Originally Posted by ChildofAtom
And that is why me and several others were stating that we felt that the Patric Stewart cover was generally coming off and much more "Xavier" than the McAvoy version.
I still don't understand how he's supposed to look "more Xavier". The concept itself is ludicrous. Young Xavier doesn't wear an uniform, doesn't have any "visual" power, and people were even complaining that he was doing the "hand touching the temple" gesture. Really, how was he supposed to be shown in the cover? Saying he's not "Xavier enough" is unfair. I was expecting young Charles to be in a wheelchair, but there must have been an internal decision to show him standing. Surely there's an explanation in the film. Lack of wheelchair aside, the cover turned out exactly how I expected for young Charles. If people have different ideas of how he could have looked more "iconic" I really would like to know. So just because young Magneto wears an uniform he's automatically "iconic"? It's quite clear that Erik has already completed his transformation into Magneto, while Charles is still going through the process of turning into Professor X. The cover represents this. He has
to be different from Patrick's Prof. X
All in all saying he's "less Xavier" than Patrick's version easily turns into "this actor isn't competent enough to portray the character". Unfortunately this has been going on since First Class. People still don't understand the concept of a character changing and going from A to Z in terms of development, it seems.