Marvel Films MCU X-Men - Part 4

[Lip]

Besides the already mentioned Mystique in the Black Widow movie, we could also see En Sabah Nur and/or Selene in The Eternals, given the idea of exploring the history of the MCU.

 

[Marvel united]

Man, I'm on lunch break right now and rewatching the Avengers: Endgame trailer and the sheer weight and investment I have in these people, makes the trailer very emotional for me. What Marvel has accomplished with this movie is basically the epitomization of why I want to see the X-Men be properly developed in the MCU from the beginning like the Avengers were instead of skipping straight into their prime like Singer did in X1. That's why I'm so vehemently against the idea of an X-Men team showing up in the MCU that's been around since before the Avengers formed or even Spider-Man (Since Spidey and the X-Men WERE peers in the comics)

I still strongly maintain we need to see this:



BEFORE we see this:




And then later on, this

What Endgame has accomplished is what I want for the X-Men. I want to be invested in these characters and care about them, we should feel like we know Cyclops and Jean and Storm. When/if something like Dark Phoenix ever happens again, it should elicit the same response this Avengers trailer is eliciting from millions of people. Many of the people who are MCU fans now, literally grew up with these characters. And to see this being advertised as the end is very emotional for a lot of people. We NEED that for the X-Men in the MCU and we NEED proper character development. Otherwise, the whole thing loses what makes the MCU so great in the first place which is serialized storytelling and the hero's journey. And it's what the Singer films continually fail at. That is why nobody cares about Dark Phoenix/This version of Jean Grey.. Feige has to do this right and he will. The X-Men being positioned to become the next generation of heroes in the MCU

 

[Frankeh]

I want to be invested and care about these characters too, but they don't need to be introduced as kids for that. Character development is not restricted to watching them age on screen. It's all about writing.

 

[Lip]

I just want to see them as soon as possible.

 

[Marvel united]

I want to be invested and care about these characters too, but they don't need to be introduced as kids for that. Character development is not restricted to watching them age on screen. It's all about writing.

Age, for characters whom age is relevant to their stories, is part of that development. Just like Stark being trapped in a cave- Spider-Man being a HS kid in his early stories matters, ditto for X-Men. And the X-Men were kids/young adults for a long time, even in Giant Sized. Jean was like 19-20 years old. Scott was the same age.

Btw - Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson) loved the X-Men comics growing up. Particularly Nightcrawler and Iceman.


Love the way Bendis handled the character in Ultimate Spider-Man, I could see Marvel doing something similar by having Bobby go to Midtown with Peter.

 

[EnDz0n3]

That Dark Phoenix delay is such a double-edged sword.

On one hand, I'm thinking "we told you so" about hiring a hack to helm the X-men, this is what you get: delay after delay, excuse after endless excuses. Funny in a sad kind of way.

On the other I kinda want the movie to come and go. Let the chips fall as they may, Chastain could be the greatest villain of all, who cares, she's playing a nobody. Turner could be a good redheaded character who comes with a Phoenix Raptor. Release it NOW, streaming, dollar theatre, FX, IMAX so we can get on with The X-men.

 

[ciscostudent561]

a few of those suits were cool marvel united

 

[Lip]

That Dark Phoenix delay is such a double-edged sword.

I'm praying to be released it online. For New Mutants I don't think there's any hope. Apparently they haven't even gone through reshoots. Hopefully both can be released on streaming service.

But I still feel like we're going to see mutants before the first X-Men movie. I feel (and hope) they'll be popping up everywhere in the MCU.

 

[Marvel united]

They will hopefully release it to Disney+ That would be a great marketing tool for Disney's streaming service. "Catch the epic conclusion of the legacy of films that started 19 years ago in X-Men (2000). 'DARK PHOENIX': See the world premiere exclusively on Disney+"

a few of those suits were cool marvel united

I love the second one but I'd make the blue more vibrant.

 

[Frankeh]

Age, for characters whom age is relevant to their stories, is part of that development. Just like Stark being trapped in a cave- Spider-Man being a HS kid in his early stories matters, ditto for X-Men.

In that case, we might have to set movies in WWII, to cover Magneto's development, also to cover Xavier's childhood and his relationship with his brother Cain Marko, we'd have to follow Scott Summers since he was a kid so we can cover the plane accident, the hospital, the orphanage, also Jean Grey's childhood and the death of her friend, also Ororo losing her parents in plane accident before moving to Cairo and becoming a street urchin...

...

Yikes. When do we get to the X-Men?

 

[Marvel united]

Whew, finally got off work. I can type out the long-winded, indepth response I wanted to earlier.

In that case, we might have to set movies in WWII, to cover Magneto's development, also to cover Xavier's childhood and his relationship with his brother Cain Marko, we'd have to follow Scott Summers since he was a kid so we can cover the plane accident, the hospital, the orphanage, also Jean Grey's childhood and the death of her friend, also Ororo losing her parents in plane accident before moving to Cairo and becoming a street urchin...

Was there a 40 issue comic run centered around Scott's life in the orphanage, Jean's car accident and her coma, Ororo being trapped under rubble and roaming around Kenya, all of which Chronologically preceded them joining the X-Men? Is that when we met these characters? Is that who/what they were introduced to the world as? Because if that was the case, you would have a good point with this strawman fallacy.

...
Yikes. When do we get to the X-Men?

I think a better question to ask would be: "When do we get the version of the X-Men I want?" And the answer to that question is: when the X-Men get to that point. Let them grow into the 90s Claremont stuff. You have to run before you leap. Even Captain Marvel is going to be an origin story albeit done in a different way. Carol Danvers in that movie, does not even start out as Captain Marvel but as Kree soldier called "Vers" created by Starforce

It's just not realistic to expect Marvel Studios to do this in the very first movie of what is going to be a franchise that spans 10-13 years. .



Run before you leap is the philosophy that has defined Marvel Studios for 11 years at this point. This is why Endgame is hitting people so hard right now. This is why people CARE when Stark sends the message to Pepper and we see imagery that is symbolic of when Tony was trapped in the cave 10 years ago. Or when Steve is looking at the old locket of Peggy from the 1940s. We see these things and we remember the same way Cap/Tony do; we feel the same swell of emotion that the character feels because we experienced it WITH them. We didn't hear about Cap going into the ice 10 years ago prior to his debut, we didn't get it in some lame flashback or T'Challa's father being killed 15 years ago, before his appearance in Civil War. This Is why, the X-Men when they debut, they will be fresh. Not people who have been around longer than Marvel's staple franchise operating in the shadows like some black ops SWAT group.. OR, washed up 35 year old heroes who formed 17 years ago (before IM1) when they were kids and are just now getting back into the swing of things because of mutants "coming out of the shadows" (which in itself makes zero sense in relation to what a "mutant" is).

I'll bet my right pinky that when the X-Men debut in the MCU, they will be young, and nowhere near as experienced as the Avengers. They will follow the same formula as the Avengers and every other MCU franchise and start at or close to the beginning of the team's formation. Xavier's First Class.

On a side note- this is also part of the reason why DC failed. They tried to rush into the Justice League movie without properly establishing their characters. They did the exact opposite of what Marvel did and are doing, by planting the seeds FIRST and then growing the tree.



And in all actuality, if you wanna be even more faithful to the comics, you make the X-Men in the same age group as Spider-Man. Because technically... Peter Parker and Scott & Jean were the same age in the first 30 years of publication history for both franchises. They both were taking HS classes at the same time (early 60s) and then they were both College kids at the same time (early to mid 70s). And then they aged out of that group again in the 80s. Peter got married to MJ in the late 80s, in Amazing Annuel #20 If I remember correctly.

Mark Miller acknowledged this when he wrote Ultimate X-Men and had Spidey growing up alongside the X-Men. But that's going by the comic timeline. Everybody wants to stay faithful, more faithful than the Fox movies, so why not fully commit?

 

[Lip]

Here's my experience with the X-Men:

The X-Men were introduced to me when I was 4 years old through the 90's Animated Series. It was back when I didn't even know how to read. After that, I remember having a Mega Drive game of the X-Men. Then, when I was 10, the first X-Men movie came out. Short after came X-Men evolution. It was only after all that that I started reading comics. And I would be lying if I said I started linearly. It was all over the place. I started with the 90's and early 2000's, then back to the 80's and 70's, then 90's again... it was all over the place.

So, through my experiece with the X-Men, they were mostly portrayed as adults, with the exception of Evolution or the recent X-Men movies. That's how they were introduced to me, that's how I know them.

I won't be mad if Marvel decides to go through a similar path the recent FOX movies took and bring the X-Men to the MCU as teenagers/young adults. But if I had to choose, I'd rather adults. However the most important thing and what I truly want it's just getting those characters right and respecting each of them. That's what will make this fanboy happy.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Was there a 40 issue comic run centered around Scott's life in the orphanage, Jean's car accident and her coma, Ororo being trapped under rubble and roaming around Kenya, all of which Chronologically preceded them joining the X-Men? Is that when we met these characters? Is that who/what they were introduced to the world as? Because if that was the case, you would have a good point with this strawman fallacy.

So where's the 616 issues where Storm, Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Banshee, Sunfire, Thunderbird, Havok, Polaris, Dazzler, Rogue, Longshot, Psylocke, Dazzler, Forge, Gambit, Bishop among others were introduced as teenagers?

 

[Marvel united]

Here's my experience with the X-Men:

The X-Men were introduced to me when I was 4 years old through the 90's Animated Series. It was back when I didn't even know how to read. After that, I remember having a Mega Drive game of the X-Men. Then, when I was 10, the first X-Men movie came out. Short after came X-Men evolution. It was only after all that that I started reading comics. And I would be lying if I said I started linearly. It was all over the place. I started with the 90's and early 2000's, then back to the 80's and 70's, then 90's again... it was all over the place.

So, through my experiece with the X-Men, they were mostly portrayed as adults, with the exception of Evolution or the recent X-Men movies. That's how they were introduced to me, that's how I know them.

I won't be mad if Marvel decides to go through a similar path the recent FOX movies took and bring the X-Men to the MCU as teenagers/young adults. But if I had to choose, I'd rather adults. However the most important thing and what I truly want it's just getting those characters right and respecting each of them. That's what will make this fanboy happy.

This is a fair point. I grew up the exact same way, I was 4 when TAS came out in '94 . 10 when the first X-Men movie came out in theaters and I watched Evolution in Middle-school. My dad brought me the 90s comics and the Ultimate comics in the late 90s and early 2000s. He also gave me some of the older ones from the 60s and 70s which were part of his personal collection, so I was exposed to the Kirby/Lee run, the first couple of issues where they were kids. (Although I didn't like them much at the time) The First Class comics were excellent, though.

I'm sure similarly, most of the people in our age group grew up with an adult Spider-Man in the 90s TAS and the Raimi films. But for the MCU - what makes the most sense is to not make the X-Men predate the Avengers which is what has to happen for an adult adult (Since 19-22 is an adult) to be possible in this universe. The key difference between the MCU version and the Fox version is Fox barely exploring the concept of a team of young heroes who enjoy their powers. This is why Marvel brought Spider-Man back to HS again for the third time despite the fact that Sony had already done it twice. And in Dark Phoenix they are all in their late 20s again despite being played by early 20 year olds. 10 years of development Fox just glossed over to skip to a rushed, watered down version of the Phoenix saga.

The best way to glimpse into how Marvel will handle the X-Men is to look at how they handle all of their other properties. They start from A> then progress to B>. Not start from D> and go to H>

So where's the 616 issues where Storm, Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Banshee, Sunfire, Thunderbird, Havok, Polaris, Dazzler, Rogue, Longshot, Psylocke, Dazzler, Forge, Gambit, Bishop among others were teenagers?

Outside of Colossus, Polaris and Havok (who were introduced as teens) None. Because most of these characters were either the same age but introduced years after the original team had already become full-fledged adults (Gambit, Psylocke, Forge etc) or people were suppose to be much older (Wolverine, Bishop, Sunfire). Storm was a few years older than Scott and Jean. In her early 20s in Giant-Sized X-Men (Born in 1950) Banshee was noted older than everybody else. A peer of Charles. Kurt was 20 years old in Giant-sized.

Now, that doesn't mean some of these people can't be younger in the MCU. Ned Leeds was introduced in the comics when Peter was already an adult in College but in the MCU, he's aged down to reflect Peter's age. They did the same thing in Evolution and Ultimate, everybody was aged down because they were brought in at an earlier point in the X-Men's history than the comics. It depends on when people like Gambit, Dazzler, Psylocke (with a streamlined origin) and Nightcrawler are introduced.

 

[Frankeh]

Was there a 40 issue comic run centered around Scott's life in the orphanage, Jean's car accident and her coma, Ororo being trapped under rubble and roaming around Kenya, all of which Chronologically preceded them joining the X-Men? Is that when we met these characters? Is that who/what they were introduced to the world as? Because if that was the case, you would have a good point with this strawman fallacy.

They may not have had a lot of issues but those are defining elements of those characters. You want to have X-Men developed, but it's gotta be the Harry Potter way. And a lot of that wasn't covered as soon as the characters were introduced. It's not restricted to age.

I think a better question to ask would be: "When do we get the version of the X-Men I want?" And the answer to that question is: when the X-Men get to that point. Let them grow into the 90s Claremont stuff. You have to run before you leap. Even Captain Marvel is going to be an origin story albeit done in a different way. Carol Danvers in that movie, does not even start out as Captain Marvel but as Kree soldier called "Vers" created by Starforce

It's just not realistic to expect Marvel Studios to do this in the very first movie of what is going to be a franchise that spans 10-13 years.

You're wrong because the X-Men I want are not the grizzled undeveloped badasses you think I want.

On a side note- this is also part of the reason why DC failed. They tried to rush into the Justice League movie without properly establishing their characters. They did the exact opposite of what Marvel did and are doing, by planting the seeds FIRST and then growing the tree.

Not comparable at all. The X-Men are not Avengers or Justice League. On the very first issue they were already a team and went on a mission and we don't see them grow since babies. Incidentally this was hardly their finest hour. But the point is that comparison doesn't fly.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Now, that doesn't mean some of these people can't be younger in the MCU. Ned Leeds was introduced in the comics when Peter was already an adult in College but in the MCU, he's aged down to reflect Peter's age. They did the same thing in Evolution and Ultimate, everybody was aged down because they were brought in at an earlier point in the X-Men's history than the comics. It depends on when people like Gambit, Dazzler, Psylocke (with a streamlined origin) and Nightcrawler are introduced.

Which also coincidentally doesn't mean these people, yes even Cyclops or Jean or any of the X-men introduced as teens, can't be older in the MCU. THANK GOD we're finally agreeing on this. *phew*

None of us know what Feige will do. We're all, every single one of us, are hypothesizing. You know about as much as the next person.

 

[Marvel united]

They may not have had a lot of issues but those are defining elements of those characters. You want to have X-Men developed, but it's gotta be the Harry Potter way. And a lot of that wasn't covered as soon as the characters were introduced. It's not restricted to age.

Those are background elements of these characters. Parts of their past that are not the focal point of their debut stories. That's not who they were when introduced. Yes, in the same way Peter Parker's parents died in a plane crash is important, that's not where his story picked up in the comics. It's as simple as that.

The Harry Potter way is traditionally how they've been developed in the comics and other medium.

You're wrong because the X-Men I want are not the grizzled undeveloped badasses you think I want.

So then the 19-22 year old kids they were in Giant-Sized

Not comparable at all. The X-Men are not Avengers or Justice League. On the very first issue they were already a team and went on a mission and we don't see them grow since babies. Incidentally this was hardly their finest hour. But the point is that comparison doesn't fly.

Yes, they aren't like the Justice League (Or Avengers) in the sense of a group of different franchises coming together. Since Scott, Jean, Storm are all pre-packaged X-Men characters. BUT, where the analogy rings true is the idea of rushing into things that need to be built up. WB rushed into their 'Avengers' event instead of properly developing these IPs and making people care. The same thing would happen to the X-Men if we started with the seasoned team of X-Men from the 90s Claremont.

The babies thing is a strawman because their very early childhood is not relevant to what they were in the comics. Their youth when they were active as heroes, however, was.

Which also coincidentally doesn't mean these people, yes even Cyclops or Jean or any of the X-men introduced as teens, can't be older in the MCU. THANK GOD we're finally agreeing on this. *phew*

None of us know what Feige will do. We're all, every single one of us, are hypothesizing. You know about as much as the next person.

If they are grown adults recruited as students of Charles' school with minimal experience then sure. But introducing a team of late 20 year olds as students makes no sense. The school is called "Charles Xavier's school for Gifted Youngsters" keyword" being it's a private school that Charles founded to take children in to teach them control. Once they graduated, they became Mansion staff. Now do you change the school name itself as well as the curriculum so a group of late 20s-early 30s can be considered "students in training" and have Charles training these people? For what reason? If not, just so we can have an inexperienced group of mature adults instead of teens-young adults even though the latter makes more sense?

So then, we're back to square one. The only way your way works is if the X-Men have been around longer than half of the heroes in the MCU. Working behind the scenes. This means they've had 10 or more years of character development off screen since they were recruited as kids.

You're right, we don't. But we can make educated guesses. Look at how he's done other franchies. And the "Late 20s-early 30 experienced team coming out of the shadows" contradicts the majority of the MCU's heroes. It doesn't line up with anybody else, and that's not even taking into account the blaring continuity issues that will result from going that route.

 

[EnDz0n3]

You're right, we don't. But we can make educated guesses.

You say "educated guesses" I call picking and choosing which Feige "rules" you want to follow when, where and how they fit your choices. And this is where I bow out since we're never going to agree on this.

 

[2kt09]

If they are grown adults recruited as students of Charles' school with minimal experience then sure. But introducing a team of late 20 year olds as students makes no sense. The school is called "Charles Xavier's school for Gifted Youngsters" keyword" being it's a private school that Charles founded to take children in to teach them control. Once they graduated, they became Mansion staff. Now do you change the school name itself as well as the curriculum so a group of late 20s-early 30s can be considered "students in training" and have Charles training these people? For what reason? If not, just so we can have an inexperienced group of mature adults instead of teens-young adults even though the latter makes more sense?

So then, we're back to square one. The only way your way works is if the X-Men have been around longer than half of the heroes in the MCU. Working behind the scenes. This means they've had 10 or more years of character development off screen since they were recruited as kids.

You're right, we don't. But we can make educated guesses. Look at how he's done other franchies. And the "Late 20s-early 30 experienced team coming out of the shadows" contradicts the majority of the MCU's heroes. It doesn't line up with anybody else, and that's not even taking into account the blaring continuity issues that will result from going that route.

Skip ahead to when they are teachers or "mansion staff". No clue on the how in terms of "no mutants before now at this moment" continuity, but make it happen.
OR skip the school. Instead of paramilitary, they're actually registered and on duty. Colonel / Sergeant Charles Xavier and his X-regiMENt.

 

[Frankeh]

Those are background elements of these characters. Parts of their past that are not the focal point of their debut stories. That's not who they were when introduced. Yes, in the same way Peter Parker's parents died in a plane crash is important, that's not where his story picked up in the comics. It's as simple as that.

The Harry Potter way is traditionally how they've been developed in the comics and other medium.

What? Haven't these characters not aged in decades? What is it called, sliding timescale? Again, their aging does not define their development. You have a very restrictive view of how these characters can be developed.

Those background elements you talk about are what gives these characters dimension.

Yes, they aren't like the Justice League (Or Avengers) in the sense of a group of different franchises coming together. Since Scott, Jean, Storm are all pre-packaged X-Men characters. BUT, where the analogy rings true is the idea of rushing into things that need to be built up. WB rushed into their 'Avengers' event instead of properly developing these IPs and making people care. The same thing would happen to the X-Men if we started with the seasoned team of X-Men from the 90s Claremont.

Functional X-Men do not need building up. It's a team first and foremost. You are fixated on the idea that X-Men (2000) proved that adult/active X-Men = undeveloped X-Men which is just not true. It comes down to the writing which I've said many times, but it's for nothing it seems.

The babies thing is a strawman because their very early childhood is not relevant to what they were in the comics. Their youth when they were active as heroes, however, was.

You really think people want X-Men on death's door, so my strawman is fair game.

If teenagehood is so intrinsic, irreplaceable to X-Men how in the world did TAS become so popular? Since it's such an incomplete vision of X-Men.

 

[TheVileOne]

The 1990s animated series started with the X-Men already open for business and well established. Jubilee was the new kid on the block and was the window into the characters of the series. All the characters were introduced through her point of view.

You could do something similar, just saying.

Like instead of Jubilee...use Laura Kinney Wolverine.

 

[Marvel united]

You say "educated guesses" I call picking and choosing which Feige "rules" you want to follow when, where and how they fit your choices. And this is where I bow out since we're never going to agree on this.

I've yet to see any any contradiction that holds any weight. Even the incoming Captain Marvel proves my point. Feige starts his heroes off from the beginning. They all had origin stories and proper introductions. I've yet to see any refutation of why a fresh X-Men is inevitable.

What? Haven't these characters not aged in decades? What is it called, sliding timescale? Again, their aging does not define their development. You have a very restrictive view of how these characters can be developed.

Age is a simply a natural part of an organism's development. This goes for pretty much every creature on earth. Wanting it to factor into the X-Men the same way it did in the comics and the same way they're doing on Spider-Man does not mean I have a restricted view on character development. It means I don't want a major chunk of the X-Men's history to be overridden just so we can have a 1:1 adaption of X-Men: The Animated Series.

Those background elements you talk about are what gives these characters dimension.

Of course but unless Scott was a 6 year old kid for 30 issues then it's not the same thing as when he was an a X-Man as a teenager. It's simply a building block of his character that exists in the background to give him depth.

Functional X-Men do not need building up. It's a team first and foremost. You are fixated on the idea that X-Men (2000) proved that adult X-Men = undeveloped X-Men which is just not true. It comes down to the writing which I've said many times.

And the simplest way for a writer to introduce and develop the X-Men in a shared universe 23 movies in - is to have them start off younger and then age and gain more experience as the movies progress. In other words, start off the same way they did in the comics. Start from Point (A) to advance to point (B). Why didn't Marvel use your same logic when they made Homecoming? Sure, Peter being a 27 year old married science teacher at his peak does not mean he can't develop past that, but if you're going to tell a story about someone growing as a person and evolving from a pre-existing form of literature, does it not make sense to start your character at the same point or close to the beginning of where their journey began in the first place? This has less to do with age and more to do with the fact that they started the same way Spider-Man did. Stark started in the cave, Rogers started off in the 40s as weak man, Strange started as an egotistical Nrosurgen, Lang started as a thief, Panther started as prince before he became King, Vision and Wanda are not married yet (and the latter started out as a villain like she did in the comics. Guardian).
All of that development from beginning and now to the end:
Is what makes this so emotional and powerful.

The X-Men were kids, younger than the Avengers and in the same age group as Spider-Man. They didn't get into their late 20s until the mid 80s. Jean was only 24 years old when she sacrificed herself in the Dark Phoenix. At that point, we had gone through 17 years of material (from 1963 all the way to 1980) The era you want the MCU to start in, is even further than that, 30 years in. That's insane. Just because it's the most recognizeable, beloved generation does not mean it's a logical point to start an adaptation of this property in the MCU.

You really think people want X-Men on death's door, so my strawman is fair game.

I don't. I know people want 90s Claremont which is the X-Men in their prime and at their peak, and I believe that era of X-Men needs to be earned.

If teenagehood is so intrinsic, irreplaceable to X-Men how in the world did TAS become so popular? Since it's such an incomplete vision of X-Men.

Because 10 year old kids do not care about proper character development or the hero's journey. I certainly didn't when I watched the show as a child. A writer hired to write a screenplay for the first MCU X-Men movie and Feige himself will care. And the 90s show did not have to adhere to any rules when they made it because it was not intrinsically locked into a pre-established shared universe.

The 1990s animated series started with the X-Men already open for business and well established. Jubilee was the new kid on the block and was the window into the characters of the series. All the characters were introduced through her point of view.

You could do something similar, just saying.

Like instead of Jubilee...use Laura Kinney Wolverine.

This would be a repeat of X-Men (2000) just using Jubilee instead of Wolverine/Rogue. There can't be a "Wizarding world of mutants" type reveal like Singer did 18 years ago, in the MCU, because it would make no sense. You can't have all mutants hiding from society unless you turn all of them into the Morlocks. The X-Men existing within the MCU is completely different from them existing in a kids television show not restricted by the confines of 14 years of continuity. Completely different. We can't look at the way the 90s TAS Spider-Man introduced people to Peter Parker (as a College student, years into being Spider-Man) and use that as the main source inspiration for him in the MCU. Apples and oranges.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Please keep your "Wizarding World of Mutants." I personally want none of that, and I doubt I'm alone.
This obsession with making the X-men the Harry Potter of Marvel.
Here's a novel idea: how about we make the X-men...the X-men of Marvel.

I've yet to see any any contradiction that holds any weight. Even the incoming Captain Marvel proves my point. Feige starts his heroes off from the beginning. They all had origin stories and proper introductions. I've yet to see any refutation of why a fresh X-Men is inevitable.

Except for Black Widow and Hawkeye. Except for Nick Fury. Except for the SHIELD. Except for Mark Ruffalo's Hulk. Except for Spider-man whose being bit by a radioactive spider and witnessing the death of his beloved Uncle Ben was never shown. But you know, except for all of that, yea you're right.

 

[TheVileOne]

I've yet to see any any contradiction that holds any weight. Even the incoming Captain Marvel proves my point. Feige starts his heroes off from the beginning. They all had origin stories and proper introductions. I've yet to see any refutation of why a fresh X-Men is inevitable.
Age is a simply a natural part of an organism's development. This goes for pretty much every creature on earth. Wanting it to factor into the X-Men the same way it did in the comics and the same way they're doing on Spider-Man does not mean I have a restricted view on character development. It means I don't want a major chunk of the X-Men's history to be overridden just so we can have a 1:1 adaption of X-Men: The Animated Series.

Of course but unless Scott was a 6 year old kid for 30 issues then it's not the same thing as when he was an a X-Man as a teenager. It's simply a building block of his character that exists in the background to give him depth.

And the simplest way for a writer to introduce and develop the X-Men in a shared universe 23 movies in - is to have them start off younger and then age and gain more experience as the movies progress. In other words, start off the same way they did in the comics. Start from Point (A) to advance to point (B). Why didn't Marvel use your same logic when they made Homecoming? Sure, Peter being a 27 year old married science teacher at his peak does not mean he can't develop past that, but if you're going to tell a story about someone growing as a person and evolving from a pre-existing form of literature, does it not make sense to start your character at the same point or close to the beginning of where their journey began in the first place? This has less to do with age and more to do with the fact that they started the same way Spider-Man did. Stark started in the cave, Rogers started off in the 40s as weak man, Strange started as an egotistical Nrosurgen, Lang started as a thief, Panther started as prince before he became King, Vision and Wanda are not married yet (and the latter started out as a villain like she did in the comics. Guardian).
All of that development from beginning and now to the end:
Is what makes this so emotional and powerful.

The X-Men were kids, younger than the Avengers and in the same age group as Spider-Man. They didn't get into their late 20s until the mid 80s. Jean was only 24 years old when she sacrificed herself in the Dark Phoenix. At that point, we had gone through 17 years of material (from 1963 all the way to 1980) The era you want the MCU to start in, is even further than that, 30 years in. That's insane. Just because it's the most recognizeable, beloved generation does not mean it's a logical point to start an adaptation of this property in the MCU.

I don't. I know people want 90s Claremont which is the X-Men in their prime and at their peak, and I believe that era of X-Men needs to be earned.


Because 10 year old kids do not care about proper character development or the hero's journey. I certainly didn't when I watched the show as a child. A writer hired to write a screenplay for the first MCU X-Men movie and Feige himself will care. And the 90s show did not have to adhere to any rules when they made it because it was not intrinsically locked into a pre-established shared universe.

This would be a repeat of X-Men (2000) just using Jubilee instead of Wolverine/Rogue. There can't be a "Wizarding world of mutants" type reveal like Singer did 18 years ago, in the MCU, because it would make no sense. You can't have all mutants hiding from society unless you turn all of them into the Morlocks. The X-Men existing within the MCU is completely different from them existing in a kids television show not restricted by the confines of 14 years of continuity. Completely different. We can't look at the way the 90s TAS Spider-Man introduced people to Peter Parker (as a College student, years into being Spider-Man) and use that as the main source inspiration for him in the MCU. Apples and oranges.

You mean like Doctor Strange?

 

[Marvel united]

Please keep your "Wizarding World of Mutants." I personally want none of that, and I doubt I'm alone.
This obsession with making the X-men the Harry Potter of Marvel.
Here's a novel idea: how about we make the X-men...the X-men of Marvel.

Sigh...So anything before 1980 is not the X-Men of Marvel?

Except for Black Widow and Hawkeye. Except for Nick Fury. Except for the SHIELD. Except for Mark Ruffalo's Hulk. Except for Spider-man whose being bit by a radioactive spider and witnessing the death of his beloved Uncle Ben was never shown. But you know, except for all of that, yea you're right.

Widow was already a trained assassin when she started in the comics, Fury was already director of SHIELD. Hawkeye is based on the Ultimate version and he too was a trained Ultimate/SHIELD/Fury puppet from the beginning. His origin was revealed later on.

Spider-Man is the youngest he's ever been in any movie and he was introduced only 6 months after Ben's death. Bad example.


I'll give you Banner. That's the only hero that comes close to the magnitude of what would have to happen with the X-Men. TIH does an origin recap and picks up 4 years after the accident. Still nowhere near 10.

TIH was 10 years ago and since then, Marvel's formula has been pretty straightforward. The fact that you had to cherry pick the small number of pre-estabilshed, seasoned heroes (and even most of those are easily refuted) in the MCU only makes my point stronger lol. You can't look at any main franchise in the MCU minus TIH and tell me, that they start the character/team pre-estabilshed within 10+ years of being active. Everybody started from square one.