X-men First Class Sequels?

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Majik1387

Of course it would have, but it was the lack of respect that made people majorly upset.

I don't see it that way at all. I've never heard a 'mainstream viewer' go on about Cyclops' death at all. Ever. And I talk to a lot of people about X-Men.

Again, you're generalizing. It's not a matter of a good guy or a bad guy dying, it's a matter of how their deaths were presented; for the 3 above they were presented with dignity, not shock value.

I don't entirely agree. I think fans' attachments to characters play a strong part in the fuss generated. That fuss is always on fan forums, we don't have people gathering in the street or in supermarkets. The fan factor is crucial in how these events go down online.

Actually, those villain deaths did kick up a lot of fuss.

So none of those villain deaths had the dignity you describe as so important?

It's not a matter of accurate every time, it's a matter that there's nothing signifying the black man dying first being a cliche.

The perception exists of the black man always dying first. Just google 'black man dies first.' There's pages and pages of people going on about it.

Because there was no connection/not a strong connection to the character for his death to matter.

It was a plot device, much like what happens in Avengers. It could be argued that killing those in whom the audience is heavily invested is also risky because of that investment.

And I can tell you the people I've talked to outside of forum say different. Not to say that you don't have people saying that to you, but to generalize it like you say here:

It is insulting.


Hey look, another insult; thinking that I have clouded vision in a geek bubble, that I can't possibly see it another way, that the general audience didn't care, etc. It's bull.

My experience of the general audience is that don't care as much, if at all. It's the fans like us who go on about for years.

I'm not saying the general audience expect the movies to be entirely faithful to the source material, but they expect a good movie, and they voiced their opinions clearly otherwise we wouldn't be getting reboots/sequels.

The general audience doesn't care about faithfulness because they are mostly unaware of how it all goes down in the comics.

I think faithfulness is equally tricky, but a respect for the fanbase and the source material is important.

Like I said, the general audience (and mainstream critics) weren't freaking out over 'Barakapool'. The fanboys were.

And Avengers indicates that keeping true to the comic can provide the blockbuster all studios want. So no, spare telling me or anyone else that the fans are the only ones who were upset with the movies. And quit generalizing, it only makes you look bad.

It's an interesting point to debate about fans v mainstream, respect to comics vs ignoring the comics.

I would argue that the mainstream audience didn't know or care whether Avengers follows the comics. In fact it doesn't exactly follow the way events played out in the comics (Black Widow and Hawkeye were not founder members of the Avengers in the books and Captain America didn't pop up until four issues in). But it respects the fans and respects (though not slavishly follows) the comics that the fans love. The essence of characters, personalities and scenarios is preserved.

The general audience loved it because of the humour, the fun, the blockbuster 'popcorn' action and spectacle, and charismatic actors like Downey Jr. It clearly aimed for as wide an appeal as possible, including fans. A smart move. And it benefited from the build-up over several solo films. (although, even so, someone in my office thought i was referring to the 60s spy series at first and had no knowledge of the superhero franchise!!!)

The non-geeky fans with whom I saw Avengers had no idea about how much it stuck to the comics. Some of them asked me afterwards and had no clue at all about the accuracy to the comics.

I think that respecting the essence of the characters and the comics in this type of film is a wise move.

The persistent complaints I heard about First Class were people online saying ' this isn't the original line-up, this isn't like the First Class comic' and warning everyone they knew not to see the film on the basis it had butchered the material.

I just think that studios have to be careful about straying too far from the books. It's a balancing act.

[def28]

The general audience arent complete idiots when it comes to X Men. Most of them were raised on the Fox animated series. Never met a girl who didnt know who Gambit was. Even though he never showed up in a previous movie and most havnt read the comics. The X Men have yet to show their characters full potential. The comics versions are better. The audience will tell the difference. I still hear from people asking why didnt Rogue fly in the X Men. They dont know the details but they know the looks,powers and attitude of the characters.

Fox has failed on bringing most of the X characters to the screen. Magneto,Prof X and Nightcrawler are the only three I thought they got dead on for film versions. The Avengers got all their characters right. I could care less if one or two showed up in the comics a few issues later. They chose fan favs and it worked very well. Avengers succeeded on every level for fans and the general audience.

[blueserenity]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

The general audience weren't melting down over Barakapool or Cyclops' evaporating, or over the character line-up in First Class, it was the fans.

Oh X-Maniac, sometimes you're so much my favorite. ALL OF THIS. I've worked in a very geeky industry and a very ordinary one and it's very true. The people at my "ordinary" career didn't understand what the big deal was about specifically Cyclops, Prof X, and Rogue. They just thought it was a crappy movie through and through, those elements made it no worse or better. My geek colleagues, however, lamented more than I did over those things.

And also curious whether we'll ever see Magneto father any children in this series.

Hmmm I really don't think we will. The Fassneto has been presented as a very one-goal guy. I got the feeling that Charles was the first person since his mother that he was able to love (like a brother or romantically, whatever your inclination on that matter is). I also think he's the last person since his mother that he's able to love. We've seen, assuming that the older movies are in line with XMFC, that he doesn't even love Raven after she's been with him for what, 50 years? I can't imagine him sleeping with anyone else (again, this is my Erik-is-asexual thought) and I certainly can't imagine him being willing to bare his heart to anyone again. The two people he's loved ended up dead or half-paralyzed and undoubtedly he will continue to blame himself for the rest of his life for both of those events. I think if he did have children they would have played a major part in any of the later Xfilms, and if he did have children and they died before X1, he'd be a really, really broken man.

I don't know, Fassbender really changed the character for me. I loved him as Sir Ian played him, but in my mind they are two different characters. Sir Ian comes off as more ruthless, but not a ruthlessness he could have grown into from younger Fassbender. Does that make sense? Oh gosh I'm rambling.

Actually, those villain deaths (SM1&2) did kick up a lot of fuss.

Maybe on superhero forums? Look I am a huuuuge Spidey fan. It's the only comic I've read through in pretty much all its incarnations. I've seen ALL of the cartoons and even the awful Japanese live-action series from the 70s. When SM1 and then later SM2 came out, it was a challenge for me NOT to find people to discuss the movies with. And in all of our conversations, no one ever brought up the villain deaths. We had issues with the movies of course, but that was simply never one of them. I should also mention that at the time of the second movie's release I was working at a video rental place so there was ample opportunity to discuss the film with people. Villain deaths in these films was not an issue for anyone I spoke to, geeks and normies alike.

Hey look, another insult; thinking that I have clouded vision in a geek bubble, that I can't possibly see it another way, that the general audience didn't care, etc. It's bull.

I really don't think X was trying to insult you. I think it's something all of us fall victim to; geekvision that is. When our favorite characters aren't given their proper dues it's hard to imagine that anyone else was NOT equally offended. But these movies are made for everyone in the true sense of the word and we fanboys and fangirls do present a minority in the audience.

Avengers worked well because it was a fun movie. I have no idea whatsoever if what was shown was accurate to the comics or not, and it didn't matter. That is simply not at all the reason the movie was a huge success. And not the necessary recipe for making XMFC2 a box office hit.

[Majik1387]

I'm not gonna break down your post or X-Maniac's anymore on the topic.

I never specifically said the Spidey villain deaths, I referred to both Burton Batman and SPidey villain deaths.

[def28]

Originally Posted by blueserenity

Avengers worked well because it was a fun movie.

...plus built up their universe properly before hand and hired someone who knows comics and can handle teams with writing and directing.

[blueserenity]

Originally Posted by def28

...plus built up their universe properly before hand and hired someone who knows comics and can handle teams with writing and directing.

Oh totally. Joss Whedon is a god, I've been saying that since 1996. But I maintain accuracy (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with the success of Avengers. It was everything else, including three years of marketing and 5 "prequel" movies that led up to this main event. Not to mention the very attractive and A-list cast. I've yet to meet a comic book nerd outside of this forum though, who has said "It was so good because they stayed true to the source!".

[def28]

Take away the accurate character portrayals/designs/set pieces and you will have a ****** Avenger movie.

[Mrs Vimes]

Originally Posted by def28

The general audience arent complete idiots when it comes to X Men. Most of them were raised on the Fox animated series. Never met a girl who didnt know who Gambit was.

I'm a member of the general audience and I had no idea who Gambit was or who any of the X-Men were prior to Singer's movies. I can't say I like the implication that apparently this makes me a complete idiot.

As for Cyclops in X3, I didn't even care about the character and I still thought that his death was dealt with in a very sloppy manner.

Originally Posted by blueserenity

Hmmm I really don't think we will. The Fassneto has been presented as a very one-goal guy. I got the feeling that Charles was the first person since his mother that he was able to love (like a brother or romantically, whatever your inclination on that matter is). I also think he's the last person since his mother that he's able to love.

Well it's not really necessary to have feelings for a woman to get her preggers

I totally agree that Erik in First Class seems to be an extremely focused, single-minded individual, but at the same time the idea that he was thinking revenge/mutant cause 24/7 and had no other interests whatsoever sounds a bit far-fetched to me - he's not a robot or anything. And while sex might not be at the top of the priorities list for him I wouldn't necessarily rule out occasional diversions. Especially as sex doesn't have to have anything to do with love or attachment.

I'd agree though that any Magneto offsprings are unlikely in these series.

Originally Posted by blueserenity

I don't know, Fassbender really changed the character for me. I loved him as Sir Ian played him, but in my mind they are two different characters. Sir Ian comes off as more ruthless, but not a ruthlessness he could have grown into from younger Fassbender. Does that make sense? Oh gosh I'm rambling.

I tend to think of them as two different characters as well, but more in a sense of that they're the same person at very different stages of his life. I think it's true for many people in real life, where they might look back on their much younger self and see them as a pretty much different person from what they are now. I could see Magneto get colder and more ruthless with age (and on the other hand, also a lot more relaxed in a way - Sir Ian's Magneto seems to be not anywhere as tightly wound or impulsive to me as his younger counterpart).

[def28]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

I'm a member of the general audience and I had no idea who Gambit was or who any of the X-Men were prior to Singer's movies. I can't say I like the implication that apparently this makes me a complete idiot.

I did not mean to call anyone an idiot for having zero exposure to the media forms of X men, I should have worded that better. As much as I disagree and debate on the topics of these films I would not resort to calling names. Sorry if it came off that way.

I meant not all the general audience is completely unaware of character personalities, looks and powers. There are tons of other media that involve comic characters that alot have grown up with besides comics. Most still base X Men on the animated series, which was watched by alot of people especially in their 20s and 30s. Most these characters havnt changed in other media forms for a reason. They already work. If its not broke dont fix it. If they just want to make a movie about people with powers then make another Chronicle.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by def28

Take away the accurate character portrayals/designs/set pieces and you will have a ****** Avenger movie.

For mainstream viewers, that accuracy refers only to what they saw previously on screen in the preceding solo films, not accuracy to the comics.

Accuracy to the comics matters only to fans.

The crucial thing - and the thing we don't really know - is how much fans contribute to the success of a film, how much their words count online, how much their tickets mean to the overall box office. We really don't know how strong 'geek power' really is.

But, however strong it is, I agree it does make sense for studios to try to make films that the comic book fans will enjoy too. Going totally against the comics is a bad idea, as is slavishly following the comics.

[blueserenity]

Originally Posted by def28

I did not mean to call anyone an idiot for having zero exposure to the media forms of X men, I should have worded that better. As much as I disagree and debate on the topics of these films I would not resort to calling names. Sorry if it came off that way.

I meant not all the general audience is completely unaware of character personalities, looks and powers. There are tons of other media that involve comic characters that alot have grown up with besides comics. Most still base X Men on the animated series, which was watched by alot of people especially in their 20s and 30s. Most these characters havnt changed in other media forms for a reason. They already work. If its not broke dont fix it. If they just want to make a movie about people with powers then make another Chronicle.

Many of us may have grown up with the FOX animated series from the 90s, but that doesn't mean that we're so loyal to it we're upset by changes. I'd venture most of us as tykes didn't watch the whole series, let alone in order. And even less of us actually carry with us the desire that the movies be just like the series in characters or plot. Need I remind you that in order to get past the censors, all mention of the Holocaust and WWII had to be omitted? Those events which make Erik the person he is now. It defines him. In terms of keeping to comic canon, I am way more miffed by that than FC's changing of the first X-men or switching Cyclops and Havok's ages, or giving the name Angel to someone who isn't Warren(and clearly isn't meant to represent that character). Though it's been a while since I last watched the show, I couldn't tell you who Xavier's first X-Men were from having watched the 90s cartoon. Was it even ever covered?

If it's not broke, don't fix it, sure, but at the same time I love it when adaptations make changes to the original source to keep things fresh. If I wanted things to be just like the original source, I'd go back and read/watch the original source. XMFC would have been a very stale movie had it been Jean and Cyclops and Iceman again. The general audience, whose freshest X-Men memory would have been the older films, would have rolled their eyes and ignored the movie as a simple "youngification" repeat of the trilogy. Which it totally would have been. And I may be (somewhat) alone on this, but Raven having grown up with Charles and Erik being responsible for his paralysis are the two best plot/character adjustments in the whole darn film series. I love the changes XMFC made, and hope they keep messing with things if it means the sequel will be as good as the first. The X-Men universe is just too huge to get precious with the characters and plotlines.

Well it's not really necessary to have feelings for a woman to get her preggers

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? But my mum told me that that sex only happens "when two people love each other very, very much"....

More and more my headcanon is that Erik is simply not a very sexual person. I can't imagine him on a one-night stand unless it was a means to an end for his Nazi-hunting, and as good as he is at turning on the charm, I can't see him opting for seduction techniques over good-old-fashioned-yanking-out-fillings threat tactics. He's too angry. I suppose he does have to stray from the Nazi tracking every now though and I guess that's as good enough pastime as any.

I tend to think of them as two different characters as well, but more in a sense of that they're the same person at very different stages of his life. I think it's true for many people in real life, where they might look back on their much younger self and see them as a pretty much different person from what they are now. I could see Magneto get colder and more ruthless with age (and on the other hand, also a lot more relaxed in a way - Sir Ian's Magneto seems to be not anywhere as tightly wound or impulsive to me as his younger counterpart).

Yes, that last part. Maybe that's the biggest difference for me, is that IanMagneto no longer seems ANGRY. It feels like whatever has happened before X-Men 1 is completely irrelevant to him, which for me is hard to get past.

For mainstream viewers, that accuracy refers only to what they saw previously on screen in the preceding solo films, not accuracy to the comics.

Accuracy to the comics matters only to fans.

Exactly!

[blueserenity]

doublepost, sorry

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

I'm a member of the general audience and I had no idea who Gambit was or who any of the X-Men were prior to Singer's movies. I can't say I like the implication that apparently this makes me a complete idiot.

As for Cyclops in X3, I didn't even care about the character and I still thought that his death was dealt with in a very sloppy manner.

What did you think was sloppy? The lack of a funeral?

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

Well it's not really necessary to have feelings for a woman to get her preggers

I totally agree that Erik in First Class seems to be an extremely focused, single-minded individual, but at the same time the idea that he was thinking revenge/mutant cause 24/7 and had no other interests whatsoever sounds a bit far-fetched to me - he's not a robot or anything. And while sex might not be at the top of the priorities list for him I wouldn't necessarily rule out occasional diversions. Especially as sex doesn't have to have anything to do with love or attachment.

I'd agree though that any Magneto offsprings are unlikely in these series.

I'd like there to be a reference to a past lover called Magda, even if we don't get to see any Magneto progeny.

I tend to think of them as two different characters as well, but more in a sense of that they're the same person at very different stages of his life. I think it's true for many people in real life, where they might look back on their much younger self and see them as a pretty much different person from what they are now. I could see Magneto get colder and more ruthless with age (and on the other hand, also a lot more relaxed in a way - Sir Ian's Magneto seems to be not anywhere as tightly wound or impulsive to me as his younger counterpart).

I see them as the same. As Mags got older, he became more laid-back and even more detached. All those years of bitterness would just make him cold and cynical.

[blueserenity]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

What did you think was sloppy? The lack of a funeral?

I agree with Mrs Vimes here. The sloppiness came from the fact that no one (as in the audience) really knew for sure if he was dead or not till the gravestone at the very end. He had been established as a main character in the movie trilogy, so it felt odd that they would kill him off so vaguely. I kept expecting him to turn up for the massive endbattle.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by blueserenity

More and more my headcanon is that Erik is simply not a very sexual person. I can't imagine him on a one-night stand unless it was a means to an end for his Nazi-hunting, and as good as he is at turning on the charm, I can't see him opting for seduction techniques over good-old-fashioned-yanking-out-fillings threat tactics. He's too angry. I suppose he does have to stray from the Nazi tracking every now though and I guess that's as good enough pastime as any.

Yes, that last part. Maybe that's the biggest difference for me, is that IanMagneto no longer seems ANGRY. It feels like whatever has happened before X-Men 1 is completely irrelevant to him, which for me is hard to get past.

I see it that Fassneto becomes the later trilogy's McNeto because he grew world-weary, cynical and resigned to what he saw as humanity's failings. It would make him cold and detached, though clearly still determined to cause trouble!

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by blueserenity

I agree with Mrs Vimes here. The sloppiness came from the fact that no one (as in the audience) really knew for sure if he was dead or not till the gravestone at the very end. He had been established as a main character in the movie trilogy, so it felt odd that they would kill him off so vaguely. I kept expecting him to turn up for the massive endbattle.

Hmmm. Maybe. But his suddenly turning up could have been even worse and made his death phoney and an attempt to manipulate the audience. We didn't see Cyclops disintegrate because they wanted to save the visuals for when it happened to Xavier, thus making that scene more dramatic when we actually saw what Phoenix did to people.

I don't know why they decided not to mention Scott during the funeral for Xavier. I seem to recall the funeral might have been filmed very early on - and the script was probably still in flux at the time. It would be interesting to hear what Penn/Kinberg had to say on it.

[Mrs Vimes]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

What did you think was sloppy? The lack of a funeral?

To be honest I've watched X3 so long ago that what I remember more clearly is the "ugh really?" feeling itself rather than the exact details. I think it just mostly felt very rushed. And didn't he die offscreen, as well? That could have ticked me off; I think that if you're going to kill off a character at least have the courtesy not to have him die offscreen.

Originally Posted by blueserenity

Yes, that last part. Maybe that's the biggest difference for me, is that IanMagneto no longer seems ANGRY. It feels like whatever has happened before X-Men 1 is completely irrelevant to him, which for me is hard to get past.

My feeling was that it's not that he's not angry, but rather that he's learned to bury his anger so that it simmers rather than rages. He's got a much tighter leash on his emotions in general.

Originally Posted by blueserenity

Personally Avenger's big weakness for me was the lack of character development

This is from a much earlier discussion, but dear lord, frigging wooooord on that. I've just seen The Avengers and to me it didn't amount to anything more than "here are your favourite characters doing some cool stuff in between some banter" (I didn't even think that the action was all that great to be honest and there was way too much tedious technobabble). I know it's been praised for being even-handed to its big cast, but to me the result was that everyone was simply equally shallow; there's a reason why most movies don't try to juggle gazillion protagonists. There are some nice moments here and there but because no character gets much time it kinda feels like what First Class would have been if it's only been populated with characters like Havok and Banshee.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

This is from a much earlier discussion, but dear lord, frigging wooooord on that. I've just seen The Avengers and to me it didn't amount to anything more than "here are your favourite characters doing some cool stuff in between some banter" (I didn't even think that the action was all that great to be honest and there was way too much tedious technobabble). I know it's been praised for being even-handed to its big cast, but to me the result was that everyone was simply equally shallow; there's a reason why most movies don't try to juggle gazillion protagonists. There are some nice moments here and there but because no character gets much time it kinda feels like what First Class would have been if it's only been populated with characters like Havok and Banshee.

It's fair to say there is no character development in Avengers. I agree with that. I suppose it had all the previous solo movies to introduce the characters, and it also had only one villain (Loki) who had a load of nameless alien henchmen. So it had the advantage over X-Men in those respects, as X-Men had multiple villains (in the Hellfire Club and then Brotherhood) and didn't have solo films for Havok, Banshee, etc, beforehand.

[def28]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

But, however strong it is, I agree it does make sense for studios to try to make films that the comic book fans will enjoy too. Going totally against the comics is a bad idea, as is slavishly following the comics.

Im not completely disagreeing but where is that proven ? There is no proof that the more faithful you are the worse your film will be. There are far more examples of bad adaptations not going well with critics, audience and fans. If your talking line for line panel for panel then yeah that wont work for all films. Most material is just out of date in terms of dialogue. It has worked for a few though. What works for fans has also worked for the audience. Unless your film is just random easter eggs thats impossible for anyone with prior knowledge of comics to follow.

[def28]

Originally Posted by blueserenity

If it's not broke, don't fix it, sure, but at the same time I love it when adaptations make changes to the original source to keep things fresh. If I wanted things to be just like the original source, I'd go back and read/watch the original source. XMFC would have been a very stale movie had it been Jean and Cyclops and Iceman again.

No it wouldnt have. Those are arguably some of the best characters written in X Men Comics that have yet to be shown well on screen.

I love the changes XMFC made, and hope they keep messing with things if it means the sequel will be as good as the first. The X-Men universe is just too huge to get precious with the characters and plotlines

.
One of thse days Ill agree with you haha. With this franchise in general they are just shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to messing with things.

[kbrooksgohan]

In the sequel they need more black mutants.....that way I can actually audition for it and get it. Just one black guy kinda sucks imo.

[Majik1387]

Maybe they'll use Synch like Vaughn originally wanted.

[blueserenity]

Originally Posted by def28

No it wouldnt have. Those are arguably some of the best characters written in X Men Comics that have yet to be shown well on screen.
.
One of thse days Ill agree with you haha. With this franchise in general they are just shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to messing with things.

But they haven't been, not really. There have been so many changes in the movies, and 3 out of the 5 films are widely praised (by GA and geek alike) and the other two are widely panned for being terrible movies. Following the comics would not have made X3 and XOW better movies. Honestly I'm not sure what COULD have made them better movies, they're both pretty unsalvageable.

This is from a much earlier discussion, but dear lord, frigging wooooord on that. I've just seen The Avengers and to me it didn't amount to anything more than "here are your favourite characters doing some cool stuff in between some banter" (I didn't even think that the action was all that great to be honest and there was way too much tedious technobabble). I know it's been praised for being even-handed to its big cast, but to me the result was that everyone was simply equally shallow; there's a reason why most movies don't try to juggle gazillion protagonists. There are some nice moments here and there but because no character gets much time it kinda feels like what First Class would have been if it's only been populated with characters like Havok and Banshee.

<3 <3 <3 So much this. I wish I had your way with words because this is spot-on.

[def28]

Originally Posted by blueserenity

But they haven't been, not really. There have been so many changes in the movies, and 3 out of the 5 films are widely praised (by GA and geek alike) and the other two are widely panned for being terrible movies. Following the comics would not have made X3 and XOW better movies. Honestly I'm not sure what COULD have made them better movies, they're both pretty unsalvageable.

They have cut out oppurtunies to add to certain characters, develop characters, have solid continuity and tell storylines. There world is a mess. If FC is a reboot then this clears things up. They actually have to retcon certain films and elemts for their series to make sense. That is far from a success.

If they followed Wolverines Wepon X Origin from comics or what was lead to be a much more violent and meaningfull Weapon X project in X2 then that would have helped with XMOW. Instead its Wolverine meets other mutants and does nothing the movie. Messing with things and having no respect for the characters is what led to bad films. And like Ive pointed out before not everyone hates X3 and Origins, its mostly the fans. Be it fans of the movies or comics. X3 did huge sales in Box office, DVD and holds decent audience ratings on online sites like RT. FC should stick on the path its made. Any characters they add or develop further should be driven from the comics. The plots more then likely not gonna resemble the comic in any way. Messing with character personalities and powers are what will piss me off. The reason FC exists is beacuse of the other films failures, so I guess thats one good thing to come out of the bad films. Encouraging to mess with future X films characters source material is a bad idea.

[kbrooksgohan]

Synch? Who's that?