Marvel Films MCU X-Men - Part 4

[Lip]

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.

I want the same for the MCU movie, but instead of one teenage character, a small group of one. Preferably very diverse like Jubilee, Armor, Dust... But I want them to have actual role in the story, instead of just standing in the background saying "Yes, professor"

 

[Frankeh]

Is what makes this so emotional and powerful.

Just because seeing them grow up is the only way for you to feel emotions for them doesn't make it true for everyone else.

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.

Not something that needs to be earned. You're acting like 90's X-Men were an Infinity War or Dark Phoenix Saga event. Even that show took it's time to get to that.

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.

You're speaking for yourself here.

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.

Yeah, this seems to be the problem. Anything not adhering to your demands would be a repeat of X-Men (2000), even though this is not true, because character ages do not mean there aren't many other things that can be different.

You don't want X-Men (2000), well I don't want Spider-Man: Homecoming (the X-Men version) (2017)

 

[Marvel united]

Just because seeing them grow up is the only way for you to feel emotions for them doesn't make it true for everyone else.

Seeing them develop in the same way the other heroes have. Age/coming of age is just a part of it. (I know everybody does not, obviously)

Not something that needs to be earned. You're acting like 90's X-Men were an Infinity War or Dark Phoenix Saga event. Even that show took it's time to get to that.

Why not? It was earned in the comics. Why must we rush into 90s Claremont material when there is so much more ground to cover that precedes it? The equivalent to skipping to 90s Claremont is Marvel skipping to New Avengers in their first movie or Strange being Introduced as the Sorcerer supreme (He's not EVEN that yet in the MCU. He still has to gain that title) Or Spider-Man being introduced as a 27 year old husband working at Horizon Labs. Or hell, Hulk being introduced as Professor Hulk instead of Savage Hulk and we are just now getting to Professor Hulk in Endgame, 11 years after Hulk's debut.

You're speaking for yourself here.

I'm speaking for the majority of children. Do you honestly think any 9 year old kid cares about things like character development, character investment, growth and depth? All they want Is a fun cartoon to watch on a Saturday mourning after school. Did you care about these things when you watched the show?

Yeah, this seems to be the problem. Anything not adhering to your demands would be a repeat of X-Men (2000), even though this is not true, because character ages do not mean there aren't many other things that can be different.

Is IS a repeat of Singer's first film because the premise is the exact same. An outsider introducing the audience to an X-Men/school that's already been around for 13 years in secret. The X-Men are seasoned and grizzled already when we meet them and this is the first them they coming out of the shadows and revealing their existence. The MCU could change the actual details of the whole thing but It would be identical to the basic summary of that movie. And "coming out the shadows" is not a quintessential X-Men story, it was one Singer made to avoid telling a true origin story since he didn't care about anything that preceded Dark Phoenix.

You don't want X-Men (2000), well I don't want Spider-Man: Homecoming (the X-Men version) (2017)

You don't want the X-Men version of Iron Man (2008), Thor (2011), The First Avenger (2011), The Avengers (2012), Guardians Of The Galaxy (2014), Ant-Man (2015), Doctor Strange (2016) AND Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)+ Black Panther (2018) and Captain Marvel (2019)

What you don't want is Marvel to adhere to their traditional form of storytelling. You want to see an X-Men that have already been around longer than half of the characters in the MCU instead of letting Marvel develop these characters the RIGHT way, so when they get to the end-to-be-all holy grail of X-Men aka the 90s TAS according to half of X-Fans, it will be wayyy more rewarding.


So I guess in the end, this comes down to whether Marvel will develop the X-Men the same way they've developed everybody else OR, skip to material that's 30 years into the X-Men's publication history.

Will the X-Men join Spider-Man's demographic (which mind you, is true to the comics since they were peers. The 90s TAS makes everybody forget this) or will they date even further back to before the Avengers first formed.

I guess we'll see in the next 6 months.

 

[Herofan]

Why must we rush into 90s Claremont material when there is so much more ground to cover that precedes it?

What about just skipping into '70s Claremont material, which Singer did do but makes sense? With highly-popular characters Wolverine and Storm only first appearing (and other characters already having some past experience) in that era? There would still be a lot of room for further growth and experience.

Generally, seeing the X-Men as starting-out rookies might be more profitable but could also be less strong stories (you could get most of the story benefits of characters starting out from just having a few members be new and/or young), I think a story is more interesting when an opponent or problem is a challenge even to those who are already good fighters/team rather than of course being a challenge because they haven't faced much before.

While I didn't love Ant-Man it was an interesting way of being an origin story but not completely being one, also having and using a lot of backstory rather than completely starting from a beginning.

 

[Marvel united]

What about just skipping into '70s Claremont material, which Singer did do but makes sense? With highly-popular characters Wolverine and Storm only first appearing (and other characters already having some past experience) in that era? There would still be a lot of room for further growth and experience.

Generally, seeing the X-Men as starting-out rookies might be more profitable but could also be less strong stories (you could get most of the story benefits of characters starting out from just having a few members be new and/or young), I think a story is more interesting when an opponent or problem is a challenge even to those who are already good fighters/team rather than of course being a challenge because they haven't faced much before.

While I didn't love Ant-Man it was an interesting way of being an origin story but not completely being one, also having and using a lot of backstory rather than completely starting from a beginning.

That's what I've been suggesting all along. Starting anywhere from 1963 to 1976 is the most likely option. If you start from Giant-Sized with Storm and Colossus, then you can still tell a story with a group of people who are still fresh, people that are on the brink of adulthood since they were all College kids in the 70s fresh out of HS. In Giant-Sized, they had chronologically been around for a couple of years. But the majority here don't even want 70s Claremont. They want 90s Claremont, no exceptions. This is simply a matter of demanding your favorite interpretation regardless of whether it makes sense for the MCU.


Seeing the X-Men as relatively inexperienced makes them more vulnerable. Seeing them face their first real threat is part of that growth. By the time we get to say "Uncanny X-Men: Brotherhood" in 2025-2026, you have the audience invested in these people the same way Marvel built up the Avengers.

 

[Herofan]

Yeah, the team or some members in it having some but not a lot of experience, nowhere near that of the '90s era, is probably the best approach to introducing the team in an already heavily-established superhero universe.

 

[Frankeh]

Is IS a repeat of Singer's first film because the premise is the exact same.

Yeah, it's like speaking to a wall at this point. Not gonna bother anymore.

Good luck on those 6 months. I doubt we'll hear anything for a year, maybe two at the least.

 

[Marvel united]

Anyway... moving on to a less grating topic - I'm still pondering over whom would be the best antagonist for the X-Men's debut in the MCU, and we all know it won't be Magneto again. I keep going back and fourth between Mr. Sinster and the Acolytes. Sinister because he's the only major X-Men villain Fox has not used yet and the Acolytes because they can be a stand-in for the Brotherhood (Although, you'd have to retool their origin story to exclude Magneto. Make Exodus the founder of the group) and this allows Marvel the chance to use an all-new group of mutant antagonists never seen in a movie before as well not having to devote much time to their development while simultaneously establishing the ground rules of the mutant corner within the MCU. They can serve as basic antagonists/obstacles for the X-Men in the story. Sort of like Ronan in GOTG.

The reason why I'm reluctant to go with Mr. Sinister is because I feel like the Marauders are sequel material and Essex works best in a world where mutants are plentiful for him to inflict his experiments. Plus his backstory is pretty complex but that's not to say it can't be simplified for the MCU. If they can find a way to do Mr. Sinister for the first movie, I'd be all for it.

Another option is Proteus but I'd imagine Marvel will want to move away from any Charles-centric story again.

Sauron and the Savage Land is a possibility too, especially Marvel just out of the gate, wants to do something completely fresh.

 

[Lip]

I want to bring another controversial topic, which is something we debated here before: changing the X-Men to add more diversity. However, previously we've talked about it restricted to race. Now I want to bring up the hypothetical scenario of Marvel possibly changing the sexual orientation of a few characters.

When talking about race-change previously, someone, I think it was MadOnes, brought up the fact that the X-Men takes a lot of inspiration from black people, but completely lacks in representation of them, which is absolutely true. And I feel it's the same towards the LGBTQ community, which has served for a lot of inspiration for the X-Men in the comics. But where are the representation?

While some can argue that there's Bobby, Raven and to some extent Northstar, is it enough to actually represent diversity, especially from a community they take so much inspiration? Like, is it enough to have only Ororo there, even tho she's a lead?

Also Raven, Bobby, Northstar and other gay characters weren't created as such. They were changed and established later. So if (and again, hypothetically speaking) they would change some (big) characters, who do you think it could be? I feel like female characters being bisexual would be easy for them, but for wrong reasons, because it comes from a male heterosexual fetiche. So "hot characters" like Rogue, Emma or Psylocke could be the easy choices. From men, I feel like Gambit could also be a choice for wrong reasons, since he's more sexy and charming. And Colossus because of the Ultimate version. Colossus is the more interesting case to me because he's russian, so it could be a change to tackle the anti-gay propaganda there by adjusting his origin.

On another note, when we talk about LGBTQ, we're actually only talking about LGB, because there's no TQ representation in the comics. And now with the popularity and critical acclaim of shows and movies like Rupaul's Drag Race, Pose, Transparent and Una Mujer Fantástica, things are changing and there should be more TQ representation. Unfortunatelly, I think it will take about 30 years so we can see a minor TQ character introduced in the X-Men comics.

 

[Boy Scout]

For whatever reason, changing a character’s sexual orientation always seemed like a bigger deal to me than race. I’d rather Marvel emphasize the gay characters they already have, create new ones, or pull a Negasonic and overhaul a previously very minor character whose sexuality was probably never even mentioned. But as someone who has little investment in the X-Men in general, making, say, Cyclops into a gay or bisexual man wouldn’t really bother me at the end of the day.

 

[Abudefduf]

 

[Marvel united]

I want to bring another controversial topic, which is something we debated here before: changing the X-Men to add more diversity. However, previously we've talked about it restricted to race. Now I want to bring up the hypothetical scenario of Marvel possibly changing the sexual orientation of a few characters.

When talking about race-change previously, someone, I think it was MadOnes, brought up the fact that the X-Men takes a lot of inspiration from black people, but completely lacks in representation of them, which is absolutely true. And I feel it's the same towards the LGBTQ community, which has served for a lot of inspiration for the X-Men in the comics. But where are the representation?

While some can argue that there's Bobby, Raven and to some extent Northstar, is it enough to actually represent diversity, especially from a community they take so much inspiration? Like, is it enough to have only Ororo there, even tho she's a lead?

Also Raven, Bobby, Northstar and other gay characters weren't created as such. They were changed and established later. So if (and again, hypothetically speaking) they would change some (big) characters, who do you think it could be? I feel like female characters being bisexual would be easy for them, but for wrong reasons, because it comes from a male heterosexual fetiche. So "hot characters" like Rogue, Emma or Psylocke could be the easy choices. From men, I feel like Gambit could also be a choice for wrong reasons, since he's more sexy and charming. And Colossus because of the Ultimate version. Colossus is the more interesting case to me because he's russian, so it could be a change to tackle the anti-gay propaganda there by adjusting his origin.

On another note, when we talk about LGBTQ, we're actually only talking about LGB, because there's no TQ representation in the comics. And now with the popularity and critical acclaim of shows and movies like Rupaul's Drag Race, Pose, Transparent and Una Mujer Fantástica, things are changing and there should be more TQ representation. Unfortunatelly, I think it will take about 30 years so we can see a minor TQ character introduced in the X-Men comics.

This is a good point. The problem with the "But they are already exist in in canon, just use them" argument many people raise against changing these characters' race or sexuality is that all of/most of the minority characters that can contribute in any meaningful way to diversity are all minor or inconsequential compared to the bread and the butter of the X-Men franchise. Being diverse no longer means throwing 1 or 2 minorities in a mostly straight, white cast. Which is what a lot of people's remedy for the issue is. "Hey, if you add Storm and Iceman then you have a diverse cast". Maybe in 2000 but not in the 2020s. And everybody wants to see their fan favorites but the fan favorites are majority straight and white. Homecoming is what the creatives of X-Men should strive for.

As for who I could see Marvel changing for more LGBTQ diversity:

- Storm (Bi)
- Colossus (Gay) (The aforementioned Ultimate version of Piotr was gay)
- Rogue (Bi)
- Kurt (And this may be a controversial one because of his Catholic faith but I think Marvel could touch upon some very interesting themes by making him a man of faith but gay at the same time. A lot of potential for a powerful story there)
- Mystique (Trans) (Mystique identifying with the Trans community is a natural evolution of the character imo)
- Dazzler (Lesbian)


And then you can pretty much change any of the more minor characters any way you want, much like Marvel did with characters like Ned Leeds, Sally Avril and Jason Lonello. Make them any race or sexuality you want and give them a bigger role to add more diversity.

 

[Lip]

Homecoming is what the creatives of X-Men should strive for.

Yeah, and I have also mentioned the Homecoming as good exemple. But thinking about it, Spider-Man is a solo hero and those characters are sort of satellite characters there. What I feel like the X-Men cast should be like, it's this:

I know that's a female cast (the theme requires), but there are all kinds of representation there, and that's what I'm talking about. There are black women, white women, latinas, asian women, trans women, cis women, genderqueers, catholics, atheists, muslim, lesbians, bisexuals, straight, plus-sized (we should talk about that too), skinny girls, young women, older women... The X-Men should be an ensemble like that, instead of 30 white straight people, 2 black people, 2 asians and 1 gay.

- Mystique (Trans) (Mystique identifying with the Trans community is a natural evolution of the character imo)

I've never really got the association people usually do with Mystique and trans people. Raven was born female and as far as I can remember she has never expressed she identifies as male. I think changing Raven to identify as genderfluid makes more sense to me. (Would've been great to have Tilda Swinton, who's openly non-binary, playing her).

- Dazzler (Lesbian)

This Shang-Chi movie shows that Marvel is commited to invest in diversity. This time for the asian community. If they ever make a Dazzler movie, they could do the same for the LGBTQ community and they wouldn't even have to change Dazzler. Making her a Lady Gaga kind of performer (Gaga is drag), it can really be a movie filled with LGBTQ+ characters that actually celebrate that in a respectful way.

 

[Herofan]

Even having just a few minority characters does still seem significant and diverse if the team/cast overall is also pretty small-which still seems pretty likely (5 or 6 members plus a mentor, nowhere near 18 or 30), if that was the case three minority characters would be half the hero cast rather than feel like token exceptions to what most of the others were. But the cast would grow and expectations for more diversity also reasonably grow in later films.

Agreed that making Colossus gay could be interesting and particularly relevant (and his main comics romance with Kitty probably couldn't/shouldn't be adapted anyway aside from highly changing Kitty). So could Angel being gay as his wealth could free him from a lot of burdens other gays face while his celebrity status could make dealing with coming out or not still very personally challenging and frustrating (and there could be obvious parallels to his highly visible but also concealable mutation).

 

[Boy Scout]

This is a good point. The problem with the "But they are already exist in in canon, just use them" argument many people raise against changing these characters' race or sexuality is that all of/most of the minority characters that can contribute in any meaningful way to diversity are all minor or inconsequential compared to the bread and the butter of the X-Men franchise. Being diverse no longer means throwing 1 or 2 minorities in a mostly straight, white cast. Which is what a lot of people's remedy for the issue is. "Hey, if you add Storm and Iceman then you have a diverse cast". Maybe in 2000 but not in the 2020s. And everybody wants to see their fan favorites but the fan favorites are majority straight and white. Homecoming is what the creatives of X-Men should strive for.

As for who I could see Marvel changing for more LGBTQ diversity:

- Storm (Bi)
- Colossus (Gay) (The aforementioned Ultimate version of Piotr was gay)
- Rogue (Bi)
- Kurt (And this may be a controversial one because of his Catholic faith but I think Marvel could touch upon some very interesting themes by making him a man of faith but gay at the same time. A lot of potential for a powerful story there)
- Mystique (Trans) (Mystique identifying with the Trans community is a natural evolution of the character imo)
- Dazzler (Lesbian)


And then you can pretty much change any of the more minor characters any way you want, much like Marvel did with characters like Ned Leeds, Sally Avril and Jason Lonello. Make them any race or sexuality you want and give them a bigger role to add more diversity.

Again: Negasonic. You can make those lesser known characters important to the narrative and heavy hitters in their own rights.

I do truly hate that I’m playing devil’s advocate, because I KNOW people have used that same argument to justify white characters staying white, but again, I’ve always thought that sexuality was more intrinsic to a character’s background than race (broadly speaking).

 

[Lip]

Then playing the devil's advocate, you're not really against the idea of changing a character's previously established sexuality. You're against changing for the important characters. Why? That's kind of what rubs me the wrong way. Why the leads can't be gay, or bisexual?

Let's remember that none of these gay characters were created as such, they were established as gay later (Raven, Northstar, Bobby...)

 

[Boy Scout]

Then playing the devil's advocate, you're not really against the idea of changing a character's previously established sexuality.

I kind of am actually. Just not necessarily with the X-Men, a group of characters to which I have very little emotional attachment. I just don’t care for the idea in general and would probably actively oppose it if it were done to a character or characters I cared about.

You're against changing for the important characters. Why?

Because sexuality is something that actively informs who a person is and their experiences as individuals and I feel like changing that changes pretty much everything about the character if you follow through with it instead of making them exactly the same, but gay (or bi or whatever). In contrast, I feel like a lot of superheroes have fairly generic backgrounds that open them up to race swapping. Superman, for example, could easily be played by a black man and I wouldn’t care at all.

That’s kind of what rubs me the wrong way. Why the leads can't be gay, or bisexual?

They can be. I have zero issues with leads who are a part of the LGBTQ+ community. I just think it’d be in better taste to use those characters or add depth to lesser known characters.

It’s not my fault that most of the A-Listers are straight. I promise you, I’m not any happier about it than you are.

Let's remember that none of these gay characters were created as such, they were established as gay later (Raven, Northstar, Bobby...)

That’s the real problem, I’d say. Obviously those characters were created at a time where they couldn’t be anything but straight, and something does need to be done for the sake of diversity, but for me, I’d rather see newer or lesser known characters brought to the forefront. YMMV.

EDIT: I feel obligated to say it’s mostly a “concern” for characters with previously established love interests. To use Superman again: I wouldn’t be in favor of changing Lois to Lenny.

 

[Marvel united]

Yeah, and I have also mentioned the Homecoming as good exemple. But thinking about it, Spider-Man is a solo hero and those characters are sort of satellite characters there. What I feel like the X-Men cast should be like, it's this:

I know that's a female cast (the theme requires), but there are all kinds of representation there, and that's what I'm talking about. There are black women, white women, latinas, asian women, trans women, cis women, genderqueers, catholics, atheists, muslim, lesbians, bisexuals, straight, plus-sized (we should talk about that too), skinny girls, young women, older women... The X-Men should be an ensemble like that, instead of 30 white straight people, 2 black people, 2 asians and 1 gay.



I've never really got the association people usually do with Mystique and trans people. Raven was born female and as far as I can remember she has never expressed she identifies as male. I think changing Raven to identify as genderfluid makes more sense to me. (Would've been great to have Tilda Swinton, who's openly non-binary, playing her).



This Shang-Chi movie shows that Marvel is commited to invest in diversity. This time for the asian community. If they ever make a Dazzler movie, they could do the same for the LGBTQ community and they wouldn't even have to change Dazzler. Making her a Lady Gaga kind of performer (Gaga is drag), it can really be a movie filled with LGBTQ+ characters that actually celebrate that in a respectful way.

I definitely agree with you on the Orange is the New Black diversity being what Marvel should aim for. I would like to see mutants from all walks of life in this new X-Men adaptation. Everybody should have someone they can identify with on a personal level. Anybody, at any place can become a mutant after all.

And I guess for Mystique, it's because of her ability to transform between Male and female. She walks the line between both sides because she can experience both sides of the coin. But yeah, she should definitely be Genderfluid if not a metaphor.

Again: Negasonic. You can make those lesser known characters important to the narrative and heavy hitters in their own rights.

I do truly hate that I’m playing devil’s advocate, because I KNOW people have used that same argument to justify white characters staying white, but again, I’ve always thought that sexuality was more intrinsic to a character’s background than race (broadly speaking).

Yes, you can but at the expense of more popular characters. This is the problem. In order to introduce more diversity, established heavy hitters who are detrimental to the goal of more diversity have to take a backseat to make room.

So while in some instances I agree with you (Fantastic 4), X-Men is a property that needs to adapt to the times we live in today. The X-Men at it's core is a story about persecuted minorities. The franchise has used the real life experiences of marginalized groups numerous times to tell socially relevant stories that have a message to convey. This is the one property ehere it makes more sense than ever to change a couple of characters to bring true diversity to the cast.

 

[Boy Scout]

Yes, you can but at the expense of more popular characters. This is the problem. In order to introduce more diversity, established heavy hitters who are detrimental to the goal of more diversity have to take a backseat to make room.

Not necessarily. Like many of you have already suggested, mutants (and by extension, the X-Men) can appear in other MCU films or television series.

So while in some instances I agree with you (Fantastic 4), X-Men is a property that needs to adapt to the times we live in today. The X-Men at it's core is a story about persecuted minorities. The franchise has used the real life experiences of marginalized groups numerous times to tell socially relevant stories that have a message to convey. This is the one property ehere it makes more sense than ever to change a couple of characters to bring true diversity to the cast.

What you’re saying makes sense. I totally get where you and @Lip are coming from. I just have never been a huge fan of that particular idea. Like I said, YMMV.

 

[Tg11]

Professor Charles Xavier- Ralph Fiennes
Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto- Liam Neeson
Scott Summers/Cyclops- Richard Madden
Jean Grey- Kate Mara
Hank McCoy/Beast- Domhnall Gleeson
Ororo Munroe/Storm- Nathalie Emmanuel
Marie D'Acanto/Rogue- Alison Brie
Remy LeBeau/Gambit- Gaspard Ulliel
Kurt Wagner/Nightcrawler- Bill Skarsgard
Bobby Drake/Iceman- Dacre Montgomery
Kitty Pryde/Shadowcat- Hailee Steinfeld
Warren Worthington III/Angel- Sam Claflin
Piotr Rasputin/Colossus- Alan Ritchson
Jubilee- Jeon So-Mi
Psylocke- Summer Glau
Raven Darkholme/Mystique- Alicia Vikander
Victor Creed/Sabretooth- Jai Courtney
James "Logan" Howlett/Wolverine- Scott Eastwood or Travis Fimmel or Tom Hardy

 

[rebellion]

Oh god, whoever suggested a gay colossus.. Just no. That means we dont get a Kitty romance. And thats ICONIC. iconic romances should be taken into consideration. Bobby didnt really have one so he can be gay, whatever.
I get that x men are about tolerance, and yes, lgbt members should be represented. X men should reflect the times we live in. but lets not go too far and make >50% of the roster gay/lesbian/trans. Lgbtq people are a minority after all, i dont want it to come across as forced.

 

[Fincher]

And I guess for Mystique, it's because of her ability to transform between Male and female. She walks the line between both sides because she can experience both sides of the coin. But yeah, she should definitely be Genderfluid if not a metaphor.

Having Mystique be a metaphor for genderfluid would be far better than having her actually be genderfluid. She could say that sometimes she sees her blue form as her real identity and sometimes she identifies with looking like everyone else.

X-Men isn't Minority Groups: The Movie. The concept is using a fantasy group as a representation of minority issues. That doesn't mean you can't have real minority groups, but if you're going to have someone have a coming out scene, for example, that character shouldn't also be gay because it undercuts the metaphor. If there's going to be a gay character, it should be some other character where their being gay is just something that's true and isn't getting in the way. If they don't want to let the metaphor stand, then why make X-Men and not The Hate U Give or Boy Erased?

And this would be especially true of something like genderfluid that isn't as widely known and accepted, because originally the X-Men were used as an alternative to dealing with race issues directly because it would have been similarly controversial in its time. Creating a fantasy equivalent to broach subjects is exactly what X-Men is for.

 

[Lip]

First of all, having 3/4 LGBT characters in the X-Men world isn't more than 50%

The X-Men are indeed metaphor for minorities, but this idea that LGBTQ (or other minority groups) are just minorities and therefore there shouldn't be much of them is a crazy and ridiculous idea to perpetuate this lack of representation. So to have power a mutant "coming out" has to be straight? It's crazy.

People from previleged groups have been "stealing" narratives they don't belong for quite some time. It's time to change that. The X-Men is a metaphor, yes, but that doesn't mean we can use that as an excuse to perpetuate the lack of opportunities and representations for actual minority groups. If the X-Men are metaphor for minorities, why not have them to represent that metaphor? Why does it have to be people from privileged groups? Or the majority of them from privileged groups?

I already regret bringing up this subject...

 

[Fincher]

I wasn't saying anything about how many minorities there should be, but as far as the coming out scene goes, well there's a few ways that a gay character could be represented:

1. The character comes out as gay and a mutant at the same time - Unlikely, and more importantly the coming out as gay would immediately trump the mutant metaphor because it's something real. A metaphor can't exist right in the face of the thing it's a metaphor for.

2. The character is still in the closet, or they're already known to be gay and the parents don't approve - Still a distraction from the metaphor, and it's still a case where the metaphor is competing against the real thing, where...there's no winning there. If mutation is treated as a bigger issue, it'll be seen by some as dismissive toward real world issues, and if homosexuality is treated as a bigger issue, the central concept of the series is deflated. It becomes a tricky balancing act for no gain, because other characters can be gay instead.

3. The character is known to be gay, and the parents are cool with that - I mean, I know that having the gay/black/whatever characters be discriminated against as mutants while not being discrimination as their real minority groups is an inevitability, but it's weird to me in the case of coming out because it's such a particular gay experience and it's trying to serve as a metaphor for that while also expressly saying that's not an issue.

I think about a similar example with a cop shooting a mutant a la Black Lives Matter, and my first instinct is to say that the mutant who gets shot shouldn't be black, but then maybe it works if the cop is also black so you know it's not a black thing. But if you have the parents that the gay person comes out as a mutant to also be gay, that just seems corny to me.

 

[Marvel united]

X-Men isn't Minority Groups: The Movie. The concept is using a fantasy group as a representation of minority issues. That doesn't mean you can't have real minority groups, but if you're going to have someone have a coming out scene, for example, that character shouldn't also be gay because it undercuts the metaphor. If there's going to be a gay character, it should be some other character where their being gay is just something that's true and isn't getting in the way. If they don't want to let the metaphor stand, then why make X-Men and not The Hate U Give or Boy Erased?

The X-Men quite literally is "Minority Groups: The Movie" because mutants are literally classified as a minority group in the Marvel Universe. This argument you're making against having actual minorities in a movie about minority struggle doesn't make much sense to me. The mutant metaphor that mirrors what many gay teens go through "hiding your true self from the world" is not undercut because the mutant actually is gay. If anything, it makes the story more powerful because you are now DIRECTLY addressing the experience from which upon the writer built the metaphor off of in the first place. This argument that more diversity goes against the point of the franchise just.. Makes little sense.

Bobby Drake can be a mutant burdened by being a DOUBLE minority, so he's attacked from both sides. Inherent privilege some mutants have over others is definitely something that should be explored.

And this would be especially true of something like genderfluid that isn't as widely known and accepted, because originally the X-Men were used as an alternative to dealing with race issues directly because it would have been similarly controversial in its time. Creating a fantasy equivalent to broach subjects is exactly what X-Men is for.

Or... Actually have her be Genderfluid in the movie and not have a stand-in metaphor because the writers are too afraid? You said it yourself that the X-Men was created to address racial issues because it would have been too controversial address them directly when they were created in the 60s. So having stand-in characters experiencing the same things that black people and other discriminated racial groups was required at the time. But this is not that time, we are not living in 1963, not 1975, or 2000. We are on the edge of the 2020s and it's time for the franchise to update these ideas and themes for modern society. It will only serve to make the message of X-Men stronger to have more of the X-Men reflect the people their stories are based on. It's a natural evolution of the franchise.