Marvel Films MCU X-Men - Part 4

[Marvel united]

Not big on the idea of New Mutants getting incorporated into the MCU. Illyana and Rahne are well-cast but Roberto, Dani and Cecilia are whitewashed/whitepassing and they're all gonna age out of their roles soon.

The New Mutants already being around also raises questions about the X-Men themselves who imo, should be established first. Then bring them into the sequel as new students in training > Disney+ show

 

[psylockolussus]

I'll be honest, I wasn't very impressed with the trailer. After 2 years, I was expecting more from it.

The movie could end up being great tho, but I don't see Marvel integrating them in the MCU. Wanting or not, despite whatever quality in the story the movie might have, it doesn't look very polished. And while some might think this is superficial, I don't think it's part of the brand Marvel has built. The introduction of mutants might not be a simple thing to do, and I think Marvel will do it in their own terms.

Yes it doesn't look very well polished hence my comment of it looking like a Tv movie. I just finished the Boys, that looks more polished than this 2020 movie.

 

[Fincher]

So should the theaterical film of The New Mutants should look really similar to the production values of the Curse of La Llarona? Okay then. I think you missed the part that this is based in a Marvel Comics property as well. And why should a Marvel film looks so low budgeted in 2020? Being a horror film shouldn't be used as an eXcuse as there are plenty of recent horror films with much better cinematography, production values and vfx than this one.

Well, I didn't get into the question of how it should look, just how it does look. In my opinion, the look of the movie is better than MCU movies in general despite the lower budget because I like the visual style more. That's not to say that it makes no difference. I gave it an 8 out of 10 in the rating thread, but I probably would have given it a 9 out of 10 if it had the usual Fox X-Men production quality. I'm just not going to worry about it because it still looks good to me.


As for continuing it in the MCU, I don't care about everything being connected, so if it was good and made enough money, I'd say just make another one and not worry about the continuity. I know that won't happen, though, and if they were willing to put something in the MCU this far from the house style, we'd probably have seen it already.

 

[psylockolussus]

I stand by what I said. It looks like a Tv movie, a tv movie made for NetfliX.

the X-Men themselves who imo, should be established first.

The X-Men should definitely be eXtablished first before the New Mutants.

Anyway, the movie would just come and go in April similar to Dark PhoeniX.

 

[Detective Conan]

Where does that fit in? Fox universe lives, it's separate solo thing or first MCU film?

The movie takes place in its own universe, and isn’t specifically tied to the Fox-Universe of X-Men movies. There was actually a rumor a while back that this movie initially had references to the Fox universe but were taken out in order to make it a more standalone thing. Make of that what you will.

It's going theatrical?

Yes. That’s the current plan at least. As of now, the movie is currently slated for release on April 3rd 2020. Will it keep that release date and actually be a theatrical release? That remains to be seen.

 

[Zorro]

It should be a Hulu original movie

 

[psylockolussus]

It should be a Hulu original movie

It looks like a NetfliX movie to me.

 

[Zorro]

Well that ain't happening and I doubt it'll get added to Disney + any time soon and so Hulu is it.

Saw the trailer myself and doesn't look bad but I just think releasing it theatrically is a mistake

 

[psylockolussus]

Well that ain't happening and I doubt it'll get added to Disney + any time soon and so Hulu is it.

Saw the trailer myself and doesn't look bad but I just think releasing it theatrically is a mistake

From what I read online, certain FoX-Marvel movies are now available in Disney+. So it shouldn't be a surprise if this one goes to Disney+, sometime in the future.

Imo, all things based on Marvel Comics should be available in Disney+ - the good, the bad and the ugly.

 

[Zorro]

Well I agree with that. I hope to see all fantastic four and X-Men movies in there some day soon. I know internationally is half way there but the US only has Rise of the Silver Surfer

 

[EnDz0n3]

Today's The New Mutants trailer shows the "20th Century Fox" title card followed by "Marvel" title card (as opposed to Marvel Studios). Similar to Dark Phoenix. None of these kids are joining the MCU.

 

[Zorro]

Good

 

[DawnWarrior]

Man, that new New Mutants trailer looks way better now that we've sat through Dark Phoenix.

 

[EnDz0n3]

"Could 'New Mutants' Continue Beyond Marvel Cinematic Universe" via HollywoodReporter.

Back in 2017, after the release of the initial trailer, Boone discussed his plans for a sequel, confirming that he originally pitched the film to producer Simon Kinberg as a trilogy with each entry exploring a different horror subgenre with the events in the comics serving as the basis. Given the scope of New Mutants comics and the wide cast of characters, there was potential for New Mutants to become a franchise as storied and long-running as Fox’s X-Men series. But Disney’s buyout of 20th Century Fox may change all of that. There was some fan speculation, given the delay, that The New Mutants would be retrofitted into the MCU with Kevin Feige making changes to add connective tissue. This theory was furthered by Feige’s comments at Comic-Con International July in which he closed the Marvel Studios panel by saying “and there’s no time left to talk about mutants.” It seemed notable that he said “mutants” and not “X-Men.” Marvel Studios’ plans for the merry mutants are still a close kept secret, and in fact, their appearance in the MCU doesn’t seem to be part of the immediate future, with upcoming films and story threads pointing towards a more cosmic direction. Still, we can’t help but wonder if the New Mutants, like Ryan Reynolds’ Deadpool, could fit somewhere in these plans.

Whole lot of Nothing-Burger.

 

[TheVileOne]

What did you expect from the outlet that published The Whiteness of Toy Story 4, deploring Toy Story 4 for its lack of diversity? Also making one of the new characters literally a "white fork."

 

[Herofan]

I look forward to Marvel modernizing & updating this franchise -- Representing poc and other minorities both in front of & behind the camera. Letting diverse voices and perspectives

Diverse doesn't have to mean only minorities.

The X-Men are coded racial and sexual minorities in the Marvel Universe.

There are other kinds of diversity besides race/ethnicity and sexuality.

Comics Cyclops and Rogue are already representation of disability and yet some seem to be arguing that they need to be, at least should be, race-changed for a modern movie version for them and the team to be more diverse.

I also think having some members from majority groups can make for a stronger kind of diversity and social commentary. Like devout Catholic Nightcrawler getting along with a gay team member rather just not having him or changing him because Catholicism isn't oppressed.

What is it that any of us here have suggested that would push the X-Men into "In name only" territory? In name only is when the premise and characters share not even the most superficial aspects and traits with the source material besides it's "name" i.e Fant4stic.

In my opinion, Hank McCoy being brown does not make him in name only.

Not necessarily INO but making Nightcrawler not German or both gay and Catholic would feel like a pretty different character. Making Cyclops Native American could be a minor change or a big one, also more like a different character, depending on how much it's focused on.

 

[psylockolussus]

You want a Native American character, use Forge, who is Native American.

 

[Marvel united]

You want a Native American character, use Forge, who is Native American.

Native American characters are not interchangeable simply on the basis of them being native. Summers is a completely different character from Forge & serves a completely different function in the X-Men.

That's like saying, why do we need Angel when we already have Multiple Man? If you want a white character, use him. But they aren't interchangeable.

And Summers would be from a different tribe than Forge anyway. There are many different cultures that fall under the "Native American" umbrella.

 

[Lip]

Diverse doesn't have to mean only minorities.

But the X-Men's essence is about the struggles of oppressed minorities. Mutants are literally a group of oppressed minorities.

For decades and to this day, real world oppressed groups have served as inspiration for the X-Men. It's dishonest to use the experience of black and gay people to tell your stories and have 3 or 4 of them among 25 white and straight characters leading the stories.

But at the end it's exactly what some people expect: Black and gay people "represented" as "metaphors" or in "subtext".

We want to break that.

Comics Cyclops and Rogue are already representation of disability

Cyclops and Rogue do not represent real life people with disability. The same way Kurt and Hank do not represent POC because they're blue.

Xavier and Murdock represent people with disability. And now the new version of Makkari in Eternals.

Not necessarily INO but making Nightcrawler not German or both gay and Catholic would feel like a pretty different character.

I disagree. I think Kurt can be adapted and updated in ways that keep all of his essence intact. Unless you want to argue that he HAS to be straight and german to work on a circus, to be persecuted for looking the way he looks, to have that fun and simpathetic personality, to have his strong faith and be catholic, etc...

Now, advocating for Kurt to be portrayed as a rude science genius, or Colossus to be portrayed as savage animal, or Logan to be portrayed as an emotional and sensitive guy... I mean those are things that, for me, would make them "INO".

 

[JamesHOWLETT]

Native American characters are not interchangeable simply on the basis of them being native. Summers is a completely different character from Forge & serves a completely different function in the X-Men.

That's like saying, why do we need Angel when we already have Multiple Man? If you want a white character, use him. But they aren't interchangeable.

And Summers would be from a different tribe than Forge anyway. There are many different cultures that fall under the "Native American" umbrella.

What? That's like saying Storm doesn't represent African culture just because she doesn't reside from there originally. She is still black representation even African representation because of the context of her character's origins.

Look, I get what you mean to a certain extent. I have Avan Jogia as Gambit and Jeffrey Wright as Beast (blue form) in my fan cast fanart from just a few pages back, however, they still look visually like their comic counterparts and it doesn't derail the character's story by trying to push a political ideology IMO.

Trying to make a story alternative crafted to make their ethnic background a huge draw to their appeal suddenly comes across as pandering not empowering to me.

Those same characters being white was never seen as a dividing factor against them in the comics. Kitty noticing Storm was brown was the most they ever really pushed that mutants have different races at all. That and her initially afraid of Kurt for his demonic appearance. Even then it was portrayed as if she was evolving from her Homosapien colored viewpoint vs being bigoted.

They tend to see themselves as a different race altogether.

 

[Marvel united]

What? That's like saying Storm doesn't represent African culture just because she doesn't reside from there originally. She is still black representation even African representation because of the context of her character's origins.

My point was in reference to Forge being interchangeable with a Native Cyclops simply because they're both Native. That's where the similarities between both of these characters end. Native Americans are not a monolithic group, there are many different native tribes. And there is room for more than one in the X-Men's ranks.

Look, I get what you mean to a certain extent. I have Avan Jogia as Gambit and Jeffrey Wright as Beast (blue form) in my fan cast fanart from just a few pages back, however, they still look visually like their comic counterparts and it doesn't derail the character's story by trying to push a political ideology IMO.

This is really tone deaf. So basically, the X-Men being the X-Men?

Trying to make a story alternative crafted to make their ethnic background a huge draw to their appeal suddenly comes across as pandering not empowering to me.

Well, just because it wouldn't be empowering to you doesn't mean it won't be empowering for people who are underrepresented and feel ignored-- Native Americans in this case. Having the leader and first in command of the X-Men be Native would be empowering to millions and the box-office recipients prove this is the case when minorities are represented.

Those same characters being white was never seen as a dividing factor against them in the comics. Kitty noticing Storm was brown was the most they ever really pushed that mutants have different races at all. That and her initially afraid of Kurt for his demonic appearance. Even then it was portrayed as if she was evolving from her Homosapien colored viewpoint vs being bigoted. They tend to see themselves as a different race altogether.

But the world doesn't work that way. The world is not colorblind. Some people have advantages that others do not. Just because Storm is a mutant and Jean is a mutant, does not mean that Storm won't have an extra challenge to contend with that Jean does not have, and that racists and bigots will suddenly forget that Storm is black. She would be discriminated against for being both black AND a mutant. Claremont did acknowledge this in Dark Phoenix, when Mastermind had Jean hallucinate Storm as a slave since this was her in the 1700s. And Roberto Da Costa's (Sunspot) entire origin story where being bullied by racists for being Afro-Latino/black is what awakened his powers.

But the best example of Intersectionality & class privilege is with the Morlocks. The Morlocks are juxtaposed against the X-Men because the X-Men (for the most part) are human passing. The Morlocks are visible mutants who can't pass as humans so they are damned to live under the streets of Manhattan, forever rejected from society because they got the short end of the genome stick

Intersectionality is one of many things that a modern version of the X-Men can explore as we look at mutant persecution from a more nuanced perspective.

 

[Herofan]

But the X-Men's essence is about the struggles of oppressed minorities. Mutants are literally a group of oppressed minorities.

For decades and to this day, real world oppressed groups have served as inspiration for the X-Men. It's dishonest to use the experience of black and gay people to tell your stories and have 3 or 4 of them among 25 white and straight characters leading the stories.

it's exactly what some people expect: Black and gay people "represented" as "metaphors" or in "subtext".

We want to break that.

Well we're likely to only get 5 or 6 hero Mutant characters in the first film and about 12 over 3 or 4 films, so having 3 or 4 actual minorities, let alone in the first film, would be a large part of the hero cast, not just minimal and marginal inclusion. Even with a smaller cast the choice isn't either just minimal inclusion or having every member represent an actual group and none being more metaphoric or subtextual.

I think Kurt can be adapted and updated in ways that keep all of his essence intact. Unless you want to argue that he HAS to be straight and german to work on a circus, to be persecuted for looking the way he looks, to have that fun and simpathetic personality, to have his strong faith and be catholic, etc...

Now, advocating for Kurt to be portrayed as a rude science genius, or Colossus to be portrayed as savage animal, or Logan to be portrayed as an emotional and sensitive guy... I mean those are things that, for me, would make them "INO".

Those would definitely be bigger changes, but, from the post above, changing a character's ethnicity or orientation so that they have to deal with extra challenges could lead to pretty different overall characterizations.

 

[JamesHOWLETT]

My point was in reference to Forge being interchangeable with a Native Cyclops simply because they're both Native. That's where the similarities between both of these characters end. Native Americans are not a monolithic group, there are many different native tribes. And there is room for more than one in the X-Men's ranks.

How if Forge was represented fantastically and was a stand out fan favorite why would it matter if he was not exactly placed in Cyclops context?
Am I missing something? Why do you have to make a race change in order for diversity to matter?

This is really tone deaf. So basically, the X-Men being the X-Men?
View attachment 30889
View attachment 30893
View attachment 30897
View attachment 30894 View attachment 30895

You do not seem to understand my meaning or are sentence cherry-picking to bolster an argument I am not even making. Using X-Men's general "rights for all disenfranchised" to qualify a very specific ideology that you adhere to when it comes to adapting these films is not the same. You have to understand the difference. Or maybe you don't.

Well, just because it wouldn't be empowering to you doesn't mean it won't be empowering for people who are underrepresented and feel ignored-- Native Americans in this case.

You have completely missed the point though. You can have strong Native American comic accurate representation without changing characters ethnic origins to satisfy this itch a couple fans would like scratched.

Having the leader and first in command of the X-Men be Native would be empowering to millions and the box-office recipients prove this is the case when minorities are represented.

This is just untrue. It has been proven to not be true also for the most part having ideological/political talking points guide movies. Ghostbusters, Terminator: Dark Fate, Charlies Angles, Fan4stic, Captain Marvel and Star Wars just to name a few have had major backlash due to these same types of thinking. People do not go to see a film only because they have "representation" within that films context.

That is a ludicrous accusation to make when when there is so much data saying otherwise.

But the world doesn't work that way. The world is not colorblind. Some people have advantages that others do not. Just because Storm is a mutant and Jean is a mutant, does not mean that Storm won't have an extra challenge to contend with that Jean does not have, and that racists and bigots will suddenly forget that Storm is black. She would be discriminated against for being both black AND a mutant. Claremont did acknowledge this in Dark Phoenix, when Mastermind had Jean hallucinate Storm as a slave since this was her in the 1700s. And Roberto Da Costa's (Sunspot) entire origin story where being bullied by racists for being Afro-Latino/black is what awakened his powers.

But the best example of Intersectionality & class privilege is with the Morlocks. The Morlocks are juxtaposed against the X-Men because the X-Men (for the most part) are human passing. The Morlocks are visible mutants who can't pass as humans so they are damned to live under the streets of Manhattan, forever rejected from society because they got the short end of the genome stick

Intersectionality is one of many things that a modern version of the X-Men can explore as we look at mutant persecution from a more nuanced perspective.

So why do we "need" this added bit of diversity?

As you admit they have it in the context of the stories inherently just in different ways then trying to make outright political statements about the leader of the group by changing his race. Also there is something to be said of iconography.

Is "MJ" ever going to rival the actual Mary Jane as far as fans are concerned? Absolutely not! Yet this need to create diversified though not as well liked versions of characters persists. Because a very small group rally for this? You are all basically saying "well, I want it so they should do it and be damned with any fans or general audience members who disagree!"

 

[Marvel united]

How if Forge was represented fantastically and was a stand out fan favorite why would it matter if he was not exactly placed in Cyclops context?
Am I missing something? Why do you have to make a race change in order for diversity to matter?

Because Forge is not Cyclops. Forge existing does not cancel out the possibility of a Scott Summers derived from a First Nations tribe simply because "We already have a Native!"

Nevermind the fact that Forge works for the Government 80% of the time so he can never compare to the significance Cyclops has to the X-Men. Do I want a great representation of Forge when it comes time to introduce him? Of course.

You do not seem to understand my meaning or are sentence cherry-picking to bolster an argument I am not even making. Using X-Men's general "rights for all disenfranchised" to qualify a very specific ideology that you adhere to when it comes to adapting these films is not the same. You have to understand the difference. Or maybe you don't.

Oh, I understand perfectly clear. You are inferring that race changing characters is pushing a "specific" political ideology. Hmm, I wonder what that ideology is. And whether the X-Men have been aligned with it for decades (they have).

I wonder if it has something to do with modern Identity politics that so many decry nowadays... Hmm. It's almost like identity politics have been at the root center of Civil Rights activism for quite some time now.

Some have been more comfortable with it in X-Men stories as long as it never went past the general "Equality for all! Discrimination = bad!" And never explored the inner workings and cogs that allow oppression to take hold. Some X-Men stories do take it there and Marvel have always used the X-Men in particular as a vehicle to express progressive political ideals.

Ask yourself what progressive political ideals look like today and not 1965.

You have completely missed the point though. You can have strong Native American comic accurate representation without changing characters ethnic origins to satisfy this itch a couple fans would like scratched.

Ethnic origins? So what ethnicity informs Hank McCoy being white? None, zero, zilch. They are white because they couldn't be anything else when they were created. It's really that simple. If the X-Men were created today with all social themes intact, what would they look like? That's the question that matters here

This is just untrue. It has been proven to not be true also for the most part having ideological/political talking points guide movies. Ghostbusters, Terminator: Dark Fate, Charlies Angles, Fan4stic, Captain Marvel and Star Wars just to name a few have had major backlash due to these same types of thinking. People do not go to see a film only because they have "representation" within that films context.

Oh boy, A lot to unpack here. First of all, Captain Marvel & The Last Jedi were both massively successful from a commercial and critical perspective (Keyword - actual critics) and the backlash for Captain Marvel in particular had zero negative affect on that success. What you had was a bunch of grown men whining and complaining and trying to sabotage a movie because the lead actress hurt their feelings. I'm sure Brie Larson and Kevin Feige are crying their hearts out over a loud minority on the internet over the billions of dollars Captain Marvel made.

As for Fant4stic, Ghostbusters and Charlie's Angels- all of those films failed because they were terrible films. Not all films are critic proof like Michael Bay's Transformers franchise. The loud, angry men decrying those films were not anywhere near significant in their failures. Nobody was asking for or wanted another Charlie's Angels film and the trailers for the movie made look generic as heck.

I can assure you the vast majority of people did not care or even know about Elizabeth Banks' comments.

That is a ludicrous accusation to make when when there is so much data saying otherwise.

Hmm, you mean like this data?

Why on-screen representation matters, according to these teens

In Hollywood, the box office success encourages inclusion & diversity

Representation in film matters to minorities | YouGov

Cast of ‘Captain Marvel’ On Why Carol Danvers Matters

I can assure you that just because minorities have had no problem seeing films head by all-white, straight casts or protagonists for decades-- does not mean we don't want to, or rather don't care if we see ourselves represented in these films. We do and the impact that representation has on minority communities is something a lot of execs are realizing is a great thing

As you admit they have it in the context of the stories inherently just in different ways then trying to make outright political statements about the leader of the group by changing his race. Also there is something to be said of iconography.

Why does a Native American man leading the X-Men have to be a political statement in of itself? Why is it not a political statement when Scott is white leading the X-Men? Well, I know the answer to that question. But the fact that I have to ask in the first place is s problem.

The "political statement" that a non-white Cyclops would bring is that brown men can lead and coordinate superhuman teams too, y'know - like white men have been doing for decades in media. It would be positive representation and reinforcement for kids who never have someone to reflect themselves.

The wider politic statement is that the X-Men are discriminated minorities fighting to protect the racist and bigots who hate & fear them. Except now, they reflect *actual minoritiest and not straight-white characters coded as minorities so certain people don't get to uncomfortable in the theater seeing black, brown & gay faces fighting against their oppression.

Is "MJ" ever going to rival the actual Mary Jane as far as fans are concerned? Absolutely not! Yet this need to create diversified though not as well liked versions of characters persists. Because a very small group rally for this? You are all basically saying "well, I want it so they should do it and be damned with any fans or general audience members who disagree!"

And yet Far From Home made 1.2 billion at the box-office. Kevin Feige and the good people at Marvel Studios are part of this "small minority" you speak of -- and will continue to feature diverse characters in the MCU going forward headed by diverse people-- all the while making billions of dollars and proving we are not the "minority" you speak of.

Anyway

@Lip I've been thinking of how to modernize Rogue and I think I'd keep her white. Rogue grew up in the Deep South's Bible belt county in rural Mississippi. And I think you could do something interesting with that, with it juxtaposed against her becoming a mutant. I.e the rejection she would have faced in a deeply religious, conservative town

 

[JamesHOWLETT]

Because Forge is not Cyclops. Forge existing does not cancel out the possibility of a Scott Summers derived from a First Nations tribe simply because "We already have a Native!"

Nevermind the fact that Forge works for the Government 80% of the time so he can never compare to the significance Cyclops has to the X-Men. Do I want a great representation of Forge when it comes time to introduce him? Of course.

You talk about all these needless changes yet bring up the one thing about a character that an adaption could easily change as your smoking gun? Sure, sounds legit.

That seems like you have a bit of cognitive dissonance in seeing beyond your own viewpoint when it comes to what X-Men represent and that it IS NOT the same thing for every fan.

Which brings me to this:

Oh, I understand perfectly clear. You are inferring that race changing characters is pushing a "specific" political ideology. Hmm, I wonder what that ideology is. And whether the X-Men have been aligned with it for decades (they have).

I wonder if it has something to do with modern Identity politics that so many decry nowadays... Hmm. It's almost like identity politics have been at the root center of Civil Rights activism for quite some time now.

Some have been more comfortable with it in X-Men stories as long as it never went past the general "Equality for all! Discrimination = bad!" And never explored the inner workings and cogs that allow oppression to take hold. Some X-Men stories do take it there and Marvel have always used the X-Men in particular as a vehicle to express progressive political ideals.

Ask yourself what progressive political ideals look like today and not 1965.

There is not one specific ideology X-Men has ever encompassed other than "other" which is not just sexuality and race based though this is what most seem to be peddling as the only minorities around her. Ones that are visual vs more nuanced one's like handicaps that characters like Rogue, Cyclops and even Storm (claustrophobia) have have without having to contrive them into the canon of the universe.

Ethnic origins? So what ethnicity informs Hank McCoy being white? None, zero, zilch. They are white because they couldn't be anything else when they were created. It's really that simple. If the X-Men were created today with all social themes intact, what would they look like? That's the question that matters here


Oh boy, A lot to unpack here. First of all, Captain Marvel & The Last Jedi were both massively successful from a commercial and critical perspective (Keyword - actual critics) and the backlash for Captain Marvel in particular had zero negative affect on that success. What you had was a bunch of grown men whining and complaining and trying to sabotage a movie because the lead actress hurt their feelings. I'm sure Brie Larson and Kevin Feige are crying their hearts out over a loud minority on the internet over the billions of dollars Captain Marvel made.

As for Fant4stic, Ghostbusters and Charlie's Angels- all of those films failed because they were terrible films. Not all films are critic proof like Michael Bay's Transformers franchise. The loud, angry men decrying those films were not anywhere near significant in their failures. Nobody was asking for or wanted another Charlie's Angels film and the trailers for the movie made look generic as heck.

I can assure you the vast majority of people did not care or even know about Elizabeth Banks' comments.

The fact that you don't understand the irony of this statement is unfortunate. That is my point! People don't automatically want to see a movie just because it has someone with the same racial background or gender as them.

Btw I wasn't even referencing Elizabeth Banks remarks just how low of a black audience CA had though it had a black lead. Which is the thesis of your argument right?

Sometimes people just enjoy characters even if they don't look like them. The way you are presenting this everyone needs to have their race changed to fight this cause you are attached to.

But is it necessary to do?

Answer: No.

Why?

Because the X-Men have a catalog of characters that fit every niche.

You just aren't willing to see the merits of these characters because they don't fit into your narrative of this "everything must change to be relevant" mentality.

I don't subscribe to the needless changes of characters to INO like "MJ." Her character was not improved by making her an introverted black teenage girl. They just made her different, some would say worse, yet she fits into this "updated" for the times ideology many want adhered to the X-Men films. If that is the blueprint I am emphatically against such changes.

It is not just one-sided on this thought political points and any extreme points of view (or any strong political stances) have been ignored by moviegoers as of late. From Bombshell to Rambo underperforming because of the stances they have taken. I think it is not just racebending that is the issue. Just feeling like movies are not an escape has been felt lately and moviegoers are not liking it. Especially with how heavy times are.

Also to say that the last Star Wars was a resounding success Is disingenuous. It clearly underperformed due to fan backlash. We have yet to see if any will effect CM.

Hmm, you mean like this data?

Why on-screen representation matters, according to these teens

In Hollywood, the box office success encourages inclusion & diversity

Representation in film matters to minorities | YouThe cast

Cast of ‘Captain Marvel’ On Why Carol Danvers Matters

I can assure you that just because minorities have had no problem seeing films head by all-white, straight casts or protagonists for decades-- does not mean we don't want to, or rather don't care if we see ourselves represented in these films. We do and the impact that representation has on minority communities is something a lot of execs are realizing is a great thing

Also to put some random anecdotal articles when I actually have the minority breakdowns of most of these films at my disposal will not go well for you.

To your point though, of course people want to see themselves represented in films but to cut out every white character and change them to another race is not the way to boost morale either. There has to be some compromise here.

Why does a Native American man leading the X-Men have to be a political statement in of itself? Why is it not a political statement when Scott is white leading the X-Men? Well, I know the answer to that question. But the fact that I have to ask in the first place is s problem.
The "political statement" that a non-white Cyclops would bring is that brown men can lead and coordinate superhuman teams too, y' know - like white men have been doing for decades in media. It would be a positive representation and reinforcement for kids who never have someone to reflect on themselves.

The wider politic statement is that the X-Men are discriminated against minorities fighting to protect the racist and bigots who hate & fear them. Except now, they reflect *actual minorities and, not straight-white characters coded as minorities so certain people don't get too uncomfortable in the theater seeing black, brown & gay faces fighting against their oppression.

Because you are saying it is! I am not reacting in a vacuum here. I am responding to you specifically who is giving me articles declaring how important it is that people have representation yet you are now saying my response to your claims is too eurocentric? You are making it a political statement by saying it is "necessary" for these changes to occur not me.

And yet Far From Homemade 1.2 billion at the box-office. Kevin Feige and the good people at Marvel Studios are part of this "small minority" you speak of -- and will continue to feature diverse characters in the MCU going forward headed by diverse people-- all the while making billions of dollars and proving we are not the "minority" you speak of.

Like I said if Homecoming is the blueprint for character additions then count me out.