira in the pub? I would think a gay man wouldn't be interested.

[blueserenity]

Not only that, but Dumbledore's sexual orientation has nothing to do with the narrative of Harry Potter in one way or another.

However, changing the relationship between Erik and Charles to an unspoken gay relationship totally changes the entire dynamic of their relationship, and I feel cheapens it.

They go from 2 men working together for a goal that is bigger than either of them, to secret butt buddies who hang around each other because they want the wang.



This has been bugging me for some time. Your use of childish words to describe homosexuals and degrade them to THIS sort of ignorant BS is upsetting. This isn't the first time you've done this, your comments about people's perception of the Washington Monument also showed your immature side when it comes to phallic symbolism or anything that isn't hetero enough for you. I was going to counter some of your points but after reading this I'm done with you. Your issues with the pairing seem to lie in something far beyond just two characters from a comic book. :dry:

[WildcatNC]

I don't want Charles and Erik to be lovers because that's not remotely based in the source material.

I never got that impression of them in the movie though.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I don't want Charles and Erik to be lovers because that's not remotely based in the source material.

I never got that impression of them in the movie though.

This.

And serenity, you can take my words how you want, but I'd be using the same type of terminology if we were trying to argue that there was a romantic relationship between Charles and Raven. I'm secure in my sexuality and don't have issues with other people's sexuality. I've kissed other dudes before, so you can make your assumptions about me, but they are false.

My issue with the Washington Monument is that it does come off as incredibly immature when people are talking about "that building that looks like a penis is between 2 guys, they must be gay!" and I feel that's what this whole "Erik and Charles are gay for each other" talk is coming from. 2 guys that aren't romantically involved with the female leads (even tho Charles was, but it was cut, and has other examples of being attracted to women) so they must be romantically involved with each other, because there's a shot of a building that looks like a penis (never mind the rest of the symbolism behind that shot... it's obviously symbolic of a penis and thus a homosexual relationship between the 2 men) and they cry for each other when one of the guys loses the use of his legs and at the same time, a strong friendship is essentially falling apart.

You find my language offensive? I find it kind of offensive that the notion of 2 men being emotional and having a strong connection together must automatically be homosexual. I find it kind of offensive that the Washington Monument, which is used as a symbol of freedom and justice - you know, some of the themes that the movie is trying to portray - is relegated to a sexual homo erotic symbol to pit 2 men in a relationship that they shouldn't be in, when there's no evidence of said relationship between those 2 men. And that has nothing to do with some kind of homophobia on my part. But you can continue to think that if you want.

It has everything to do with bastardizing a relationship between 2 characters that I hold very personally to me for really no reason at all, other than to stir the pot a little bit and get some shock value? I don't know, I don't even know what the intention of such a relationship would be, because there's no source material precedent for it, it cheapens the relationship that the 2 men do have together, and it adds absolutely nothing to the story that is trying to be told in the movie. It's a move that's being done just for the sake of it for a little bit of shock value. It might not be blatant, in your face shock value like Howard Stern or Eminem, but it's shock value none the less.

And if somewhere along the line it was Matthew Vaughn's intent to have that subtext, it's just yet another reason on my long list of reasons why I don't want Matthew Vaughn anywhere near the X-Men franchise.

If it makes you feel any better, I was this adamantly against the proposed sexual relationship between Storm and Logan in X-Men: The Last Stand as well, and for the same reasons, because there's no purpose for it, it adds nothing to the story, and is being done for no other reason than shock value and Hollywood sex appeal of putting 2 attractive leads together sexually. Luckily that horribly idea, also from the head of Matthew Vaughn, was scrapped the moment he left the project and never saw the light of day.

[By your Command]

I would argue that it's not just because it isn't part of the source material, cause someone in future X-Men comics could make an alternate universe where the two of them are lovers, and that story could actually work if done propperly, but the thing is that it doesn't really add to the "X-Men" storylines having them as gay characters, the default storyline of Charles and Erik is two people that should be together because they want the same thing, they just have really different approaches for it, the fact that they find themselves attracted to each other really wouldn't add much, plus sometimes, as is the case, friendships can be incredibly more intricate and intimate than other types of relationships.

And for Nell, the Storm-Wolverine relationship may have been scrapped, but I think it was badly scrapped, there were lots of traces of that in the script and the movie itself, for example the scene where Storm is trying to stop Logan from going to see Jean was barely seconds away from turning into a "Why don't you love me like you love her!" scene.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I would argue that it's not just because it isn't part of the source material, cause someone in future X-Men comics could make an alternate universe where the two of them are lovers, and that story could actually work if done propperly, but the thing is that it doesn't really add to the "X-Men" storylines having them as gay characters, the default storyline of Charles and Erik is two people that should be together because they want the same thing, they just have really different approaches for it, the fact that they find themselves attracted to each other really wouldn't add much, plus sometimes, as is the case, friendships can be incredibly more intricate and intimate than other types of relationships.

And for Nell, the Storm-Wolverine relationship may have been scrapped, but I think it was badly scrapped, there were lots of traces of that in the script and the movie itself, for example the scene where Storm is trying to stop Logan from going to see Jean was barely seconds away from turning into a "Why don't you love me like you love her!" scene.

I cant bold your post from my phone, but your point about non romantic relationships being more complex is exactly what I am talking about. The fact that there are no romantic connotations between the character is exactly what makes it so complex and interesting. You make it a relationship about two people who want to be together, it cheapens and simplifies their entire dynamic.

[CaptainCraig]

As a whole, I don't think that the movies, or comics, or cartoons, or any form of X-Men are specifically a metaphor on sexuality. However, it's relevant because the X-Men are symbolic for minorities in society that are shunned and oppressed simply for being different, and as such are feared and hated. That applies to blacks during the Civil Rights Era (and even women, Hispanics, Native Americans, or any other oppressed group), homosexuals in today's age, religious groups (Nazi Germany is directly showcased in X-Men lore).

I don't think the X-Men mythos targets one group specifically, but rather is a metaphor for the oppressed minority in general. There is a leaning towards homosexuality because that's what's relevant in today's society, and yes, Bryan Singer is gay himself. But I don't view these movies, or the comics, to be specific towards the homosexual plight.
The very first post answered the OPs question exactly right. Everything else is just a repeat.
The X-Men stand/represent what it means to overcome when others look down at you, don't accept you and/or disrespect you.
Homosexuality falls into that. Singer related to it, others in the 60's/70's could if you were black or a disrepected female in the workforce. Anyone who feels left out, that is who the X-Men and the "mutant" analogy is for.

[X-Maniac]

People, there is no way Erik and Charles were implied to be gay or about to start a gay relationship. Charles was hitting on women in pubs, Magneto was in bed with Raven. Nothing in the film hinted at anything sexual between the two men.

There's only a 'bromance' there in the sense of two guys working closely together and sharing their thoughts and feelings. The same 'they must be gay' thing was raised over and over with the Sherlock Holmes movie.

The assumption that two men who are close friends must be doing something sexual together is ridiculous. It's like me observing a guy and a girl from work go out to lunch together and assuming they must be banging each other senseless.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

People, there is no way Erik and Charles were implied to be gay or about to start a gay relationship. Charles was hitting on women in pubs, Magneto was in bed with Raven. Nothing in the film hinted at anything sexual between the two men.

There's only a 'bromance' there in the sense of two guys working closely together and sharing their thoughts and feelings. The same 'they must be gay' thing was raised over and over with the Sherlock Holmes movie.

The assumption that two men who are close friends must be doing something sexual together is ridiculous. It's like me seeing a guy and a girl from work go to lunch together and assuming they must be banging each other senseless.

What?? You're not banging your female coworkers senseless? What kind of workplace are you a part of???

[X-Maniac]

What?? You're not banging your female coworkers senseless? What kind of workplace are you a part of???

I know you're kidding with me, but you know what I mean, right? That there can be a natural assumption made from two people being seen in each other's company.

The same - but even more ignorant - assumptions mean that there are straight guys who won't hang around with anyone known to be gay (or who appears to be obviously gay) because they are worried people will think that they are gay too.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I know you're kidding with me, but you know what I mean, right? That there can be a natural assumption made from two people being seen in each other's company.

The same - but even more ignorant - assumptions mean that there are straight guys who won't hang around with anyone known to be gay (or who appears to be obviously gay) because they are worried people will think that they are gay too.

Yes, I'm kidding with you, and yes, I know exactly what you mean.

A few years back, I was really good friends with this girl. I was always going over to her apartment, staying long hours and leaving late at night, going out to lunch or dinner with her, even taking her to doctor's appointments or taking her to pick up her daughter from school.

Everyone thought her and I had a thing going on, and that I wanted to snatch her from her at the time boyfriend.

The actuality was, our relationship was very brother / sister. She was like my big sister to me, and looked out for me, and I was her little brother to her, and took care of her and watched out for her. Never once at any point in time have her or I ever had a romantic feeling for each other.

[psylockolussus]

I can't tell if the first line is meant to be sarcastic or not... I mean the very fact that X3 has 73 and Spider-Man has 70 is pretty telling of how inaccurate RT is on this stuff.

Just the users rating.