The Official James McAvoy/Professor Xavier Thread

[Loganbabe]

^ That's what I'd like to see...any Stage of Grief would do, really. I just would like to see Charles dealing with his paralysis getting some focus.

Vaughn is always talking about Charles as the rich boy in contrast to Erik's horrible childhood. It's like rich children can't have any sadness or can't be lonely and scared and abused. Of course it's not on the same level experienced by a boy on a concentration camp, but since we know nothing about Charles' childhood (except that he was rich) we really don't know about any psychological traumas he suffered as a kid. I think that at least one thing we can get form FC, that Charles never experienced motherly love. But they simply decided not to deal much with it, and skip everything else regarding Charles' childhood (including the moment he discovered his powers, something I think should have been included)...right, they won't change his backstory for the second film or give it any focus. But if they decide to skip the fact that Charles went through a major trauma at the end of FC and will have to deal with it, then I don't think I'll be able to watch the second movie. I really won't be interested.

Unless Vaughn believes that being rich will fix that for Charles too.

[Mrs Vimes]

We haven't seen much of Charles as a child, but in that kitchen scene he doesn't really give an impression of an abused or scared kid. More than anything, he seems to be kinda like a miniature version of Charles as an adult - extremely confident, comfortable with his powers, instinctively taking charge. I know that his remark about how his mother would have never made him a hot chocolate unless she could get a maid to do it makes his mother sound like a chilly type, but then we are talking about a rich upperclass family in the 40s while looking at it through the modern lense. How many mothers - even loving ones - of that particular class in that particular time *would* realistically have gone to the kitchen and made their sons hot chocolate?

I definitely get an impression at times that some people take Charles' privileged upbringing against him, but on the other hand, I don't find it necessary for Charles to have had an abused/sad/screwed up childhood to somehow make his character more "valid", like there's a competition going on and Charles needs something to put up against Erik's horrible childhood trauma.

[Loganbabe]

Well, unfortunately a lot of people - even Vaughn himself, he made it quite clear in the extras - kind of use Charles' upbringing against him. It's like he would never be "right" about anything anyway. What does a pampered, rich white boy know about life?

I particularly don't think that having a screwed up childhood would make Charles more valid as a character. The problem is that the film is made in a way that he would never be "valid" when confronted with Erik's view of the world. I'm talking about personal experience with my friends who watched the movie, about the things I read in forums, etc. A lot of people dismiss everything about Charles and what he's on about - he's just a rich guy, he's a playboy, he was mean to Raven (?), he was mean to Erik because he didn't "stay by his side" (???). I think this is screwed up but that's the way it is. That's how the film was built - Erik's opinion had meaning, Charles' didn't.

Of course I'm not saying that showing Charles' abused childhood (and it's canon in the comics btw...Erik was abused in the camps, Charles was abused inside his own home, so they could have showed it too) would be necessary in the film to gather more sympathy to his side of the story, but showing him as perfect man without one single problem in his life (not even with his powers! He was a brilliant telepath even as a child, it was like "yeah I can read minds, big deal") made the whole audience gravitate towards Erik, even when he was doing despicable things. That's a fact; people in general could care less about perfect and well-resolved characters. They want the conflict and that bit of sadness they can identify themselves with.

So regarding Charles they are leaving everything that would make him more "real" or "valid" for the sequel. Let's see.

[Nerial]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

We haven't seen much of Charles as a child, but in that kitchen scene he doesn't really give an impression of an abused or scared kid. More than anything, he seems to be kinda like a miniature version of Charles as an adult - extremely confident, comfortable with his powers, instinctively taking charge. I know that his remark about how his mother would have never made him a hot chocolate unless she could get a maid to do it makes his mother sound like a chilly type, but then we are talking about a rich upperclass family in the 40s while looking at it through the modern lense. How many mothers - even loving ones - of that particular class in that particular time *would* realistically have gone to the kitchen and made their sons hot chocolate?


I definitely get an impression at times that some people take Charles' privileged upbringing against him, but on the other hand, I don't find it necessary for Charles to have had an abused/sad/screwed up childhood to somehow make his character more "valid", like there's a competition going on and Charles needs something to put up against Erik's horrible childhood trauma.

I completely agree with this. I think it's the viewers problem if they think Charles isn't valid just because he had a healthy upbringing; in fact, usually people with healthy upbringings are the ones that are healthy adults (I'm not talking spoiled brats--that's not healthy, either. And Charles was never a spoiled brat).


Just because you had a good childhood doesn't mean you can't have problems to face as an adult that are horrible. Charles' disability will be a struggle for him, and yes, (Loganbabe, you know this), I will be disinterested in any sequel that skips over this part of his life as he learns to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Loganbabe

Well, unfortunately a lot of people - even Vaughn himself, he made it quite clear in the extras - kind of use Charles' upbringing against him. It's like he would never be "right" about anything anyway. What does a pampered, rich white boy know about life?

I particularly don't think that having a screwed up childhood would make Charles more valid as a character. The problem is that the film is made in a way that he would never be "valid" when confronted with Erik's view of the world. I'm talking about personal experience with my friends who watched the movie, about the things I read in forums, etc. A lot of people dismiss everything about Charles and what he's on about - he's just a rich guy, he's a playboy, he was mean to Raven (?), he was mean to Erik because he didn't "stay by his side" (???). I think this is screwed up but that's the way it is. That's how the film was built - Erik's opinion had meaning, Charles' didn't.

Of course I'm not saying that showing Charles' abused childhood (and it's canon in the comics btw...Erik was abused in the camps, Charles was abused inside his own home, so they could have showed it too) would be necessary in the film to gather more sympathy to his side of the story, but showing him as perfect man without one single problem in his life (not even with his powers! He was a brilliant telepath even as a child, it was like "yeah I can read minds, big deal") made the whole audience gravitate towards Erik, even when he was doing despicable things. That's a fact; people in general could care less about perfect and well-resolved characters. They want the conflict and that bit of sadness they can identify themselves with.

So regarding Charles they are leaving everything that would make him more "real" or "valid" for the sequel. Let's see.

No, I think that a lot of fan boys just like Erik better, and like to side with Erik. I like that, in the end, Charles was wrong because it gave validity to Erik's cause, but also showed how good a person Charles is as he still refused to side with Erik. I'm hoping, in the sequel, that Charles is proven right about his views in some way, showing this issue is not as black and white as Erik wishes it to be.

I have heard Vaughn say once that he thought Charles was a boring character, and how happy he was that James McAvoy made him interesting. And as much as I hate to admit it, he's right. Charles, in the comics, has always played the spiritual guide, with no real flaws to his character--the monk of the X-men and happy to be that way. The writers (and James, I believe) added some much needed spice to his character, making him a playboy and not the person we later see as the leader of the X-men. Charles in the comics was boring because he never went on that hero's journey; he started it in XM:FC, and it needs to come full circle as Erik's has.

As for comics versus movies...I don't think it's fair to compare the two. In this movie universe, Charles is not abused. He's also not bald as a teenager, or disabled as a much older man (by an alien who crushes his legs with a boulder, I might add).

In the movie, he also has more richness to his character, and time to develop into the Charles we see in the later movies. It's because of XM:FC that Charles is now my favorite X-men character. And honestly, I like to think that his childhood was a happy one because, (as horrible as it sounds), it will make the reality of his disability that much harder to deal with as he has never faced something this tragic in his life. Making him have a bad childhood does not deepen his character for me, and I doubt it will make any Erik fans sympathize with Charles more just because of it.

[henzINNIT]

A troubled home life would be a great facet to Charles' history. It would have enhanced the bond between X and Mystique as children, and added more depth to Mystique's line "I always thought it would be me and you against the world.."

I wouldn't mind seeing something like that come up in this sequel. Hell, go all out with the backstory and include Cain Marko. The Juggernaught returns as the central villain of the film, and we see Charles' past through that. This character would provide a great role for Charles in the last act, as his power to control minds would be the only thing that could touch Juggs.

Charles resolving his history would brilliantly complement the first film where Eric faced his. Thematically Charles and Juggs are closely linked as well. Play the drama of Charles' physical limitations off against his rival step-brother, who has just experienced unlimited physical power.

Eric would come in as Juggs would obviously want the technology in Magneto's helmet. Damn this film is writing itself lol

[RachelDawes]

I hope Charles isn't revealed as having had substantial childhood trauma. I'm tired of that superhero cliche and I'd much rather see him as a well-adjusted individual who's encountered his first major obstacle in his paralysis.

[Nerial]

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

I hope Charles isn't revealed as having had substantial childhood trauma. I'm tired of that superhero cliche and I'd much rather see him as a well-adjusted individual who's encountered his first major obstacle in his paralysis.

Total agreement! And a great point--I'm sick of the traumatized childhood angle also.

Why can't he suffer a tragedy later in life? Being shot in the back and paralyzed when he's in his late twenties is still something he has to deal with that's pretty stinkin' huge.

[Nerial]

Originally Posted by henzINNIT

A troubled home life would be a great facet to Charles' history. It would have enhanced the bond between X and Mystique as children, and added more depth to Mystique's line "I always thought it would be me and you against the world.."

I wouldn't mind seeing something like that come up in this sequel. Hell, go all out with the backstory and include Cain Marko. The Juggernaught returns as the central villain of the film, and we see Charles' past through that. This character would provide a great role for Charles in the last act, as his power to control minds would be the only thing that could touch Juggs.

Charles resolving his history would brilliantly complement the first film where Eric faced his. Thematically Charles and Juggs are closely linked as well. Play the drama of Charles' physical limitations off against his rival step-brother, who has just experienced unlimited physical power.

Eric would come in as Juggs would obviously want the technology in Magneto's helmet. Damn this film is writing itself lol

I get trying to stay with the comic angle, but it almost becomes a plot hole when you show in XM:FC that Charles has a happy childhood, and then in a sequel, that--no--he actually didn't and he also has a crazy step brother that's never mentioned until that crazy brother is needed as a plot device.

It kind of reminds me of Uncle Ben in Spider-Man 1, being shot and Peter avenges him within ten minutes. Then, in Spider-Man 3, they make the Sandman the "real killer" and go through the whole grieving process again despite the fact that the conflict had been addressed and wrapped up in the first movie. It diminished the conflict from the first movie for the third's plot device. No thanks.

[Mrs Vimes]

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

I hope Charles isn't revealed as having had substantial childhood trauma. I'm tired of that superhero cliche and I'd much rather see him as a well-adjusted individual who's encountered his first major obstacle in his paralysis.

I totally agree here 100%.

Originally Posted by Nerial

No, I think that a lot of fan boys just like Erik better, and like to side with Erik.

That's how I'd sum this up as well.

I think that in the end, Erik's story just has more dramatic appeal for many people (including the writers), and many viewers would still gravitate to him more regardless of whether or not you gave Charles more conflict or problems in FC. A good guy turning into a super-villain while seeking revenge from a man who killed his mother and tortured him? Hard to get more dramatic than that.

I also think that many people would find Erik's response to the human/mutant conflict much more appealing emotionally. We humans have this primal desire to strike out against those who've wronged us - that's why revenge stories will never lose their appeal.

Personally, I prefer not to look at Erik and Charles in terms of which character was better off and who got what, but rather on their relationship as a whole. And I think that the way both characters were written made for a great study in contrasts and conflicts and two wildly different characters playing off each other.

Originally Posted by Nerial

In the movie, he also has more richness to his character, and time to develop into the Charles we see in the later movies.

Yes, exactly. I thought that the whole point of Charles' characterisation in FC was to show him as he was before he turns into a wise selfless leader. So yes, he's a bit arrogant and privileged and naive in some regards and doesn't know life's hard realities yet and makes mistakes with people, and that's what makes his character interesting. Of course many people won't think of it this way and will just tend to dismiss him or think that he comes off weak against Erik, but, well, whatever the filmmakers' intentions are people will interpret things in wildly different ways, and that's ok.

[Loganbabe]

Originally Posted by Nerial

Just because you had a good childhood doesn't mean you can't have problems to face as an adult that are horrible. Charles' disability will be a struggle for him, and yes, (Loganbabe, you know this), I will be disinterested in any sequel that skips over this part of his life as he learns to deal with it.

The "bad childhood angle" will not be used anyway. I know that; it was just an example as how they could've given Charles some conflict, and it's canon - it wouldn't be like the filmmakers went "oh Charles needs some issues in his life as well, let's give him some childhood abuse", and totally invent it. But like I said, it wasn't used and it won't be used, period.

The whole point is - First Class was supposed to be a Charles and Erik story, but it was only a "Erik-turning-into-Magneto" story, and Charles was there just to give validation to the other character - like he was just used to give Erik validation. I love the film but I'll always resent this. Because it's obvious that if they wanted to make a Charles-and-Erik story they could have made one. In the end, we know nothing about Charles - about how he dealt with his power, about why he decided to help people, about his relationship with his family. We get glimpses here and there but then the story has to rush to catch up with the resolution of Erik's conflicts. So why didn't they go ahead with the Magneto - Origins idea, if they were only interested in his story anyway?

Now they say that second film will be heavily focused on Charles. I somehow doubt it, and from interviews I understand that James is extremely cautious as well. He would love to explore Charles' conflicts, of course; he said that Vaughn had some good ideas and all. All very nice, but we know that movies don't really work this way. I remember reading the very early articles and interviews as soon as FC was announced, and from them I got the idea that Charles would be the main focus of the story. James was the first actor cast; there were all those talkings about telepathic battles and Charles' intense relationship with Moira and and blah blah blah. So I was really surprised when I saw the first trailer and there were almost only Magneto scenes - to the point they had to hurry and release a Charles' clip, because otherwise people would think Fox had gone ahead and made a Magneto - Origins after all.

So yeah, we all would love to see "Charles dealing with his paralysis" getting some focus, James more than anyone else. But it's all an early talk, and it can change - and change a lot. James is a pro and he's contractually obligated to make the second film, so he'll do it regardless of what happens to Charles in the sequel. So maybe one or two fans will be disappointed if it all turns to be another Magneto story, but if there's a lot of action and the Brotherhood exploding stuff, a whole lot of other fans and regular viewers will be pleased as well, and maybe the sequel will make even more money, and Fox will be happy. Anything can happen, really.

No, I think that a lot of fan boys just like Erik better, and like to side with Erik. I like that, in the end, Charles was wrong because it gave validity to Erik's cause, but also showed how good a person Charles is as he still refused to side with Erik. I'm hoping, in the sequel, that Charles is proven right about his views in some way, showing this issue is not as black and white as Erik wishes it to be.

It was not only about the fanboys. Obviously, the majority of fanboys will always prefer Magneto over Professor X - I have no doubts about it. But the general audience never had the chance to spent enough time with Charles to understand his point of view and sympathize with him. Or maybe they simply sympathized with this idea of a drunk playboy using bad pick up lines on pubs - this is exactly what a friend of mine who's not a X-Men fangirl and was totally "Team Erik" by the end of the film told me - that was Charles to her. It was like the character had no substance. And I really think that if not for a stupendous actor like McAvoy giving him depth just by the way he used his voice, or the way he expressed inner feelings with his eyes, Charles would be almost like a curious nullity.

And please don't get me wrong, I loved Drunk!Playboy!Charles. The early scenes were a blast. But as the story progresses, we expect to learn more about the character and to understand his side of the story too, and we get nothing. That is, we get what James offers us, but as an actor he was limited by the script. He did what he could.

I have heard Vaughn say once that he thought Charles was a boring character, and how happy he was that James McAvoy made him interesting. And as much as I hate to admit it, he's right. Charles, in the comics, has always played the spiritual guide, with no real flaws to his character--the monk of the X-men and happy to be that way. The writers (and James, I believe) added some much needed spice to his character, making him a playboy and not the person we later see as the leader of the X-men. Charles in the comics was boring because he never went on that hero's journey; he started it in XM:FC, and it needs to come full circle as Erik's has.

I agree. But the problem is, I don't think that it's the character who is boring - it's the writers who are lazy, or not creative enough. In the movies, for instance - it seems he was considered a deus ex-machina, so they just removed him from the action. His powers were never fully explored and his personality was oblitared - he was just a zen guy giving zen lessons to his students.

I really expected FC to change this. And they tried by giving him the playboy traits and plenty of charm, which was lovely and quite daring, but then they stopped. Once again Charles' personality, his ideals, his moral questionings about the use/misuse of his power, etc, were all put aside because it seems that the writers and the director couldn't deal with two strong main characters at the same time. Sad.

So, my one and only expectation is if Second Class will change this. It's a 50/50, I think. This is why I'm just half optmistic about it.

In the movie, he also has more richness to his character, and time to develop into the Charles we see in the later movies. It's because of XM:FC that Charles is now my favorite X-men character.

I understand that some people are more interested in Charles after FC. Erik's fans wouldn't change their mind, of course, but that's not the point. I think that some people have the sensibility to understand Charles' situation and sympathize with him. I just think he could have been more explored and explained, as a character - in the movie itself, and not just in the imagination of a few viewers.

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Nerial

I get trying to stay with the comic angle, but it almost becomes a plot hole when you show in XM:FC that Charles has a happy childhood, and then in a sequel, that--no--he actually didn't and he also has a crazy step brother that's never mentioned until that crazy brother is needed as a plot device.

It kind of reminds me of Uncle Ben in Spider-Man 1, being shot and Peter avenges him within ten minutes. Then, in Spider-Man 3, they make the Sandman the "real killer" and go through the whole grieving process again despite the fact that the conflict had been addressed and wrapped up in the first movie. It diminished the conflict from the first movie for the third's plot device. No thanks.

I greatly dislike the plot hole in SM3, but I don't think that would necessarily compare. I don't think Xavier's past was shown to be anything beyond "priviledged", and while he is clearly a well-adjusted adult, it doesn't mean he had a perfect childhood.
I agree that giving him some dark and haunted past wouldn't sit right, nor would it feel particularly fresh in the genre. There's more subtle ways to add texture to the character that I wouldn't mind, and a complicated relationship with a sibling has some legs as a story and as a nod to the comics. I never really considered re-attempting Juggernaught before, however he is an ideal candidate for a foe that provides a physical threat as well as some personal conflict.

[Godzilla2000]

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

I hope Charles isn't revealed as having had substantial childhood trauma. I'm tired of that superhero cliche and I'd much rather see him as a well-adjusted individual who's encountered his first major obstacle in his paralysis.

You know, I don't think that Charles would have a violent childhood trauma, but it's pretty clear that maybe his parents are rather disaffected by his existence. With Raven he found himself a lonely soul whom he could find some kind of connection with.

[Loganbabe]

^ Exactly. No need to go the "childhood trauma" route to give the character a little bit more of background. When Raven said "you and me against the world", it had some hidden meaning, an interesting angle that could have been explored. But as with the majority of all things Charles, it never was.

[X-Maniac]

Seriously, folks, giving Xavier a 'bad childhood' is such a terrible idea.

Xavier is who he is because he didn't have the trauma that Erik had.

Erik is who he is because he did have that trauma.

Their younger years define them as characters. Never mind the comics, what we saw in First Class showed Charles as having a privileged upbringing with no struggles or suffering, although he was likely a bit lonely. That loneliness, as indicated when Raven says she is his only friend, would also have been a factor in him training his powers by reaching out with his mind. But he wouldn't have suffered in being lonely, he simply immersed himself in studying.

Charles has never seen/experienced terrible things, so he doesn't understand rage, bitterness and revenge - the things that consumed Erik because his father was herded into the gas chambers, his mother shot before his eyes and himself experimented on for years.

Erik was shaped by those events that happened to him at the evil heart of the Nazi Holocaust, just as Charles was shaped to be more naive, trusting, benevolent, idealistic and cushioned from the worst of the world.

As for Charles getting sidelined, well in fact there are details missing in both of their lives. We don't know what happened to Erik between the opening scene and the scene set in Austria nearly 20 years later. Apart from a mental flashback showing experimentation, we don't know what occurred in all that time.

In Charles' case, we don't know what happened to his parents. We have to assume they are dead as they are no longer at that mansion. That could be addressed in the sequel - the students could ask that question: "So what happened to your parents?" or, having seen a photo on a desk, ask "Are those your parents?", to which Charles could explain "They're both gone, many years ago. If I hadn't met Raven…" and the response (from whomever asked) "Well, you've got us now."

I don't think we need to add a nasty bullying Cain Marko to the childhood backstory.

I'm not opposed to seeing Juggernaut again but the source of his resentment of Charles should be something else - maybe Charles' father acquired the family wealth in some way (work or inheritance related) that Juggernaut would see as an injustice because he perceives that it deprived his own family of that wealth. Or maybe he is a stepbrother who Xavier has never previously met and who feels he should be in that mansion. It will of course beg the question as to why Juggernaut gave no hint of the family link in The Last Stand, so it will feel like retconning.

[RachelDawes]

Originally Posted by Loganbabe

^ Exactly. No need to go the "childhood trauma" route to give the character a little bit more of background. When Raven said "you and me against the world", it had some hidden meaning, an interesting angle that could have been explored. But as with the majority of all things Charles, it never was.

There was too much already going on in the movie to really focus on Charles's presumably unhappy childhood. It may not have been wise, anyway. Any suffering Charles experienced as a kid would have paled compared to Erik's trauma.

I'd rather not have some sob story attached to Charles. Whatever loneliness or pain he felt as a kid, he used it to turn himself into kinder, more compassionate adult. I'm comfortable with that.

[The Morningstar]

Charles not having a brilliant childhood was hinted at with a single piece of dialogue. Where he said his mother wouldn't be in the kitchen, hinting that she is one of those rich parents who has nannies and careers doing all the parenting etc.

You don't need more than that. It was a natural piece of dialogue that lets the audience think about it for themselves.

[Mrs Vimes]

Originally Posted by Loganbabe

It was not only about the fanboys. Obviously, the majority of fanboys will always prefer Magneto over Professor X - I have no doubts about it. But the general audience never had the chance to spent enough time with Charles to understand his point of view and sympathize with him.

Well, thing is that for most of the movie, Charles' ideals are not yet fully formed - or rather, they're too naive and untested and it might be hard for the audience to get behind a character whose view of the world is so obviously going to turn out so so wrong.

Plus I'm not sure what there is to understand, or explain, about Charles' point of view - there's nothing too complicated for the general audience about it. If people are not sympathising with his point of view, it's far more likely because the events of the film make it look like Erik's pessimistic view is the more correct one.

And honestly, I think that most of the general public are not heading out to a comic book movie looking for moral dilemmas and explorations of characters' ideals. They'll side with the character for nothing more complicated than because they think he's cool or attractive. You can't make an audience love a character more by having them spend more time with him.

And I don't think that Charles' desire to help people really needs to be explained - to me it felt like an intrinsic part of his personality, something he just does without thinking, out of his natural paternal instincts. His early scene with Raven is already a demonstration of that.

I also think that it's incorrect to call First Class just "Erik's story" or "Erik and Charles story", because really the main story of the film is the wider picture - the Shaw/Cuba conflict and the emerging conflict between humans and the mutants. It's not a character piece about Erik and Charles. Yes Erik and Charles are main characters - but whatever we see of both characters is tailored to fit into the main plot and it's an extremely fast-paced plot too. For instance, we get to see what happens to Erik's mother and his relationship with her - but if I remember right both of his parents were in the camps and we never get to see Erik's father or what Erik's relationship with him was or what happened to him.

Oh and in regards to his relationship with Raven, I thought that meeting her was special to Charles because he finally met another mutant - someone like him who was different. When Raven talks about them "being against the world", I thought it was pretty obvious that she's talking about their mutanthood and how it sets them apart from the world, and her frustration of how Charles wants to fit into the world no matter how bad it gets. I don't see why it needs any extra angle.

Originally Posted by Loganbabe

And I really think that if not for a stupendous actor like McAvoy giving him depth just by the way he used his voice, or the way he expressed inner feelings with his eyes, Charles would be almost like a curious nullity.

Mmmm but I don't see how you can divide a character from an actor who plays him. What an actor brings to a part -is- the character, and character development is never just about the writing or an "arc" or conflicts or whatever.

Plus I remember reading an interview with the XMFC writers where they talked about how they enjoyed the challenge of exploring Charles' flaws because he is such a fundamentally good character. And Charles in this movie, even apart from James' wonderful performance, does have way more layers than he ever had in an X-Men movie. Of course it might sail over the heads of many people, but then you gotta admit that Charles is not what you'd call a conventional main character in a comic book movie. And honestly, I've seen tons of positive comments about Charles, and not just from character fans or forum posters; it's not like negative feedback is all that matters.

[Loganbabe]

Originally Posted by Mrs Vimes

Well, thing is that for most of the movie, Charles' ideals are not yet fully formed - or rather, they're too naive and untested and it might be hard for the audience to get behind a character whose view of the world is so obviously going to turn out so so wrong.

Charles is not "naive". How can a telepath be naive? He knows enough of the human mind to understand that there's good and bad in everyone. He's optimist, which is different. He's always hopeful that doing good is much more constructive - even when you have to use some of your rage to achieve things, but not be guided only by it. Charles is quite wise, he's not a misguided idiot. But yeah, his partnership with Erik taught him some new (hard) lessons, and opened his eyes a little more. Actually, one of the things I really like about FC Charles is how malleable he is, how he can sculpt his ideals and change and improve them - he learned a lot from his mistakes, while Erik was always too blinded by rage to try and learn from his.

And I don't see where Charles' vision turns to be "so wrong". If you're talking about one situation - the ships firing the missiles - yes he was wrong. But you're talking about his general view of the world, and his peaceful ideals - well, Charles achieved a whole lot of things, while in the end Erik achieved nothing. So I don't know what's so wrong about his view of the world.

If people are not sympathising with his point of view, it's far more likely because the events of the film make it look like Erik's pessimistic view is the more correct one.

Again, I don't see how Erik's view is the "correct" one. He was correct about the humans turning against them - but that particular group of humans. But he wasn't right about humanity as a whole. Agreeing with Erik's view is agreeing that there should be a "final solution". Well, I can't find anything more wrong than this.

And honestly, I think that most of the general public are not heading out to a comic book movie looking for moral dilemmas and explorations of characters' ideals. They'll side with the character for nothing more complicated than because they think he's cool or attractive. You can't make an audience love a character more by having them spend more time with him.

Sorry, but no...this is belittling a whole lot of people. Of course, many will go and watch a film just to see explosions and cool effects and characters kicking ass, and FC had his share of mindless fun, seeing it's, after all, a so-called "summer popcorn movie". But the X-Men always aimed to be a bit more intriguing and challenging than mere fun, and the film found an audience eager to deal with more "adult" or "difficult" themes. So it was quite clear in all the marketing they did for FC that a good part of the story would be based on that moral clash between Charles and Erik. So yes, it was important to give both characters the same amount of focus - this, in movies, is generally translated into "more screen time" and good lines.

I also think that it's incorrect to call First Class just "Erik's story" or "Erik and Charles story", because really the main story of the film is the wider picture - the Shaw/Cuba conflict and the emerging conflict between humans and the mutants.

I see it as the Shaw/Cuba conflict being in service of the Charles and Erik story - or in FC case, mainly Erik's story - and not the opposite. But maybe it's just me.

Anyway, you always disagree with every little thing I say here, so I guess we saw the same movie through two radically opposed POVs. It happens.

[Mrs Vimes]

Originally Posted by Loganbabe

Charles is not "naive". How can a telepath be naive? He knows enough of the human mind to understand that there's good and bad in everyone.

I've seen an argument that Charles can't be naive because he's a telepath many times, but I don't really find it convincing (and I am talking specifically about Charles in First Class). For one thing, it just seems to contradict the film itself - if Charles is so well versed in human nature, why is he not more cautious about dealing with the CIA and why is he not even considering the possibility that the humans could betray them?

And regardless of whether you have telepathy or not, your knowledge of the people will depend a lot on your environment. We don't know of course what Charles did in between growing up at the mansion and Oxford, but he may just never have been around particularly bad people; if he went from a secluded life in a mansion to a quiet academic life at Oxford that's not exactly rolling with the dregs. And while Charles is a telepath, it doesn't look like he's constantly bombarded with other people's innermost thoughts and emotions, he reads people's minds when -he- wants to. How often he does it is anyone's guess, but that might not necessarily make him an expert on human mind.

Originally Posted by Loganbabe

And I don't see where Charles' vision turns to be "so wrong". If you're talking about one situation - the ships firing the missiles - yes he was wrong.

Yes, I was specifically talking about the situation in Cuba, and that Charles was naive to think that, if they prevented World War III and risked their lives, it would put them on humans' good side. And of course it wouldn't have meant that *all* of humanity would have turned against them - but two of the most important human governments in the world have done so for sure.

Of course I admire Charles' optimism and I back his view. But I think that, after Cuba, Charles' optimism is tempered by caution and he clearly knows that human/mutant coexistence is going to be much harder to achieve than what he'd believed previously. Whereas his earlier blind optimism, which was unchecked by the reality, does feel a lot more naive, and I think that to some people Erik's pessimism does come off as more realistic. Again, speaking strictly about the events of FC.

Originally Posted by Loganbabe

Sorry, but no...this is belittling a whole lot of people. Of course, many will go and watch a film just to see explosions and cool effects and characters kicking ass, and FC had his share of mindless fun, seeing it's, after all, a so-called "summer popcorn movie".

Oh no I didn't mean to say it in a belittling sense. But these movies are, after all, popcorn movies and their main purpose is to entertain - and again I don't mean that as a demeaning term because I don't think there's anything wrong with a popcorn movie or enjoying a popcorn movie.

[The Original Bamfer]

Dear Lord, McAvoy's Xavier was just as brilliant as Fassbender's Magneto. It was their story, not "mainly" Magneto's. Their characters were both developed extremely well, and as characters do in their successful arcs, they learned lessons. Charles is naive in his belief that mutants and humans can coexist in the given setting. Geniuses can be naive... like, oh, I don't know, Beast, for example? But Charles wasn't shafted in the least in this film. He was portrayed as fully and as brilliantly as, I think, possible. It was evident that he was probably emotionally neglected as a child. And even if he did have a bullying brother, it wouldn't provide hardships near to that of what Erik experienced. The fact that they were in such different positions as children is what shaped their personas and, ultimately, their friendship. If we're going to play around with the weak story of Cain being Charles' brother, I'd much rather see a version where Charles was the over-powering one; forcing Cain to do things against his will, putting him in the position to get in trouble with his parents, etc, until Charles leaves for school, where Caine develops his late-blooming mutant abilities, therefor seeking revenge on Charles. It would show the manipulative side of Charles and also give Caine a real motive for revenge. Otherwise, I'd rather not delve more into Charles' past. It's not that interesting, and including some tragic event (which, by the way, isn't being bullied,) to make him more tortured would be ridiculous. His reasonably-favorable upbringing in the film was used as contrast to Erik's, and really only served humor purposes in the film.

[Godzilla2000]

I found this in my recommended videos on Youtube and I thought you guys might enjoy watching it.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Nerial]

Hello, everyone. I hope I don't get beaten to a pulp for posting here, but I think some Charles fans (and also Erik fans) might like this, so bear with me...

I've just finished an X-men fan fiction that is a sequel to X-men: First Class. It is not AU (well, not until the actual sequel comes out in 2014 or so), and it is not slash.

I am posting this story, chapter-by-chapter, on fanfiction.net (currently, only chapter 1 is posted, but the story is finished; other chapters will be posted soon). Here is the link: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7979076/1/Xmen_World_of_Gray

I will not post the story on the forums, but I just wanted to let the fans know it's there, in case they needed a little X-men: First Class fix.

X-men: World of Gray (Back-Cover Summary):

Six months after Cuba, and Professor Charles Xavier seems to be thriving. His mansion is being renovated—soon to become a school for "gifted" youngsters. Hank McCoy is re-designing the blueprints for Cerebro. The threat of nuclear war has been brushed aside like a bad dream.

Unfortunately, things only look pleasant on the surface.

Magneto and his new brotherhood of mutants have plans of their own. Just like Charles, their first goal is to seek out others like them. Their purpose, however, is far more terrifying than ever imagined—to create a mutant army capable of out-matching any resistance the human race might provide.

And soon, Magneto's brotherhood will discover there's only one person with the ability to create such an army for their needs…

…Charles.

Primary Characters:
1) Charles Xavier, 2) Erik Lehnsherr

Secondary Characters:
1) Moira MacTaggert, 2) Hank McCoy, 3) Raven Darkholme (Mystique), 4) Azazel, 5) Riptide, 6) Emma Frost, 7) Alex Summers, 8) Sean Cassidy, 9) Angel

Not AU—this story fits directly into the X-men movie universe between X-men: First Class and the original X-men movie.

Complete: I will post a new chapter on a regular basis on fanfiction.net

Rating: This is a solid "T" rating. There is minor language, darker tones, violence, sexual content, and character angst.

*This is not a slash story, but it definitely dives into Charles and Erik's complex relationship and opposing philosophies. It's the main reason I decided to write this piece in the first place. Also, there is a lot of information about spinal cord injury that I hope will give Charles' condition deeper realism.

If you're interested, check it out on fanfiction.net. Chapters will be posted on a regular basis. Thanks!

[Slushy]

I still can't believe Mr. Tumnus played young Professor X.

[Loganbabe]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I still can't believe Mr. Tumnus played young Professor X.

Huh...why?

Originally Posted by Nerial

I will not post the story on the forums, but I just wanted to let the fans know it's there, in case they needed a little X-men: First Class fix.

And what a great fix it is!

[Bruce Malone]

Okay hair wise are we gonna see signs of balding or are we going straight chrome dome?

It was semi-funny in the first movie how xavier actually looked to have a healthier hair line than magneto.

Unless prof.x has some radiation poisoning at some point in his life we should start seeing him balding.