Marvel Films MCU X-Men - Part 4

[Iceman]

quick lil nightcrawler, what you think?:

Spoiler

Good stuff mate!

 

[Marvel united]

Exactly. You know how unlikely it be he will age in real time? None of the actors have why should Peter be any different? Remember only about 4-5 years have passed in the MCU as a whole.

Well, the MCU's time scale is in real time, or at least was- before the events of Infinity War. Vision stated Stark came out as Iron Man 8 years before the accords which lines up with when Iron Man actually came out (2008 + 8 = 2016) and Iron Man took place in 2008. Now we are 5 years in after the time jump, with 2023.

Peter is the only who's not aging in real time because they are trying to stretch his High-school longevity as long as possible. But once he's out, I don't see why he won't age in real-time like everybody else in the MCU.

Kitty won't appear until Peter's already out of High-school and a grown man, and I'd prefer she remain the baby of the X-Men and self-insert for younger viewers. Marvel have no qualms casting child actors so a comic accurate (Claremont) Kitty Pryde should be no problem

I don't buy that. Everyone knows that X-Men have subsidiary teams and characters associated with them and that they are mutants especially the people in that room. Which is the same reason why people blanket Gaurdians or Sheild with Avengers for example.

He literally says exactly that when he mentions Deadpool. They're all just "mutants" to him. They're all under the 'mutant" brand. "X-Men, mutants, they're the same thing". He's not referring to the X-Men specifically but the mutant brand as a whole.

Some of the ideas here I really like but the government worker who feels bad for the humanoid experiment in a lab and tries to break them out trope is kind of played out.

I mean, the Government does play an intrinsic role in this franchise and there are several Government-created mutant teams. The X-Men could just be the precursor to that.

Feige is looking for a different take and i suspect some things are gonna be changed to differentiate from Fox (elements they used). So I'm open to a reimagining like this, as long as it stays true to the core concepts and ideas

Also those suits look less individualized than the ones I was purposing and they look idententical to First Class's uniforms. I thought you wanted to get away from that aesthetic?

Did I? I don't have a problem with uniforms but I suspect Marvel may go with individualized to differentiate from Fox.

I was using those suits as an example of what they wear while they are Government lapdogs. A militaristic version of the classic Jack Kirby X-Uniform. Once they leave & form their own identity, they create their own suits.

Okay, I think I understand. I think you want to say that it can be either/ or and I am not so sure it is that simple.

Just making the film have a different atmosphere is not going to really make it more believable for them to wear larger than life costumes as these underdog superheroes.
All I am proposing is their underdog look be visually represented in some way. If they are still visually identical to the Avengers it might make them look more out of place in a darker toned film honestly.

But I gave an in story justification for why the X-Men would wear suits like that, the explanation I gave is believable in the context of the MCU.

Also, for me at least, I don't NEED it to be dark or self-serious. Singer's films are all dark, grounded films but none of them really have anything meaningful to say about society aside from maybe X1 because even in X2, they reinvented Stryker as a general instead of a pastor and they removed all the religious themes and elements from God Loves, Man Kills in adapting the story. Deadpool 2 ironically featured a character closer to William Stryker than the actual Stryker

Crazy Rich Asians for example is a fun, funny romantic comedy that is not anywhere near as self-serious as Singer's X-Men but it has twice as much social meaning. Ditto for a movie like 'The Farewell'.

So while I get your reasoning for wanting a dark, grounded, underground take on the X-Men, we're just now coming off of 20 years of that from the Singer franchise and I wouldn't mind for people to know that an X-Men film can be fun, exciting and marketable i.e Claremont. A good balance of dark and light

I don't mind a more serious tone either but I don't want them to be grounded. I just want the story to be from their POV

What do you mean inspired he was given his wardrobe like a puppet with a hand up his @$$ from Tony? As I said before Spider-Man was not integrated into the universe the best imo. He seemed like a kept boy for Tony's ego and paternal aspirations before he actually became a father.

Spider-Man grew up in the MCU as a child and he was inspired by Stark and the Avengers. Regardless of how I feel about this, it makes sense in the MCU. I wouldn't be surprised if the X-Men are similarly rooted in the MCU's mythology

But why if you are serving and framing your group in the exact same way though other than the score? People will see right through that as trite. What would even make the public know that they are even a different group than The Avengers in the first place?

In the context of the story? The same way it happened in the comics


The same way the public are turned against any minority group, really. Propagand, fear mongering, indoctrination etc. Smear campaigns run by politicians and personalities would label mutants as a problem and the X-Men are mutants, so they get lumped in to these attacks. And this turns the public against them.

I mean, we are seeing this in action with what's happened to Spider-Man after the events of FFH with people like Jameson. And since Jameson is the MCU equivalent to Alex Jones, he's probably going to have a problem with mutants as well.

And once mutants are deemed a "problem" that need to be dealt with in theory then that's when practice becomes praxis-- and they can start going after mutants through legislation, all with the public's support. Thus beginning the cycle of mutant persecution in the MCU

 

[CaptainWagner]

Yeah. I hope Deadpool gets a new actor as well.

Just no to all of this.

It's been made abundantly clear that Reynolds will continue as Deadpool. Why in the world would they change.

And I fail to see where they'd find more perfect casting for Magik and Wolfsbane.

 

[Iceman]

I mean, we know that Reynolds is returning. And I'd love to get to keep Anya Talyor-Joy and Maisie Williams. But other than that - Yes. Give me Denzel as Xavier, PLEASE!

Hopefully Magik and Wolfsbane are good enough in New Mutants that they force the issue!

 

[psylockolussus]

It's been made abundantly clear that Reynolds will continue as Deadpool. Why in the world would they change.

And I fail to see where they'd find more perfect casting for Magik and Wolfsbane.

No one is irreplaceable. Mcu will just be fine without hiring Ryan Reynolds. They don't need him.

The New Mutants won't be used anyway anytime soon after the new film performs similarly or worse than the Dark PhoeniX, and those actors would age out of the role unless you really want an early 30s and late 20s Magik/Wolfsbane. We are not going to see a mcu film for the New Mutants in a long time.

Also why would you cast someone that doesn't even resemble Charles Xavier? Thats just not good casting at all.

 

[CaptainWagner]

No one is irreplaceable. Mcu will just be fine without hiring Ryan Reynolds. They don't need him.

The New Mutants won't be used anyway anytime soon after the new film performs similarly or worse than the Dark PhoeniX, and those actors would age out of the role unless you really want an early 30s and late 20s Magik/Wolfsbane. We are not going to see a mcu film for the New Mutants in a long time.

Also why would you cast someone that doesn't even resemble Charles Xavier? Thats just not good casting at all.

AGAIN, they have made it abundantly clear that Reynolds isn't going anywhere. He is inextricably connected to the Deadpool franchise.

Also, Denzell 100% looks exactly like Xavier save for the pigmentation of his skin, but we all know how you feel about that and I don't want to drag the thread back there all over again.

 

[psylockolussus]

AGAIN, they have made it abundantly clear that Reynolds isn't going anywhere. He is inextricably connected to the Deadpool franchise.

Also, Denzell 100% looks exactly like Xavier save for the pigmentation of his skin, but we all know how you feel about that and I don't want to drag the thread back there all over again.

Again, I'm disagreeing here. Doesn't matter if they made it clear that Ryan is returning, I'm still not up for it.

And yes Denzel Washington doesn't resemble Charles Xavier and not just because of skin pigmentation.

 

[Marvel united]

Again, I'm disagreeing here. Doesn't matter if they made it clear that Ryan is returning, I'm still not up for it.

And yes Denzel Washington doesn't resemble Charles Xavier and not just because of skin pigmentation.

Uhhh Denzel is an Academy award winning actor and easily one of the most talented in Hollywood right now. The man is a legend.

I'm sure Marvel wouldn't wave away the possibility of Denzel Washington as Charles Xavier simply because he doesn't look like the 1:1 translation of a comic page. There are a lot of other factors to consider.

I think his son, John David Washington would also be a good choice for Xavier

 

[JamesHOWLETT]

Denzel is too on the nose casting for me and the obvious fact that he looks nothing like Xavier is a problem. It was a problem for me with James McAvoy when they insisted on keeping his Xavier's hair long and him upright walking. Taking away characters' iconography to prove a point or to make them more "current" or "woke" when does it just make them into a different character? Comics are a visual medium so It is a slippery slope.

Why would anyone cast a 30 something as Charles Xavier regardless of how they look?

 

[Marvel united]

Denzel is too on the nose casting for me and the obvious fact that he looks nothing like Xavier is a problem. It was a problem for me with James McAvoy when they insisted on keeping his Xavier's hair long and him upright walking. Taking away characters' iconography to prove a point or to make them more "current" or "woke" when does it just make them into a different character? Comics are a visual medium so It is a slippery slope.

Why would anyone cast a 30 something as Charles Xavier regardless of how they look?

This goes back to the argument of race-swapping. Many of the opponents of it say "Just cast who's best for the role regardless of race"... Well, Denzel could potentially be the best choice for the role. And imo Xavier being black does not make him a different character. If anything, it strengthens the often cited Martin Luther King allegory that X-Men stories utilize.

McAvoy's Xavier being unrecognizable was the entire point of his arc in DOFP-- because he had to become that iconic version of Xavier. His arc is one thing that DOFP did very well, it's just a shame that his development in the FC trilogy came at the expense of the X-Men themselves. When a change can be justified by the story in a meaningful way (FC/DOFP) then it should be fine.

As for Xavier's age, it depends on how you envision the X-Men themselves. I envision them starting younger--less experienced, so to would Xavier. If the X-Men are seasoned and experienced, then Xavier follows suit.

And besides, if the movie is truly years off, then you are adding 4-5 years of age to any potential actor

 

[JamesHOWLETT]

Well, the MCU's time scale is in real-time or at least was- before the events of Infinity War. Vision stated Stark came out as Iron Man 8 years before the accords which lines up with when Iron Man actually came out (2008 + 8 = 2016) and Iron Man took place in 2008. Now we are 5 years in after the time jump, with 2023.

That I misread at first. I can admit when I am wrong. I know that everything in the films is not necessarily the same timewise as it is chronologically to the times the films were released so I am right that regard. Parts of the released official timeline directly contradict the story elements too but no franchise is as bad as X-Men in this regard so lets keep moving.

Peter is the only one who's not aging in real-time because they are trying to stretch his High-school longevity as long as possible. But once he's out, I don't see why he won't age in real-time like everybody else in the MCU.

Who is to say they can't get another three movies with him in high school? 20 to even 30 somethings have been playing teenagers for decades in Hollywood. They went out of there way to keep the kids in high school for the last film.

Bianca Lawson is a 40-year-old woman still playing teenagers consistently. It would not be the first time someone played an age younger than they are. Trust me I can give you so many other instances.

What makes you believe they want him out of before Kitty would be introduced?

Kitty won't appear until Peter's already out of High-school and a grown man, and I'd prefer she remain the baby of the X-Men and self-insert for younger viewers. Marvel have no qualms casting child actors so a comic accurate (Claremont) Kitty Pryde should be no problem

You make it seem as though 17 or 18 is an old over the hill person. Child actors in high concept films like this tend to be portrayed not in the best light. I would prefer someone around Kitty's age in X-Men: Evolution where she is a "young lady" vs. a "kid". It tends to give more dynamic story opportunities about love and life.

He literally says exactly that when he mentions Deadpool. They're all just "mutants" to him. They're all under the 'mutant" brand. "X-Men, mutants, they're the same thing". He's not referring to the X-Men specifically but the mutant brand as a whole.

I think he has a tall order whatever he decides. At any rate I am sure he will most likely go for the Marvel formulaic branding which is unforuate imo. I hope he has the guts to make a different kind of film than he has made in the past regardless of the commercial appeal.

I mean, the Government does play an intrinsic role in this franchise and there are several Government-created mutant teams. The X-Men could just be the precursor to that.

That is First Class! The movie Fox already made that Feige wants to get away from, remember?

This concept is pedantic you even mention it is derivative of Stranger Things in your pitch of the idea yourself.

Feige is looking for a different take and i suspect some things are gonna be changed to differentiate from Fox (elements they used). So I'm open to a reimagining like this, as long as it stays true to the core concepts and ideas

Again everything done here has been done before some parts in the films he is trying to distance himself from.

Did I? I don't have a problem with uniforms but I suspect Marvel may go with individualized to differentiate from Fox.

You said you preferred not retreading what Fox did yet you did almost a verbatim duplication of the costumes from First Class and some story ideas.

I was using those suits as an example of what they wear while they are Government lapdogs. A militaristic version of the classic Jack Kirby X-Uniform. Once they leave & form their own identity, they create their own suits.

I like that idea just seems kind of similar to FC.

But I gave an in story justification for why the X-Men would wear suits like that, the explanation I gave is believable in the context of the MCU.

I am not saying that's not a valid reasoning but is it believable? To most that look at the situation probably not.

Anecdotally I have found people are confused with the hatred of mutants yet the almost godlike praise of Avengers especially when you consider mutants have been Avengers. This is perplexing to many just casual fans I have spoken with.

I am not sure the best way to accomplish this but they need to firmly discribe what draws a devide. I have used uniforms because it visually distincts these characters into not just Avengers 2.0. It seems like the easiest way as film is a visual medium.

Also, for me at least, I don't NEED it to be dark or self-serious. Singer's films are all dark, grounded films but none of them really have anything meaningful to say about society aside from maybe X1 because even in X2, they reinvented Stryker as a general instead of a pastor and they removed all the religious themes and elements from God Loves, Man Kills in adapting the story. Deadpool 2 ironically featured a character closer to William Stryker than the actual Stryker

I can not fault Singer for streamlining a stories message to make it easier to digest for the GA (yah know, what ever filmaker does adapting a CB?). And what makes you believe Disney Marvel are going to be more willing to explore religious zealots bigotry than Fox ever could? It appears you are just complaining about Hollywood being a business ir your disdain for Fox is making you vent.

Crazy Rich Asians for example is a fun, funny romantic comedy that is not anywhere near as self-serious as Singer's X-Men but it has twice as much social meaning. Ditto for a movie like 'The Farewell'.

You are confusing your thoughts about the politics of the films being made in general with the quality of their in universe statements. That being said 100% agree X-Men could stand to be a bit more "fun" though.

So while I get your reasoning for wanting a dark, grounded, underground take on the X-Men, we're just now coming off of 20 years of that from the Singer franchise and I wouldn't mind for people to know that an X-Men film can be fun, exciting and marketable i.e Claremont. A good balance of dark and light

Fair enough. If course I don't know if my thinking is the best way to approach it but I just don't believe making them effectively carbon copies of the Avengers save for the score is the best way to go about it either.

I don't mind a more serious tone either but I don't want them to be grounded. I just want the story to be from their POV

That sounds fair.

Spider-Man grew up in the MCU as a child and he was inspired by Stark and the Avengers. Regardless of how I feel about this, it makes sense in the MCU. I wouldn't be surprised if the X-Men are similarly rooted in the MCU's mythology

In what regard? You want them to look up to the Avengers? I don't like that idea so much because I have always considered the X-Men seeing themselves as equals to the Avengers not their subordinates like they did with Peter in the MCU.

In the context of the story? The same way it happened in the comics
View attachment 31308
View attachment 31309
The same way the public are turned against any minority group, really. Propagand, fear mongering, indoctrination etc. Smear campaigns run by politicians and personalities would label mutants as a problem and the X-Men are mutants, so they get lumped in to these attacks. And this turns the public against them.

I mean, we are seeing this in action with what's happened to Spider-Man after the events of FFH with people like Jameson. And since Jameson is the MCU equivalent to Alex Jones, he's probably going to have a problem with mutants as well.

It is diffrent because SM is a masked vigilante vs. someone working with the government trying to facilitate peace. Also all the heroes had their ups and downs with the PR based on individual issues not because they were human mutates.

I can see some parallels but they just don't seem to equate to what many people I have spoken with on in-universe racism of certain super-beings vs others.

And once mutants are deemed a "problem" that need to be dealt with in theory then that's when practice becomes praxis-- and they can start going after mutants through legislation, all with the public's support. Thus beginning the cycle of mutant persecution in the MCU

Yeah like it was done in Singers films but the difference is we are integrating them into a larger universe. A universe that has superpowered individuals lauded for being "other" too. I think it needs to be more complicated than boiling down to bad PR. It cheapens the issues you keep saying "the mutant problem" need to address.

 

[psylockolussus]

Uhhh Denzel is an Academy award winning actor and easily one of the most talented in Hollywood right now. The man is a legend.

I'm sure Marvel wouldn't wave away the possibility of Denzel Washington as Charles Xavier simply because he doesn't look like the 1:1 translation of a comic page. There are a lot of other factors to consider.

I think his son, John David Washington would also be a good choice for Xavier

Again I'm not talking about talent here. I'm not suggesting Viola Davis to play Storm or Meryl Streep to play Emma Frost.

This is a cbm. The actor that they should hire should look the part first and foremost. And he doesn't.

 

[Marvel united]

Who is to say they can't get another three movies with him in high school? 20 to even 30 somethings have been playing teenagers for decades in Hollywood. They went out of there way to keep the kids in high school for the last film.

Because Marvel Studios pitched a trilogy of films in High-school. Homecoming was sophomore year, FFH was Junior year and Spider-Man 3 is gonna be Senior year/graduation.

Bianca Lawson is a 40-year-old woman still playing teenagers consistently. It would not be the first time someone played an age younger than they are. Trust me I can give you so many other instances.

I'm aware that older adults are cast as teens in films and television shows (although this a lot less prevalent now than it was in the 90s and early 2000s). But you won't see that happening in the MCU. Feige went out of his way to cast an actual teenager for Spider-Man and that he did with a 19 year old Tom Holland. It was a stated priority for him.

And really, you won't find anybody in the MCU playing 8-9 years younger than their actual age. They consistently cast age appropriate actors for their characters, at least for the characters who have canon ages.

You make it seem as though 17 or 18 is an old over the hill person. Child actors in high concept films like this tend to be portrayed not in the best light. I would prefer someone around Kitty's age in X-Men: Evolution where she is a "young lady" vs. a "kid". It tends to give more dynamic story opportunities about love and life.

It's not that a 17-18 year old is "old" (God knows. I turn 30 in a couple of months) It's just that an 18 year old College student leads a completely different life, and has a completely different perspective than a 13-14 year old Middle-schooler. It's a huuuge difference that can not be understated.

A Kitty Pryde who is a genuine child opens up it's own unique relationship dynamics and storytelling possibilities, that would be different but just as potentially interesting (See Stranger Things, IT, Shazam etc) and since Marvel have already cast children in main roles, I don't see why Kitty has to be aged up. I'd love to see the character grow up in real time with her actress. From a standoffish, stubborn kid with a heart of gold to a young woman who becomes one of the X-Men's greatest leaders.

That could potentially be one of the most emotionally fulfilling journeys in the MCU

That is First Class! The movie Fox already made that Feige wants to get away from, remember?

Now that you mention it, it is pretty similar to First Class. Huh...

This concept is pedantic you even mention it is derivative of Stranger Things in your pitch of the idea yourself.

Again everything done here has been done before some parts in the films he is trying to distance himself from.

Yes, that's true. The Government aspect did play a role in the creation of the X-Men in the Fox continuity.

But I think it can still be handled in a different way. In Ultimate X-Men, the school (The Xavier Institute) is brought under SHIELD jurisdiction after the X-Men stop Magneto for the second(? Been years since I read) time. So maybe they can do something like that.

I also wouldn't mind them dropping the school aspect altogether and making it a Foster home instead, at least initially. The "school" aspect was implented into the comics after X-Men (2000). Before that, it was a school in name only. So I wouldn't mind Marvel going back to that original concept

That concept def might be too derivative of First Class

You said you preferred not retreading what Fox did yet you did almost a verbatim duplication of the costumes from First Class and some story ideas.

I like that idea just seems kind of similar to FC.

Well, it's not so much what I'd do ideally in my own adaptation but moreso trying to think of possible ways Feige would change elements to differentiate.

I am not saying that's not a valid reasoning but is it believable? To most that look at the situation probably not.

Anecdotally I have found people are confused with the hatred of mutants yet the almost godlike praise of Avengers especially when you consider mutants have been Avengers. This is perplexing to many just casual fans I have spoken with.

They will understand once they watch the movie. But it's really not that hard to figure out how/why this would happen, especially after Civil War.

I am not sure the best way to accomplish this but they need to firmly discribe what draws a devide. I have used uniforms because it visually distincts these characters into not just Avengers 2.0. It seems like the easiest way as film is a visual medium.

I would have no problem with uniforms again if thats the direction they decided to go. I actually wouldn't mind if the individualized outfits were saved for the sequel

I can not fault Singer for streamlining a stories message to make it easier to digest for the GA (yah know, what ever filmaker does adapting a CB?). And what makes you believe Disney Marvel are going to be more willing to explore religious zealots bigotry than Fox ever could? It appears you are just complaining about Hollywood being a business ir your disdain for Fox is making you vent.

Well, I feel like the essence of the story was lost. It was meant to be the magnum opus of the X-Men's themes and ideas. At least according to Claremont himself. Completely reinventing Stryker as a generic military dude (much closer to Grayden Creed, also a religous zealot) removes the power of the story. God Loves directly addresses the real world bigotry of people who weaponize the Bible to discriminate against minorities. Stryker and his Purifiers a clear stand-in for David Duke and the KKK

Now whether Disney would do this? I dunno. I'm curious to see how far Feige will be willing to push the envelope. Black Panther was a very social film so who knows. It could depend on the filmmakers behind X-Men as Ryan Coogler was a big factor

I know that any true adaptation of God loves will have to have positive representation of religion. Bring in Nightcrawler and juxtapose him against Stryker

You are confusing your thoughts about the politics of the films being made in general with the quality of their in universe statements. That being said 100% agree X-Men could stand to be a bit more "fun" though.

What I meant to say is that an X-Men film does not have to be dark to meaningfully address the social themes that define the X-Men.

In what regard? You want them to look up to the Avengers? I don't like that idea so much because I have always considered the X-Men seeing themselves as equals to the Avengers not their subordinates like they did with Peter in the MCU.

That depends on their age and how long they've been operating. The Avengers formed 13 years ago in the MCU's current timeline (2024). Add another 4-5 to account for when MCU X-Men comes out, that's 17-18 years ago in 2027-2028..

So if the first MCU X-Men is set in the MCU's current timeline for when it releases, then in all likelihood, the X-Men were kids when the battle of New York happened 18 years before their film. So the question is, how did they see them, then and how do they see now.

Spider-Man saw/sees Tony Stark as his equal in the comics but in the MCU, it's not the same, because Peter was 6 years old during the events of IM1

But even if they don't look up to the Avengers, that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the world does. And so the X-Men would realize that they are the MCU's definitive image of superheroes

It is diffrent because SM is a masked vigilante vs. someone working with the government trying to facilitate peace. Also all the heroes had their ups and downs with the PR based on individual issues not because they were human mutates.

I can see some parallels but they just don't seem to equate to what many people I have spoken with on in-universe racism of certain super-beings vs others.

I agree that it's not the same but I used Spider-Man as an example about how misinformation and fear mongering turned people against Spider-Man.

They don't even have to lie about mutants, though. Because many of their concerns are, well, valid from their perspective when you have Magnetos walking around. But they use these concerns to do very terrible things

Yeah like it was done in Singers films but the difference is we are integrating them into a larger universe. A universe that has superpowered individuals lauded for being "other" too. I think it needs to be more complicated than boiling down to bad PR. It cheapens the issues you keep saying "the mutant problem" need to address.

The thing is, propaganda and fearmongering has been a powerful tool in energizing hate and intolerance for minorities from the majority. We've seen this happen many times in history. Someone gets on a stand and points their finger at a group of people and they say "These people are a problem, they are the cause of OUR problems. And something has to be done about it".

And in the MCU, it would not be hard to do this at all. All it takes is ONE incident where a mutant commits an act of terrorism or even has an accident, that results in multiple casualties. And the Government can use this fear to drum up hate and suspicion to justify going after them (which they'd already be doing under the table anyway)

People like Jameson and Government officials (Kelly, Gyrich etc) would at least try make sure people know the difference between a "mutant" and a "human mutate". Becuz of course they don't want the public being afraid of Government sanctioned superheroes.

A great source of drama in the MCU could be ground-level heroes being confused with mutants. And a little bit of suspense of disbelief can go a long way too, as long as it makes some semblance of sense

 

[VictusMortuus]

Ad great as Denzel would be as Xavier I’d love to see him play Magneto.

 

[Charzhin0]

Pass on Denzel as Magneto. Jeremy Irons would be by #1 choice followed by John Hamm.

 

[psylockolussus]

Ad great as Denzel would be as Xavier I’d love to see him play Magneto.

Once again, he doesn't look the part.

 

[InCali]

Pass on Denzel as Magneto. Jeremy Irons would be by #1 choice followed by John Hamm.

When you have an actor of the caliber of Jeremy Irons, it's very, very hard to go wrong.

 

[Charzhin0]

When you have an actor of the caliber of Jeremy Irons, it's very, very hard to go wrong.

And he comes pre-packaged with ready made white hair.

 

[Detective Conan]

Once again, he doesn't look the part.

Since when has “looking the part” always mattered in casting? Did the tall, handsome, Hugh Jackman look the part of the ugly, short, Wolverine?

But I still don’t want Denzel as either Magneto or Xavier. Not because he “doesn’t look part” he just doesn’t seem like a great fit.

 

[VictusMortuus]

Denzel would absolutely nail either Xavier or Mags because he’s a great actor, he’s is not my number one choice for either role. My number one pick for Magneto is Timothy Olyphant and Ioan Gruffudd for Xavier.

 

[BoredGuy]

Ad great as Denzel would be as Xavier I’d love to see him play Magneto.

Yeah he'd be a better Mags than Chuck, he has that seething anger that fits better with Magneto

When you have an actor of the caliber of Jeremy Irons, it's very, very hard to go wrong.

And he comes pre-packaged with ready made white hair.

Irons is too old and frail, if they're sticking with the WWII origin then maybe, but if he's being updated at all I'd rather a mature but still fit looking Magneto

 

[OB12]

I always come back to Eric Bana for Magneto and Lennie James for Xavier.

 

[MilkmanDan]

With me it's Daniel Craig or Viggo Mortensen for Magneto and Lance Reddick or Colin Salmon for Xavier.

 

[Iceman]

Since when has “looking the part” always mattered in casting? Did the tall, handsome, Hugh Jackman look the part of the ugly, short, Wolverine?

But I still don’t want Denzel as either Magneto or Xavier. Not because he “doesn’t look part” he just doesn’t seem like a great fit.

It's always mattered. Jackman was great in spite of his height. Everyone want's good actors filtered by the characteristics of the role. Otherwise when you have a great actor it doesn't matter which role you give them.

We would be happy with top actors like Leonardo Dicaprio as Colossus and Meryl Streep as Kitty Pryde.

Maybe even Judi Dench as Cyclops and Patrick Stewart back as Storm this time.

 

[InCali]

Yeah he'd be a better Mags than Chuck, he has that seething anger that fits better with Magneto





Irons is too old and frail, if they're sticking with the WWII origin then maybe, but if he's being updated at all I'd rather a mature but still fit looking Magneto

Oh sure, Irons wouldn't be cast for a youngish Magneto. I just saw him in Watchmen and I think he could certainly pull it off. He didn't come across as too frail to my eyes. Given the wonders of what they can do with appearance, I think you could make him look 20 years younger (and he didn't really look his age anyway.....though maybe that was also due to those wonders).