MCU X-Men

[Iceman]

Definitely. It's kind of like the Iceman version of the fastball special or Hawkeye shooting Ant-Man from his arrow: getting people quickly to another place so they can cut loose with their own powers.

Iceman could easily have taken the slide all the way up to a Sentinel. Or imagine if the X-Men had their own version of the battle of New York. He could get up there to those aliens overhead.

Or if we take him to a non-city setting like the airport in Civil War, he still could've used the slide against Giant Man or against other flying characters.

Yeah there's so much you can do with his powers if you have the budget. Iced up he's a character that will look great/exotic even without doing anything, like an armoured Colossus, Beast or Nightcrawler. Then aside from his variety of offensive ice attacks you have a unique manner of moving and one which can be used to launch other attack moves, transport teammates and also rescue those in need.

I'd really like to see him in Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends though. Imagine the visual of Spidey swinging through the city, alongside Firestar flying and Iceman using his ice slides. That would look fantastic and memorable.

I think it would be insanely popular. Would love to know if Feige & co are giving it any consideration.

 

[LaughterLives]

That was great. Just a shame it was about as good as it got in 17 years and didn't last long at all.

It was cool to see but not great. Disappointing if anything. Its crazy how much potential these movies had in a visual sense and the lack of imagination and style Singer brought to these films.

Aside from Nightcrawlers X2 intro, Quicksilver's time in a bottle and some of the things he did with Blink, The action and visuals in these films are dull as hell.

 

[Iceman]

It was cool to see but not great. Disappointing if anything. Its crazy how much potential these movies had in a visual sense and the lack of imagination and style Singer brought to these films.

Aside from Nightcrawlers X2 intro, Quicksilver's time in a bottle and some of the things he did with Blink, The action and visuals in these films are dull as hell.

Those were the standout sequences and it’s a shame we didn’t get more of them from other X-Men.

 

[CaptainWagner]

It was cool to see but not great. Disappointing if anything. Its crazy how much potential these movies had in a visual sense and the lack of imagination and style Singer brought to these films.

Aside from Nightcrawlers X2 intro, Quicksilver's time in a bottle and some of the things he did with Blink, The action and visuals in these films are dull as hell.

The X-Men have some of the most visually amazing powersets of any super team. The sheer dullness that we've gotten over the years in that regard is honestly astounding. It's like they actively tried to make the powers boring.

 

[LaughterLives]

Singer really did.

I feel like Ratner and Vaughn had more fun with them. Maybe they didn't do stuff as big or maybe as creative as those few scenes I mentioned but they definitely didn't hold back in their fllms when it came to showcasing powers.

I just wish they were done more effectively.

 

[Dark Raven]

The X-Men have some of the most visually amazing powersets of any super team. The sheer dullness that we've gotten over the years in that regard is honestly astounding. It's like they actively tried to make the powers boring.

Well isn't that also what he did with the costumes? They also have some of the most visually interesting and vivid outfits but Singer made them extremely bland.

 

[Marvel united]

Well isn't that also what he did with the costumes? They also have some of the most visually interesting and vivid outfits but Singer made them extremely bland.

Spoiler

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Its amazing how they put Angel into two X-Men movies and completely underdeveloped him both times.

 

[Marvel united]

Its amazing how they put Angel into two X-Men movies and completely underdeveloped him both times.

Both appearances he was a glorified VFX piece

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah the way they handled Angel was awful. In The Last Stand, he barely had a personality or lines (and that’s a shame because Foster is a great actor). And in Apocalypse, they made him a full blown evil psychopath.

 

[Silvermoth]

I liked ben Hardy though. He was very handsome

 

[DrCosmic]

In my conception of the MCU X-Men, the original team's missions were a secret because Xavier wanted it that way. He wanted the existence of mutants kept secret. That is why he created the original team in the first place (as a secret task force to stop dangerous mutants and keep their existence a secret). Even discounting how powerful Xavier is as a telepath, if he has the money and technology to create Cerebro and the Danger Room, I am pretty sure he can pull off keeping mutants under the radar for as long as possible (but not forever, which would be what my first MCU X-Men movie would be about).

I'd be very careful about giving Xavier the power to affect worldwide phenomena. If teenagers with special powers and new DNA are appearing all over the world and Xavier can affect who knows about it worldwide, very X-Men villains can be credible threats anymore.

The X-Men have never had to be introduced in the information age. New solutions may be needed.

And then Marvel would have to deal with people complaining about them getting race swapped.

Again, what does Marvel have to gain by doing an Original Five movie? Seems like a no win prospect to me. A lot of different people would be complaining about it for a lot of different reasons and only the smallest section of comic book fans would be excited about it. So what would be the point?

More importantly, why do they need to do it when they can just say their adventures took place in the past, and bring them in later in future movies?

Why does it need to be more than pre-movie backstory to start with? Having an original X-Men team in the past gives you an easy way to introduce Beast, Angel and Iceman into future movies without a ton of set up. Its more economical from a storytelling prospective.

Past history and backstory is an important part of world building. Would Star Wars have ever become as popular as it did if George Lucas started it with the prequels? Did Obi Wan's past adventures not "feel important" by not showing them to us right away?

Showing the journey of the O5 into superherodom as an adventure offers the same benefits that showing the individual superhero origins pre-Avengers instead of just starting up a popular team and including the heroes' adventures as backstory: it invests the audience in the characters. They don't need it at all, it's just an option. They can use economical storytelling to make the O5 great backstory-empowered supporting characters, like they did with Wong, Mordo, Starhawk, Hank Pym and yes, Obi-Wan, whose past adventures have no effect on the present, and are thus unimportant. And when someone tried to pretend anything other than Vader's betrayal was important and interesting for Obi-Wan we got three really pointless films with one very good climax.

I would be careful of thinking the audience cares about your supporting characters the same way they do main characters who they get to see become superheroes. No amount of economical storytelling can make Wong saving the day as satisfying as it is seeing Dr. Strange save the day.

The reason Wolverine was more important than everyone in the first X-Men movie because he got the most screen time and the most development in the final edit. Storm and Cyclops had all their best scenes cut from the movie. And the movie was only 90 minutes long.

In my conception of this, the first MCU X-Men movie would be as good at balancing all the main characters as the Avengers and Guardians movies were, and wouldn't repeat the mistakes the earlier X-Men movies made. Wolverine would be presented as no more or less important than Cyclops or Storm or Jean. It would be much more of an assemble than the 2000 movie was.

Wolverine got the most screen time because he was on the journey to being a superhero. He was undergoing the most change, thus he was the most worthy of screen time. Same of Iron Man in Avengers. Same of Star Lord in Guardians of the Galaxy. Avengers balanced the most, but there's a radical difference in the story Tony has, and the one Hawkeye has, and that's what drives each of their screentimes.

So, if you're balancing ala Avengers/GotG, who is your Iron Man and who is your Hawkeye (no real arc) Who is your Star Lord and who is your Drax (no real arc).

Its amazing how they put Angel into two X-Men movies and completely underdeveloped him both times.

They used economical storytelling. His story arc in X3 about rejecting and then accepting himself and trying to impress and getting over impressing his father is all there in the film even in his little bit of screen time, however, no one cares because it was so brief and disconnected. In XMA, we see that Angel doesn't want to be in the fight club, but when he's injured he has nowhere else to go. We see he's been rejected by his father, and finds a new mentor figure in Apocalypse, and a chance at love in Psylocke, who is maddened over his death. These characters get a lot of clear development, but it happens so quick, very few have a chance to notice, much less care.

 

[Phoenix_Flare]

I'd be very careful about giving Xavier the power to affect worldwide phenomena. If teenagers with special powers and new DNA are appearing all over the world and Xavier can affect who knows about it worldwide, very X-Men villains can be credible threats anymore.

The X-Men have never had to be introduced in the information age. New solutions may be needed.



Showing the journey of the O5 into superherodom as an adventure offers the same benefits that showing the individual superhero origins pre-Avengers instead of just starting up a popular team and including the heroes' adventures as backstory: it invests the audience in the characters. They don't need it at all, it's just an option. They can use economical storytelling to make the O5 great backstory-empowered supporting characters, like they did with Wong, Mordo, Starhawk, Hank Pym and yes, Obi-Wan, whose past adventures have no effect on the present, and are thus unimportant. And when someone tried to pretend anything other than Vader's betrayal was important and interesting for Obi-Wan we got three really pointless films with one very good climax.

I would be careful of thinking the audience cares about your supporting characters the same way they do main characters who they get to see become superheroes. No amount of economical storytelling can make Wong saving the day as satisfying as it is seeing Dr. Strange save the day.



Wolverine got the most screen time because he was on the journey to being a superhero. He was undergoing the most change, thus he was the most worthy of screen time. Same of Iron Man in Avengers. Same of Star Lord in Guardians of the Galaxy. Avengers balanced the most, but there's a radical difference in the story Tony has, and the one Hawkeye has, and that's what drives each of their screentimes.

So, if you're balancing ala Avengers/GotG, who is your Iron Man and who is your Hawkeye (no real arc) Who is your Star Lord and who is your Drax (no real arc


They used economical storytelling. His story arc in X3 about rejecting and then accepting himself and trying to impress and getting over impressing his father is all there in the film even in his little bit of screen time, however, no one cares because it was so brief and disconnected. In XMA, we see that Angel doesn't want to be in the fight club, but when he's injured he has nowhere else to go. We see he's been rejected by his father, and finds a new mentor figure in Apocalypse, and a chance at love in Psylocke, who is maddened over his death. These characters get a lot of clear development, but it happens so quick, very few have a chance to notice, much less care.

I’m sorry but nowhere in that film did he mention he was rejected by his father or was a love interest for Psylocke and vice versa. The other three horsemen were they worst developed, there was no backstory or motivation behind them really joining Apocalypse, it was like “follow the leader.” You don’t need a big exposition on why each of them joined, but a tiny piece of dialogue can develop a character(s) then keeping them mute. If Apocalypse would have said to Warren, “my child what troubles you?” And his response “my father thinks I’m a freak and he’s seeking a cure for mutation so I ran off.” Something to that effect that these characters have real life issues.

 

[psylockolussus]

I can't wait for Angel to shine in a MCU X-Men film.

 

[DrCosmic]

^I wonder if an MCU X-Men film can meet everyone's expectations.

I'm waiting for: Cyclops, Jean, Beast, Angel, Iceman, Storm, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Psylocke, Shadowcat, Jubilee, Gambit, Rogue, Bishop, Dazzler and even a proper Wolverine to shine. I can't help but be disappointed if, say, The O5 end up like Fury, Natasha, Coulson, Hawkeye and Hill in Avengers. Characters with a couple good moments but who are ultimately there to serve the story of the characters forming the new team, which leads to less screen time, villain co-oping, death and lack of development in comparison with their comics counterparts.

I’m sorry but nowhere in that film did he mention he was rejected by his father or was a love interest for Psylocke and vice versa. The other three horsemen were they worst developed, there was no backstory or motivation behind them really joining Apocalypse, it was like “follow the leader.” You don’t need a big exposition on why each of them joined, but a tiny piece of dialogue can develop a character(s) then keeping them mute. If Apocalypse would have said to Warren, “my child what troubles you?” And his response “my father thinks I’m a freak and he’s seeking a cure for mutation so I ran off.” Something to that effect that these characters have real life issues.

That's spelling it out in dialogue, which is a fine choice, it allows you to experience the story in a more direct way, not as direct as showing it, but at least it allows you to keep caring about Angel if you already do from comics. Economical storytelling, which I was poking Andrew about is when you don't spell it out, but provide information in more subtle less time consuming ways. In XMA, we see Psylocke's anguish over Angel's death, and that clues us is in that he was special to her. The short time they've known each other and their similarity in age leaves only one real option, the one that happens to mirror their relationship from comics. While he didn't mention he was rejected by his father, when he was free from cage fighting he did not return to his family, but stayed cooped up in some barn somewhere. This means he has nowhere to go. It could be his family is all dead or something, but its more likely in the political climate of the film that his family just doesn't want him. Two short lines tell you all you need to know.

You just don't care, and neither do I, because backstory does not equal giving a crap. That was my point, nothing more.

 

[psylockolussus]

Just give mea good version of Psylocke, Storm, Rogue, Phoenix, Emma Frost, Polaris, Dazzler, Jubilee, Shadowcat, Sage, Cyclops, Iceman, Gambit, Nightcrawler, Beast, Angel, Colossus, Bishop, Banshee and Havok and I'm all set! Fox has screwed up those characters one way or another.

And the original Avengers in the comics didn't consist of Fury, Coulson, Romanoff, Barton and Hill. Its not the same as the original five of the X-Men in the comics who are all X-Men main staples. Hill and Coulson who?

 

[Mangle77]

So, I've read the first three pages of this thread, and now I have my own ideas for a first MCU X-film:

Giant Size X-Men #1. Claremont's team, on a rescue mission to locate and retrieve the O5. Thunderbird dies, Wolverine is introduced at the end.

No, I don't think Krakoa should be the threat that the O5 are being rescued from; how about some combination of the Purifiers/Friends of Humanity/Trask Enterprises? Scary secret labs, pseudo-religious whack-jobs, and killer robots. Maybe throw in Sublime and his "U-Men", especially if you don't want Sentinels right now.

Absolutely need more accurate costumes than what Fox had.

Definitely hint at the idea that S.H.I.E.L.D. has known about mutants for a LOT longer than the general public. Maybe in an end credit scene; A4 perhaps?

Save Magneto/the Brotherhood's debut for the second film.

A TV/streaming series as a side or supporting project, similar to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., could focus on the younger students at the school. Jubilee could be the main character. The movies should focus on the veteran X-Men.

Wolverine could be established in a Hulk team-up/ Vs. movie.

On the villain side of things, I kind of want Sabertooth to show up in Iron Fist, but I don't think it's likely.

P.S. Was anyone ASKING for Iceman to be gay, before Teen Jean the Mindrape Queen used her powers to reprogram him? If you want to make a gay character, make a gay character; don't make an established straight character gay. 60+ years of comics is pretty well established. Also, I don't pretend to be an expert on these things, but I have a hard time believing that a man in his thirty's suddenly changes his lifestyle because of one conversation. It seems to me that he would have at least been questioning long before that. And now he's being written as such a bad '90s stereotype. Oh, and let's give a C-list character, who only really works as part of a team, his own book! And keep printing it, even though sales are WAY below cancellation levels. And have Diamond force Comic Book stores to buy it!

Sorry, I just needed to vent that. I'm more interested in good stories than identity politics.

 

[Mad Ones]

P.S. Was anyone ASKING for Iceman to be gay, before Teen Jean the Mindrape Queen used her powers to reprogram him? If you want to make a gay character, make a gay character; don't make an established straight character gay. 60+ years of comics is pretty well established. Also, I don't pretend to be an expert on these things, but I have a hard time believing that a man in his thirty's suddenly changes his lifestyle because of one conversation. It seems to me that he would have at least been questioning long before that. And now he's being written as such a bad '90s stereotype. Oh, and let's give a C-list character, who only really works as part of a team, his own book! And keep printing it, even though sales are WAY below cancellation levels. And have Diamond force Comic Book stores to buy it!

Sorry, I just needed to vent that. I'm more interested in good stories than identity politics.

Yeah, clearly you're not an expert, but you're either ignorant or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll since your brought up that conversion bs. Take your identity politics ranting elsewhere please.

 

[Monochron]

Professor X – Bryan Cranston
Cyclops – Pete Ploszek
Jean Grey – Lily James
Beast – Jesse Plemons
Storm – Condola Rashad
Wolverine – Tyler Hoechlin
Iceman – Justice Smith
Rogue – Hailee Steinfeld
Shadowcat – Natalia Dyer

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I'd be very careful about giving Xavier the power to affect worldwide phenomena. If teenagers with special powers and new DNA are appearing all over the world and Xavier can affect who knows about it worldwide, very X-Men villains can be credible threats anymore.

The X-Men have never had to be introduced in the information age. New solutions may be needed.

In my conception, the "mutant problem" wasn't a worldwide phenomena during the MCU Original Five's time. They faced big threats, had cool adventures, and kept the world safe. But it wasn't so wide spread enough that it gets talked about on the 24/7 cable news channels. It was easier for them to keep it contained and cover their tracks. But obviously that changes.

Showing the journey of the O5 into superherodom as an adventure offers the same benefits that showing the individual superhero origins pre-Avengers instead of just starting up a popular team and including the heroes' adventures as backstory: it invests the audience in the characters. They don't need it at all, it's just an option. They can use economical storytelling to make the O5 great backstory-empowered supporting characters, like they did with Wong, Mordo, Starhawk, Hank Pym and yes, Obi-Wan, whose past adventures have no effect on the present, and are thus unimportant.

The other possibility is that you name drop Iceman, Angel, and maybe Beast in the first MCU X-Men movie, and set it up for them to appear later (this is what I would do). Either as supporting characters (there is nothing wrong with that) or they replace other team members (with a franchise as big as X-Men you are gonna have to cycle characters in and out, no getting around that) or maybe you spin them off onto another X-Men team (like the original X-Factor).

By making them "the original X-Men", you add more mystique and intrigue around them as characters, where the audience imagines the adventures in their minds as you seed them and name drop them or have them interact with Scott, Jean, and Xavier in the present like they are old friends. It conveys history and backstory without having to devote an entire trilogy to it.

And when someone tried to pretend anything other than Vader's betrayal was important and interesting for Obi-Wan we got three really pointless films with one very good climax.

You don't realize this but you are proving my point for me. The Star Wars prequels were better left to our imaginations. I think the original five's adventures would be the same way.

I would be careful of thinking the audience cares about your supporting characters the same way they do main characters who they get to see become superheroes. No amount of economical storytelling can make Wong saving the day as satisfying as it is seeing Dr. Strange save the day.

Wolverine got the most screen time because he was on the journey to being a superhero. He was undergoing the most change, thus he was the most worthy of screen time. Same of Iron Man in Avengers. Same of Star Lord in Guardians of the Galaxy. Avengers balanced the most, but there's a radical difference in the story Tony has, and the one Hawkeye has, and that's what drives each of their screentimes.


So, if you're balancing ala Avengers/GotG, who is your Iron Man and who is your Hawkeye (no real arc) Who is your Star Lord and who is your Drax (no real arc).

With a franchise as large as X-Men you need to have past history take place off screen. You need some characters to have past backstory and already know other characters. You need to make it "lived in". Building the entire thing from the ground up and showing everyone's origin story is not possible.

They used economical storytelling. His story arc in X3 about rejecting and then accepting himself and trying to impress and getting over impressing his father is all there in the film even in his little bit of screen time, however, no one cares because it was so brief and disconnected. In XMA, we see that Angel doesn't want to be in the fight club, but when he's injured he has nowhere else to go. We see he's been rejected by his father, and finds a new mentor figure in Apocalypse, and a chance at love in Psylocke, who is maddened over his death. These characters get a lot of clear development, but it happens so quick, very few have a chance to notice, much less care.

Angel sucked in X3 because he really didn't need to be in the movie at all (there was clearly no room for him). They would've been better off waiting for another movie. They tried to do an entire movie length arc with him from beginning to end, but didn't have the length of an entire movie to do with it.

Contrast that with how Beast was handled in X3. He fared much better as a character in that movie. Why? Because most of his backstory with Xavier took place off screen. They didn't try to tell a First Class type of origin story with him with the limited screen time he had. They had that origin take place in the past, off screen. He came off as a cooler character in the movie because of it. That is why I want to do that with the Original Five in the MCU.

 

[Silvermoth]

Lily James would definitely be an interesting Jean. She's very sweet

 

[Dark Raven]

Lily James would definitely be an interesting Jean. She's very sweet

Damn. I just realised Lily James reminds me a bit of someone I know.

 

[Iceman]

Could be a good call.

 

[MarvelU]

^I wonder if an MCU X-Men film can meet everyone's expectations.

I'm waiting for: Cyclops, Jean, Beast, Angel, Iceman, Storm, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Psylocke, Shadowcat, Jubilee, Gambit, Rogue, Bishop, Dazzler and even a proper Wolverine to shine. I can't help but be disappointed if, say, The O5 end up like Fury, Natasha, Coulson, Hawkeye and Hill in Avengers. Characters with a couple good moments but who are ultimately there to serve the story of the characters forming the new team, which leads to less screen time, villain co-oping, death and lack of development in comparison with their comics counterparts.



That's spelling it out in dialogue, which is a fine choice, it allows you to experience the story in a more direct way, not as direct as showing it, but at least it allows you to keep caring about Angel if you already do from comics. Economical storytelling, which I was poking Andrew about is when you don't spell it out, but provide information in more subtle less time consuming ways. In XMA, we see Psylocke's anguish over Angel's death, and that clues us is in that he was special to her. The short time they've known each other and their similarity in age leaves only one real option, the one that happens to mirror their relationship from comics. While he didn't mention he was rejected by his father, when he was free from cage fighting he did not return to his family, but stayed cooped up in some barn somewhere. This means he has nowhere to go. It could be his family is all dead or something, but its more likely in the political climate of the film that his family just doesn't want him. Two short lines tell you all you need to know.

You just don't care, and neither do I, because backstory does not equal giving a crap. That was my point, nothing more.

I think one of the more challenging things about the X-Men Universe is that they mainly have always been part of team movies. They do not have the advantage of each X-Men member having their own movie like most of the avengers. Guardians of the Galaxy is a good comparison since none of the Guardian members had their own movie before their first or second movie. Also it get harder when the X-Men members have many fan favorites and given that X-Men is mainly a team movie then it gets hard for everyone to get a chance to be developed equally. I honestly wouldn't mind if Marvel takes the comic approach and created 2 teams of X-Men each team with their own movie. That way more characters have a chance to be developed.

 

[Iceman]

After WotPotA, I think doing Beast well shouldn't be a problem if they use similar tech.