MCU X-Men

[Silvermoth]

I agree, but there is no need to casually change history to do it, especially in this franchise. I'm in favor of swaping out Angel for Storm, and adding Kitty, Rogue or Jubilee (initially). Three males, three females. Not including Charles of course.

Ha, it's not like we went back in time and shot Lincoln.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Again, the point of the first movie is the same as the point of having an O5 in the backstory. When you have characters that audience cares about, such as Scott and Jean, you can use those to introduce new characters/teammates. This is how Avengers AOU added Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch and Vision to the team. This is how Civil War added Ant-Man, Spider-Man, and Black Panther to the team. So, no, I don't see the problem, because the MCU does the solution so well so often.

But if Scott and Jean are both leading the second team, then you already have an entire movie to care about them. They would be experienced X-Men leading a new team. They would be front and center doing that.

That is a much cooler storyline and character arc for them, than yet another origin story about teenagers getting superpowers. So why don't we just start there and move forward?

I mean... do we need an entire movie to tell us that Beast, Angel, and Iceman were members of the original X-Men? I think the audience can get that concept without a pointless prequel movie, don't you? Why can't they come in later (as in, another movie down the line), as people who are already old friends with Scott and Jean? Preferably with a story that would be important to them, where they would be important in it, rather then as cameo appearances.

I don't either. That's not how I would do an O5 movie at all.

What is the connection between the two movies? If you do an origin movie for the O5 and then the sequel has a mostly new roster, doesn't the first movie just feel like an unnecessary prequel just to set up the next movie?

Regardless, I don't think it would be a good idea to have too big of lineup or two many characters in your first MCU X-Men movie. That's too much. So some characters have to come in later down the line, regardless of whether they're new or characters that have a pre-history.

That's why we will never agree. I know there is no such thing as instantly important and relevant. The DCEU thinks there is, that by adding in Cyborg, Aquaman and Flash via a quick bastory with 'economical storytelling' that the audience would care, but as far as I've seen, No matter how important they were in the comics, if they're not important to the story of your film, then they aren't important, and can actually detract from the appeal of your film and current heroes by seeming rushed.

I think the main problem with Justice League is that its built off the back of Batman V. Superman. Its hard to build a shared universe off of one of the worst superhero movies ever.

I think if Justice League were a better film, I don't know if the lack of setup would be that much of an issue. I haven't seen it, but it seems that film was compromised with two directors with two different visions not meshing together, and excessive studio meddling. Hard for any character to get their moment to shine in that kind of situation.

Regardless, Justice League and the Avengers are about individual heroes getting together to face threats too big for them alone. That's different than the X-Men, which is primarily about a team. The Avengers formula is not right for every property. If they tried to set up an X-Men movie the same way Avengers was set up, it wouldn't really work very well. Too much set up can bog things down. Sometimes you need characters to have off screen history and come in the middle of their development, not the beginning of their development.

My point is that changing characters people don't care about - Hank, Bobby, Warren - doesn't matter. So you do see my point. Neither of us see the point you're trying to make with Jean Grey.

My point is, Marvel didn't take any real risks with Spider-Man Homecoming. They used Peter Parker as their Spider-Man (instead of Miles) and cast a white dude to play him. They didn't really use any of his more well known supporting cast at all, much less mess with them.

I don't think Marvel wants the hassle of race changing Jean Grey just to make the O5 team diverse.

So, what I want for an O5 movie is the same as what we got with SMHC. Whether they're introduced in another film or not, the first adventure should be about them coming into their own, which has similar power as a traditional origin story, but instead of covering them getting their powers, it expands the last half of a traditional origin story: finding one's place in the world and integrating one's superheroic identity. That would be awesome.

If they'd tried to introduce Spider-Man as a 30 year old married man in Civil War who'd already battled the Sinister Six it would have been pretty absurd and uninteresting.

Sounds like another superhero origin movie to me. Instead of the individual characters themselves, you are doing another origin story about the X-Men concept, trying to build it from the ground up (ala First Class).

I'd rather see a movie where Wolverine, Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler, and Kitty Pryde become new members of an established team/concept, as the world around them is changing and mutants are entering into the public eye. That feels like a cooler and more interesting movie to me.

 

[Detective Conan]

I'm not a X-fan but I'm curious how the mutants will be done in MCU. Legendary X-Men artist Jon Bryne has the right idea.

Here's what he recently said on his forum about this very topic.

Detailed origin stories are a relatively new idea. Go back to the beginnings of many TV shows from the Fifties and Sixties, and find that the audience was introduced to the characters already in place. Sitcom or drama, it was the same. And in comics, origins were something to get out of the way as quickly as possible. Batman didn't even have an origin, for a while. The X-Men were the same. Stan and Jack used the arrival of Jean Grey to bring readers into the book, but the other team members were already in place. Their origins came later.
In movie form, the X-Men have been around long enough for audiences to know what to expect. Worry less about where they started, and more about where they are.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=52792&PN=1&TPN=4

I agree!

 

[Iceman]

Also I don't get the 'journey' talk. Superheroes and characters in general don't just have one formative journey that happens during their origin and then that's it. If people think veterans can't have formative experiences I really have to question what they've been reading all their lives.

 

[Mangle77]

On the subject of possible race changing: No. Unnecessary. Especially Jean; gingers are rare enough to count as a minority already.

 

[Kuwolski]

Plus gingers are kissed by fire, which is fitting.

 

[TheVileOne]

IMHO origin stories are the most boring stories for the characters anyway and they are generally obligatory and perfunctory in the case of superhero movies. The cool stuff is what comes after the origins.

 

[CaptainCommando]

Also I don't get the 'journey' talk. Superheroes and characters in general don't just have one formative journey that happens during their origin and then that's it. If people think veterans can't have formative experiences I really have to question what they've been reading all their lives.

Exactly! Plus I wouldn't want to see them fumbling around like novices.

 

[psylockolussus]

Origin stories are for completion of someone's journey. I personally prefer it to a superhero who hasn't gotten an origin film or someone who I am not very familiar with like in terms of their origin/comic history.

But the X-Men aren't solo heroes, some got their power due to puberty while some were already a mutant right from birth. They are a group of mutants. Maybe a short film detailing each of their origin story, how they ended up in the team would be cool. But for a full length film? I just want them on the team. I don't want a repeat of FoxVerse films.

 

[DrCosmic]

We're not talking about adding new members to the Avengers lineup but from a "team" stand point. I don't know why you brought up the Justice League when they are irrelevant to this nor do I care about that franchise.

The reason I asked the questions I asked is to try and understand what you mean by 'on par.' We can talk about teams instead of individuals, but the principles are the same:

Is a new team who has saved the world five times and has many experiences off screen as the Avengers has had on screen 'on par' with the Avengers in your opinion? For a specific example: Was Kamar-Taj 'on par' with the Avengers without Dr. Strange?

Is a new team who is as capable and powerful and dangerous as the Avengers, but has no experience 'on par' with them? For a specific example: Were the Guardians of the Galaxy on par with the Avengers when they first met?

But if Scott and Jean are both leading the second team, then you already have an entire movie to care about them. They would be experienced X-Men leading a new team. They would be front and center doing that.

That is a much cooler storyline and character arc for them, than yet another origin story about teenagers getting superpowers. So why don't we just start there and move forward?

I mean... do we need an entire movie to tell us that Beast, Angel, and Iceman were members of the original X-Men? I think the audience can get that concept without a pointless prequel movie, don't you? Why can't they come in later (as in, another movie down the line), as people who are already old friends with Scott and Jean? Preferably with a story that would be important to them, where they would be important in it, rather then as cameo appearances.

What is the connection between the two movies? If you do an origin movie for the O5 and then the sequel has a mostly new roster, doesn't the first movie just feel like an unnecessary prequel just to set up the next movie?

Regardless, I don't think it would be a good idea to have too big of lineup or two many characters in your first MCU X-Men movie. That's too much. So some characters have to come in later down the line, regardless of whether they're new or characters that have a pre-history.

I think the main problem with Justice League is that its built off the back of Batman V. Superman. Its hard to build a shared universe off of one of the worst superhero movies ever.

I think if Justice League were a better film, I don't know if the lack of setup would be that much of an issue. I haven't seen it, but it seems that film was compromised with two directors with two different visions not meshing together, and excessive studio meddling. Hard for any character to get their moment to shine in that kind of situation.

Regardless, Justice League and the Avengers are about individual heroes getting together to face threats too big for them alone. That's different than the X-Men, which is primarily about a team. The Avengers formula is not right for every property. If they tried to set up an X-Men movie the same way Avengers was set up, it wouldn't really work very well. Too much set up can bog things down. Sometimes you need characters to have off screen history and come in the middle of their development, not the beginning of their development.

My point is, Marvel didn't take any real risks with Spider-Man Homecoming. They used Peter Parker as their Spider-Man (instead of Miles) and cast a white dude to play him. They didn't really use any of his more well known supporting cast at all, much less mess with them.

I don't think Marvel wants the hassle of race changing Jean Grey just to make the O5 team diverse.

Sounds like another superhero origin movie to me. Instead of the individual characters themselves, you are doing another origin story about the X-Men concept, trying to build it from the ground up (ala First Class).

I'd rather see a movie where Wolverine, Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler, and Kitty Pryde become new members of an established team/concept, as the world around them is changing and mutants are entering into the public eye. That feels like a cooler and more interesting movie to me.

If SMHC-style X-Men is 'just another origin movie' to you, that's fine, but that approach is a proven success to re-establish A-list Marvel franchises. Still not sure why you're talking about race changing Jean, we agree there, just as we both agree that "no one" cares about Bobby/Warren/Hank and so that's who would get the MJ/Liz/Danke!Ned/Flash treatment, and there would be no backlash.

You see arcs where there are none. Scott and Jean starting and ending as leaders is not an arc. Beast in X3 didn't have an arc or story. Nothing wrong with making them supporting characters, but you keep insisting that static characters are dynamic, so what chance do we have of agreeing?

That is a cooler and more interesting movie, in theory. Batman v Superman is the cooler and more interesting movie in theory than MoS2 or New Batman, but without the proper foundation, cool and interesting just turns into noise. You're not asking for X-Men to be like Justice League to build off of BvS, but you're asking for X-Men to be like BvS and build off of a mix of comics knowledge, references to weak divisive adaptations and rushed storytelling and assumptions. You don't need a whole movie for the audience to know who Batman and Superman are, but you need movies for them to care. If such movies are pointless, then the conflict between Batman and Superman is pointless. If Hank, Bobby and Warren's adventures are pointless, then their inclusion in a movie is pointless, like the inclusion of Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman in BvS. The audience understanding that they used to be X-Men is pointless, no matter how easy it is to do. Just have Scott, Jean, Ororo, Logan and Colossus be the O5. What is the loss in that? We already know Xavier has lived in the world, how does adding more people to that make the movie better, exactly?

I'm glad First Class gave you a good impression of the formation of the X-Men, but First Class was not about the formation of the X-Men, just like Avengers was not about Hawkeye. He was in it, but for such a short time, and handled so weakly, I wouldn't expect many Avengers fans to be satisfied not revisiting him. Likewise, I wouldn't expect most people to see a formation of the X-Men and say 'been there done that.'

As for my suggestion, the connection between the first and second movies would be 0) Xavier's mentorship 1) Scott's arc, prevoius learning leading, now a guilty leader 2) Jean's arc, previously learning control now learning leading 3) The tension that comes with knowing the roster rotates dramatically creating a feeling that this group is threatened in a way other groups aren't, supporting the theme 4) The constant theme of mutants discovering their abilities and fitting in the world as addressed through new characters each film.

What would be your connection between a first and second film?

 

[AndrewGilkison]

If SMHC-style X-Men is 'just another origin movie' to you, that's fine, but that approach is a proven success to re-establish A-list Marvel franchises. Still not sure why you're talking about race changing Jean, we agree there, just as we both agree that "no one" cares about Bobby/Warren/Hank and so that's who would get the MJ/Liz/Danke!Ned/Flash treatment, and there would be no backlash.

I see making an O5 movie as a no win situation. You either race swap them or you don't, and either way there *will* be complaints. If you swap one of them out for Storm or Wolverine there will be complaints about that too. Its ultimately not worth it.

So why not just start with the second team? I think there is a better story to be told with a second team being reformed and using a version of the Giant Size #1 roster. It feels like a good entry point for new fans while also being a good place for people who already know X-Men to start (so you don't have to rehash origin). You can bring the rest of the O5 in later.

You see arcs where there are none. Scott and Jean starting and ending as leaders is not an arc. Beast in X3 didn't have an arc or story. Nothing wrong with making them supporting characters, but you keep insisting that static characters are dynamic, so what chance do we have of agreeing?

So because we don't start with the characters as teenagers that makes them static? Because people stop growing and changing just because they become adults?

This ignores the fact that a lot of the most defining moments of the O5 characters' lives didn't happen until after their original comic got canceled, until after they became adults. The Dark Phoenix Saga didn't even START until Jean Grey was an adult in the Claremont stories. Angel doesn't become Archangel until well after his original X-Men comic. Beast didn't become blue and furry until after the original comic ended. A lot of their defining moments came well after their origin stories.

So what growth and change would we be missing by coming into their journey after they were the original X-Men?

That is a cooler and more interesting movie, in theory. Batman v Superman is the cooler and more interesting movie in theory than MoS2 or New Batman, but without the proper foundation, cool and interesting just turns into noise. You're not asking for X-Men to be like Justice League to build off of BvS, but you're asking for X-Men to be like BvS and build off of a mix of comics knowledge, references to weak divisive adaptations and rushed storytelling and assumptions. You don't need a whole movie for the audience to know who Batman and Superman are, but you need movies for them to care. If such movies are pointless, then the conflict between Batman and Superman is pointless. If Hank, Bobby and Warren's adventures are pointless, then their inclusion in a movie is pointless, like the inclusion of Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman in BvS. The audience understanding that they used to be X-Men is pointless, no matter how easy it is to do. Just have Scott, Jean, Ororo, Logan and Colossus be the O5. What is the loss in that? We already know Xavier has lived in the world, how does adding more people to that make the movie better, exactly?

Because it allows you a way to introduce Beast, Angel, and Iceman in later without origin or a bunch of set up. If they already have a history with Xavier, Scott, and Jean, you can bring them into the story a lot more seamlessly than if you had to explain their entire backstory to everyone in the story and establish that connection with all the rest of the characters from the ground up (which you are not going to have time to do).

The main reason Batman V. Superman doesn't work is because Superman and Batman are written out of character, and because the movie in general is dumb and has nothing meaningful to say (and yet pretends its this deep philosophical profound piece of storytelling). A sequel to MOS or a solo Batman movie coming before this wouldn't have fixed these issues, because Batman V. Superman doesn't succeed on its own terms as a movie.

Now... if Zack Snyder got what makes the conflict between Superman and Batman work, and what makes those characters as individuals work, a lack of setup wouldn't have been an issue. Just like if a writer writes Beast, Angel, and Iceman well... we don't need a pointless set up movie starring them. And there is no reason Beast, Angel or Iceman couldn't get a starring role in an X-Men movie later as characters with a per-established history. Look at Wonder Woman for proof of this (cameo in BvS comes first, her solo movie comes after), or Spider-Man (Civil War cameo comes first, Homecoming comes after).

I'm glad First Class gave you a good impression of the formation of the X-Men, but First Class was not about the formation of the X-Men, just like Avengers was not about Hawkeye. He was in it, but for such a short time, and handled so weakly, I wouldn't expect many Avengers fans to be satisfied not revisiting him. Likewise, I wouldn't expect most people to see a formation of the X-Men and say 'been there done that.'

As for my suggestion, the connection between the first and second movies would be 0) Xavier's mentorship 1) Scott's arc, prevoius learning leading, now a guilty leader 2) Jean's arc, previously learning control now learning leading 3) The tension that comes with knowing the roster rotates dramatically creating a feeling that this group is threatened in a way other groups aren't, supporting the theme 4) The constant theme of mutants discovering their abilities and fitting in the world as addressed through new characters each film.

What would be your connection between a first and second film?

If you do an O5 movie first and then a Giant Size #1 inspired roster for the sequel, you'd have to be building up to some kind of crossover movie where the two sides team up to face a bigger threat. That's the only real way it would work. Otherwise, the first movie is just a set up movie that we don't need and has no relevance or connection to the second movie (which we keep getting in the X-Men movies now, where they keep skipping a decade, and the status quo keeps being reset, and I am sick of that, quite frankly).

Fundamentally, what would be the difference between a First Class movie about the O5 and the First Class movie that we got back in 2011? Both movies would be about building everything from the ground up. Are the differences in core cast really enough to make that movie again? Is there really anything new we could add to that formula by setting it in modern day instead of the 60's?

This is why I think the idea of starting with the second team is better. Its a good entry point, yet has a lot established that we can find out more about in future movies, and you can hit the ground running.

 

[HunBoy]

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I think I would like to see the O5 for another reason... I want to see how they fit into the MCU in other ways AFTER they are off the team as well and it would be good to see where they started for that to have some weight to it. If Beast becomes an Avenger, which I SO WANT TO HAPPEN, I think it'd be good to see him with the O5 when he's introduced. Or, if they plan out that far ahead, then have the originals in a film or two adding more to the roster as it goes along, some of the team leave and eventually you get to a point where the X-Men are totally different but you use the O5 in the capacity as X-Factor.

 

[CaptainCommando]

The reason I asked the questions I asked is to try and understand what you mean by 'on par.' We can talk about teams instead of individuals, but the principles are the same:

Is a new team who has saved the world five times and has many experiences off screen as the Avengers has had on screen 'on par' with the Avengers in your opinion? For a specific example: Was Kamar-Taj 'on par' with the Avengers without Dr. Strange?

Is a new team who is as capable and powerful and dangerous as the Avengers, but has no experience 'on par' with them? For a specific example: Were the Guardians of the Galaxy on par with the Avengers when they first met?

First of all, I'm not talking about strength or power.

Let's take Civil War for example. Both sides have been around the block for a while now thus we are sympathetic to the contrasting arguments and understand why they think and feel the way they do.

Now picture that with a newly formed Xmen. Would you be sympathetic to their cause?

The way they explained the magic world was on point so yes I believe that they are "on par". They could do something similar with the Xmen.

This is why I don't want them to interact with the existing heroes on their first outing. Marvel should build them up to be the veteran team that they ought to be. Introduce their world the way they did Kamar-taj.

We've been around the Xmen for a good number of movies already so it should not take a long exposition to re-introduce them.

The GoTG did so well in introducing each member. Did we need to follow them from the beginning individually? No.

 

[Shikamaru]

If SMHC-style X-Men is 'just another origin movie' to you, that's fine, but that approach is a proven success to re-establish A-list Marvel franchises. Still not sure why you're talking about race changing Jean, we agree there, just as we both agree that "no one" cares about Bobby/Warren/Hank and so that's who would get the MJ/Liz/Danke!Ned/Flash treatment, and there would be no backlash.

Not that I would mind, but I kinda doubt this. The thing is while Marvel seems committed to doing a melting pot, they have yet to show they're comfortable racebending the iconic heroes everyone payed tickets for. So far they only did it to supporting characters. MJ is the most iconic character they did it with and they didn't even call her Mary Jane.

So while I think they'll adopt the Homecoming model, because they're all superheroes this time I don't see them racebending anyone. I see them prioritizing minority X-Men from the comics like Jubilee. Cyclops is likely a given and maybe Jean (depends on Dark Phoenix). Maybe even Iceman if they make him gay. But every other traditionally white X-Men (Beast, Angel) I don't see showing up till the sequels.

 

[Shoppy]

I don't want them to interact with the existing heroes on their first outing. Marvel should build them up to be the veteran team that they ought to be. Introduce their world the way they did Kamar-taj.

We've been around the Xmen for a good number of movies already so it should not take a long exposition to re-introduce them.

The GoTG did so well in introducing each member. Did we need to follow them from the beginning individually? No.

Firstly see my recent thread for why I think it's possible to use some of the same actors but also give the X-Men a new story in the MCU rather than having to be one or the other.


I think you're absolutely right about the lack of need for exposition regarding individual characters' origins, but we also need an "origin" story that gives the X-Men chance to establish their MCU backstory and also give them a catch-up with regards to the size of their roster and their interaction with the wider super-powered community.

Here's how i think it should go (which thinking about it is pretty much how I would have liked to see the original X-Men movie go)...

Professor X (I'd go with a new actor, older than McAvoy, younger than Stewart, and more like the latter than the former)

...recruits a new team of...

Storm (Alexandra Shipp)
Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee)
Colossus (Stefan Kapicic)
Banshee (Caleb Landry-Jones would be great to see again but they'd have to do the Irish accent whoever it was)
Sunfire (?)
Wolverine (Pablo Schreiber sounds up for it) - previously a member of a Canadian organisation called Alpha Flight, less public than the Avengers but known to SHIELD
(I left out Thunderbird as The Gifted might keep going)

...to rescue the missing "First Class" of...

Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) - with reference to him having a YOUNGER brother called Alex, not the Havok we saw in the last batch of films
Jean Grey (Sophie Turner)
Angel (?) - without the events of Apocalypse having turned him into Archangel, and possibly played by a new actor playing a less rough-and-ready Warren
Ice-Man (?) - A new younger version, being the same age as the MCU Peter Parker, getting ready for an "Amazing Friends" crossover scenario
...and assistant school head...
Beast (Nicholas Hoult)

...from Krakoa the Living Island, pursued by and in other cases encountering by chance, other expeditions to the location including characters who have history with Xavier and/or his new recruits...

...Magneto (Fassbender?) & Mystique (Lawrence?) gradually recruit Juggernought, Black Tom Cassidy, Sabretooth and Silver Samurai (done properly) based on their grudges with Xavier, Banshee, Wolverine and Sunfire respectively, after initially starting out with maybe Destiny & Rogue and a couple more like Toad, Pyro, Avalanche and the version of Quicksilver recognisable from the Fox Universe (we could later have it explained that Wanda and Pietro were Magneto's children and their Mother was Inhuman, and that Peter is not Pietro, he's their half-brother, that would be a nice retcon and it would need referencing somehow if we got a mutant Quicksilver in the MCU)...

...whilst the X-Men team up with, after battling them first, Wolverine's former team-mates Alpha Flight who want to take him back to Canada after helping to rescue the "original five" X-Men...

... We could get a recognisable take on the X-Men, with retconned backstory allowing familiar characters to pop up in the MCU and others to be given a total reboot, that has it's story roots in the classic storyline that gave us the first major expansion in the X-Men's roster, and throws in their earliest established adversaries from the comic line to quickly and neatly give us a status quo where its accepted that there is now version of the X-Men in the MCU that the audience have an established affinity with but can accept as something new.



By the start of a second movie I'd have the "original five" of Beast, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Angel, & Ice-Man now set up as X-Factor investigations, with Banshee now assistant head of the school, Sunfire back in Japan, and Wolverine AWOL (off doing a solo movie that features Sabretooth, Wendigo, Hulk and Sasquatch and later acquiring Jubilee as a sidekick) leaving an active field team of Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler joined by Kitty Pryde and either Dazzler&Longshot, Bishop&Psylocke or Rogue&Gambit
...third movie we get Blue & Gold teams

 

[Shoppy]

A new MCU Wolverine could be given a prequel backstory that could also serve as a Nick Fury prequel AND the means of bringing in a new actor as Steve Rogers if and when the time comes.

Going on the theory that Rogers will probably be handing over the SHEILD to Bucky after Infinity War, and how Cap was "killed" in the comics I think it's entirely possible that he could end up believed dead but actually sent back in time...

...So adapt the Wolverine story "Our War" that featured Logan, Cap, Bucky and Nick Fury in WWII.

Tell the story from Logan's point of view, and have him encounter Cap possibly played by a new actor, (though leave Bucky out of this one and let Stan focus on being the modern day Cap) ..... as far as Fury goes there are several options ...... have a new actor as Fury's father, Nick Fury Snr, ...OR have Jackson as Fury and explain his slow aging, ...OR have Jackson ans Fury Snr and make his modern day one Fury Jnr, ...OR have a younger actor as a younger version of the Jackson Nick Fury and later, have the same actor play Fury Jnr in the modern day.

Either way the point is, you could have a single movie that is an MCU Wolverine prequel that also acts as a Nick Fury prequel AND sets up the return of Steve Rogers to the modern day MCU at a later date if he exits it for a while.

...on top of which, you could throw in flashbacks to WWI (Cyber) and 1930s Japan (Sabretooth) and have Wild Child feature as a Nazi officer setting up future storylines drawing on the "Wolverine: Origins" series

 

[DrCosmic]

I see making an O5 movie as a no win situation. You either race swap them or you don't, and either way there *will* be complaints. If you swap one of them out for Storm or Wolverine there will be complaints about that too. Its ultimately not worth it.

So why not just start with the second team? I think there is a better story to be told with a second team being reformed and using a version of the Giant Size #1 roster. It feels like a good entry point for new fans while also being a good place for people who already know X-Men to start (so you don't have to rehash origin). You can bring the rest of the O5 in later.

No matter what you do there *will* be complaints... so? The difference is diversifying Beast/Iceman/Angel OR switching them out for Storm and Logan gives you the best of both worlds from the all-white O5 and Giant Size X-Men, which would also generate compliants. In fact, the switching out is most likely, honestly, and the complaints will be just as "no win" as the complaints about SMHC's updates.

So because we don't start with the characters as teenagers that makes them static? Because people stop growing and changing just because they become adults?

This ignores the fact that a lot of the most defining moments of the O5 characters' lives didn't happen until after their original comic got canceled, until after they became adults. The Dark Phoenix Saga didn't even START until Jean Grey was an adult in the Claremont stories. Angel doesn't become Archangel until well after his original X-Men comic. Beast didn't become blue and furry until after the original comic ended. A lot of their defining moments came well after their origin stories.

So what growth and change would we be missing by coming into their journey after they were the original X-Men?

So, characters that start out action movies as veterans are static characters, regardless of the age. Wong. Dr. Pym. That's how it works. That's the growth that would be missing. You don't have to ignore that there are good stories that build on the origin in order to do the origin, you actually have to ignore why those stories worked in order to advocate skip the origin.

Because it allows you a way to introduce Beast, Angel, and Iceman in later without origin or a bunch of set up. If they already have a history with Xavier, Scott, and Jean, you can bring them into the story a lot more seamlessly than if you had to explain their entire backstory to everyone in the story and establish that connection with all the rest of the characters from the ground up (which you are not going to have time to do).

Bringing them in later requires more setup, because you have to explain what they were doing when on the team, what they've been doing since and why they haven't been helping with important things.

The main reason Batman V. Superman doesn't work is because Superman and Batman are written out of character, and because the movie in general is dumb and has nothing meaningful to say (and yet pretends its this deep philosophical profound piece of storytelling). A sequel to MOS or a solo Batman movie coming before this wouldn't have fixed these issues, because Batman V. Superman doesn't succeed on its own terms as a movie.

Now... if Zack Snyder got what makes the conflict between Superman and Batman work, and what makes those characters as individuals work, a lack of setup wouldn't have been an issue. Just like if a writer writes Beast, Angel, and Iceman well... we don't need a pointless set up movie starring them. And there is no reason Beast, Angel or Iceman couldn't get a starring role in an X-Men movie later as characters with a per-established history. Look at Wonder Woman for proof of this (cameo in BvS comes first, her solo movie comes after), or Spider-Man (Civil War cameo comes first, Homecoming comes after).

You're missing cause and effect. BvS can only lack character development if the director is not interested in character development. If he was, he would naturally make a different movie to explore Superman, just as any fan would. BvS has tons of meaning, but no one cares about it, because we're not invested in the characters. We all 'get' what "Martha" was supposed to mean for veteran Bruce. We just don't care.

If you do an O5 movie first and then a Giant Size #1 inspired roster for the sequel, you'd have to be building up to some kind of crossover movie where the two sides team up to face a bigger threat. That's the only real way it would work. Otherwise, the first movie is just a set up movie that we don't need and has no relevance or connection to the second movie (which we keep getting in the X-Men movies now, where they keep skipping a decade, and the status quo keeps being reset, and I am sick of that, quite frankly).

OR you can just keep some of the O5 members in your Giant Sized inspired roster, works fine without all that. It's really not complicated, or difficult.

Fundamentally, what would be the difference between a First Class movie about the O5 and the First Class movie that we got back in 2011? Both movies would be about building everything from the ground up. Are the differences in core cast really enough to make that movie again? Is there really anything new we could add to that formula by setting it in modern day instead of the 60's?

The fundamental difference would be having character development. All the details would also be different. Xavier already fully established, for instance. Add to that the modern day angles on prejudice and modern surveillance of just this kind of thing and there are an abundance of things that can be added, in addition to not making it a 10 minute B-story with underdeveloped, uninteresting, unimportant disposable characters.

This is why I think the idea of starting with the second team is better. Its a good entry point, yet has a lot established that we can find out more about in future movies, and you can hit the ground running.

I can't stop you from hitting the ground running, I'm just pointing out how not to leave the audience behind, that's all.

Also I don't get the 'journey' talk. Superheroes and characters in general don't just have one formative journey that happens during their origin and then that's it. If people think veterans can't have formative experiences I really have to question what they've been reading all their lives.

Veterans have formative experiences that build on the emotional investment we have in their origin. A common veteran arc is the namesake veteran soldier coming home from war, because a writer can use the audience's real world investment in the war to carry that arc without having to do a war movie origin. The same cannot be done with veterans of magical/superhero/sci-fi battles, I don't think. If it can, I'd love to have some examples.

First of all, I'm not talking about strength or power.

Let's take Civil War for example. Both sides have been around the block for a while now thus we are sympathetic to the contrasting arguments and understand why they think and feel the way they do.

Now picture that with a newly formed Xmen. Would you be sympathetic to their cause?

The way they explained the magic world was on point so yes I believe that they are "on par". They could do something similar with the Xmen.

This is why I don't want them to interact with the existing heroes on their first outing. Marvel should build them up to be the veteran team that they ought to be. Introduce their world the way they did Kamar-taj.

We've been around the Xmen for a good number of movies already so it should not take a long exposition to re-introduce them.

The GoTG did so well in introducing each member. Did we need to follow them from the beginning individually? No.

GotG was smart in that, since it couldn't do an origin for all the individuals, it did an origin for the team, as well as following its main character from the beginning. I'd love to see that for X-Men, though I'd prefer if it were more of an ensemble like the Avengers films.

Civil War is a great example, as is Kamar Taj. I was sympathetic to both sides because I'd been around the block WITH them. Not just because they'd been around the block offscreen. If it had been the Avengers vs Kamar Taj, I may have understood Kamar Taj's example, but I would have been far more sympathetic with the Avengers, because I'd been around the block with them.

Not that I would mind, but I kinda doubt this. The thing is while Marvel seems committed to doing a melting pot, they have yet to show they're comfortable racebending the iconic heroes everyone payed tickets for. So far they only did it to supporting characters. MJ is the most iconic character they did it with and they didn't even call her Mary Jane.

So while I think they'll adopt the Homecoming model, because they're all superheroes this time I don't see them racebending anyone. I see them prioritizing minority X-Men from the comics like Jubilee. Cyclops is likely a given and maybe Jean (depends on Dark Phoenix). Maybe even Iceman if they make him gay. But every other traditionally white X-Men (Beast, Angel) I don't see showing up till the sequels.

I honestly question if Beast and probably Iceman and definitely Angel are iconic characters that people pay tickets for. If it's okay for them to be missing, it's okay for them to be different is a good rule of thumb, I think.

That said you're probably right. The simplest thing to do is to have Scott, Jean, Storm, Wolverine and Jubilee be the O5, with the only downside to that being it's similarity to X1.

 

[Iceman]

Veterans have formative experiences that build on the emotional investment we have in their origin. A common veteran arc is the namesake veteran soldier coming home from war, because a writer can use the audience's real world investment in the war to carry that arc without having to do a war movie origin. The same cannot be done with veterans of magical/superhero/sci-fi battles, I don't think. If it can, I'd love to have some examples.

I might be misunderstanding what you're getting at but I'm thinking of the likes of Aragorn and Gandalf. They are veterans of their world and their backstory is very interesting but they can still feature as the main characters of Lord of the Rings along with Frodo and Sam. Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, Elrond, Galadriel, Eomer and many others also are veterans. And this set of films is at least a tier above most of the best CBMs.

 

[DrCosmic]

I might be misunderstanding what you're getting at but I'm thinking of the likes of Aragorn and Gandalf. They are veterans of their world and their backstory is very interesting but they can still feature as the main characters of Lord of the Rings along with Frodo and Sam. Legolas, Gimli, Boromir, Elrond, Galadriel, Eomer and many others also are veterans. And this set of films is at least a tier above most of the best CBMs.

That's a great example. LOTR is cool because it takes its veterans in the A plot, and makes them supporting characters for the newbies in the B plot who do all the character development for the film, and thus become more important, in terms of screentime and emotional impact, than the veterans, who have very small arcs over 10+ hours of film. I think I'd argue that Aragorn is any more of a veteran than Spider-Man is in SMHC though. He's certainly competent, but he's more of a local dynamo. He hasn't saved the world in secret, and doing so would greatly change him, and make him a better fit for a supporting character/martyr, like Gandalf.

This approach could definitely work for X-Men, you have your X-Men do all the fighting, and then you actually give the kids the journey that carries the film ala:
Gandalf -> Xavier
Aragorn -> Cyclops
Legolas -> Wolverine
Boromir -> Phoenix
Gimli -> Storm
Frodo -> Jubilee
Samwise -> Shadowcat
Pippin -> Nightcrawler
Merry -> Rogue

I think a lot of people may be satisfied with that, with the established X-Men showing up to do some cool fighting and their trilogy arcs amounting to "Okay, I'll be in charge" "Okay, I'll be friends with the guy I've been fighting alongside" and "Okay, I'll shoot some more arrows" and "Okay, I'll die and come back even more powerful."

It's just not what I personally would prefer, on top of how it doesn't make sense to build a universe that's already running around the X-Men like the world around the Fellowship is built around them.

 

[Iceman]

That's a great example. LOTR is cool because it takes its veterans in the A plot, and makes them supporting characters for the newbies in the B plot who do all the character development for the film, and thus become more important, in terms of screentime and emotional impact, than the veterans, who have very small arcs over 10+ hours of film. I think I'd argue that Aragorn is any more of a veteran than Spider-Man is in SMHC though. He's certainly competent, but he's more of a local dynamo. He hasn't saved the world in secret, and doing so would greatly change him, and make him a better fit for a supporting character/martyr, like Gandalf.

This approach could definitely work for X-Men, you have your X-Men do all the fighting, and then you actually give the kids the journey that carries the film ala:
Gandalf -> Xavier
Aragorn -> Cyclops
Legolas -> Wolverine
Boromir -> Phoenix
Gimli -> Storm
Frodo -> Jubilee
Samwise -> Shadowcat
Pippin -> Nightcrawler
Merry -> Rogue

I think a lot of people may be satisfied with that, with the established X-Men showing up to do some cool fighting and their trilogy arcs amounting to "Okay, I'll be in charge" "Okay, I'll be friends with the guy I've been fighting alongside" and "Okay, I'll shoot some more arrows" and "Okay, I'll die and come back even more powerful."

It's just not what I personally would prefer, on top of how it doesn't make sense to build a universe that's already running around the X-Men like the world around the Fellowship is built around them.

Fair points. I would love it to be mixed up with mutants of different experience levels but I'll take whatever Feige and co come up with to make it work within the framework of the MCU they have painstakingly built up.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

No matter what you do there *will* be complaints... so? The difference is diversifying Beast/Iceman/Angel OR switching them out for Storm and Logan gives you the best of both worlds from the all-white O5 and Giant Size X-Men, which would also generate compliants. In fact, the switching out is most likely, honestly, and the complaints will be just as "no win" as the complaints about SMHC's updates.

This is one of the many reasons why I think its best to start with the second team.

So, characters that start out action movies as veterans are static characters, regardless of the age. Wong. Dr. Pym. That's how it works. That's the growth that would be missing. You don't have to ignore that there are good stories that build on the origin in order to do the origin, you actually have to ignore why those stories worked in order to advocate skip the origin.

Bringing them in later requires more setup, because you have to explain what they were doing when on the team, what they've been doing since and why they haven't been helping with important things.

Yes. But I don't think Beast, Iceman, and Angel require an entire movie to set them up, which is the point I am trying to make.

I'd rather have a brief flashback or some nice line of dialogue (or something else along those lines) to convey/suggest past history then an unnecessary prequel movie. There is such a thing as too much information and too much explanation. Sometimes its best to leave some things to the imagination.

You're missing cause and effect. BvS can only lack character development if the director is not interested in character development. If he was, he would naturally make a different movie to explore Superman, just as any fan would. BvS has tons of meaning, but no one cares about it, because we're not invested in the characters. We all 'get' what "Martha" was supposed to mean for veteran Bruce. We just don't care.

There is no set up that could've made that Martha moment work. It was stupid on a conceptual level. On a writing and character motivation level. How would a Superman or Batman solo movie have made that moment any less dumb?

OR you can just keep some of the O5 members in your Giant Sized inspired roster, works fine without all that. It's really not complicated, or difficult.

The fundamental difference would be having character development. All the details would also be different. Xavier already fully established, for instance. Add to that the modern day angles on prejudice and modern surveillance of just this kind of thing and there are an abundance of things that can be added, in addition to not making it a 10 minute B-story with underdeveloped, uninteresting, unimportant disposable characters.

I can't stop you from hitting the ground running, I'm just pointing out how not to leave the audience behind, that's all.

You don't need an unnecessary prequel movie to have "character development". What you need is good writing and good casting. One scene and one line (or one look from an actor) can convey a ton of character development to the audience without a pointless set up movie.

What information about the X-Men and about mutants in the MCU could an O5 movie give us that the second team movie couldn't give us? Why do we need both movies?

And why do we need an origin for the concept of the X-Men just to get us to care about Beast, Angel, and Iceman; when their appearance in a future movie could conceivably do the same with less set up?

 

[Mangle77]

Spoiler

Firstly see my recent thread for why I think it's possible to use some of the same actors but also give the X-Men a new story in the MCU rather than having to be one or the other.


I think you're absolutely right about the lack of need for exposition regarding individual characters' origins, but we also need an "origin" story that gives the X-Men chance to establish their MCU backstory and also give them a catch-up with regards to the size of their roster and their interaction with the wider super-powered community.

Here's how i think it should go (which thinking about it is pretty much how I would have liked to see the original X-Men movie go)...

Professor X (I'd go with a new actor, older than McAvoy, younger than Stewart, and more like the latter than the former)

...recruits a new team of...

Storm (Alexandra Shipp)
Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee)
Colossus (Stefan Kapicic)
Banshee (Caleb Landry-Jones would be great to see again but they'd have to do the Irish accent whoever it was)
Sunfire (?)
Wolverine (Pablo Schreiber sounds up for it) - previously a member of a Canadian organisation called Alpha Flight, less public than the Avengers but known to SHIELD
(I left out Thunderbird as The Gifted might keep going)

...to rescue the missing "First Class" of...

Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) - with reference to him having a YOUNGER brother called Alex, not the Havok we saw in the last batch of films
Jean Grey (Sophie Turner)
Angel (?) - without the events of Apocalypse having turned him into Archangel, and possibly played by a new actor playing a less rough-and-ready Warren
Ice-Man (?) - A new younger version, being the same age as the MCU Peter Parker, getting ready for an "Amazing Friends" crossover scenario
...and assistant school head...
Beast (Nicholas Hoult)

...from Krakoa the Living Island, pursued by and in other cases encountering by chance, other expeditions to the location including characters who have history with Xavier and/or his new recruits...

...Magneto (Fassbender?) & Mystique (Lawrence?) gradually recruit Juggernought, Black Tom Cassidy, Sabretooth and Silver Samurai (done properly) based on their grudges with Xavier, Banshee, Wolverine and Sunfire respectively, after initially starting out with maybe Destiny & Rogue and a couple more like Toad, Pyro, Avalanche and the version of Quicksilver recognisable from the Fox Universe (we could later have it explained that Wanda and Pietro were Magneto's children and their Mother was Inhuman, and that Peter is not Pietro, he's their half-brother, that would be a nice retcon and it would need referencing somehow if we got a mutant Quicksilver in the MCU)...

...whilst the X-Men team up with, after battling them first, Wolverine's former team-mates Alpha Flight who want to take him back to Canada after helping to rescue the "original five" X-Men...

... We could get a recognisable take on the X-Men, with retconned backstory allowing familiar characters to pop up in the MCU and others to be given a total reboot, that has it's story roots in the classic storyline that gave us the first major expansion in the X-Men's roster, and throws in their earliest established adversaries from the comic line to quickly and neatly give us a status quo where its accepted that there is now version of the X-Men in the MCU that the audience have an established affinity with but can accept as something new.



By the start of a second movie I'd have the "original five" of Beast, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Angel, & Ice-Man now set up as X-Factor investigations, with Banshee now assistant head of the school, Sunfire back in Japan, and Wolverine AWOL (off doing a solo movie that features Sabretooth, Wendigo, Hulk and Sasquatch and later acquiring Jubilee as a sidekick) leaving an active field team of Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler joined by Kitty Pryde and either Dazzler&Longshot, Bishop&Psylocke or Rogue&Gambit
...third movie we get Blue & Gold teams

I love just about every word of this! The Gifted HAS been renewed for a second season; that doesn't necessarily mean no Thunderbird, he does have a younger brother, after all...

I could also see The Savage Land as a location, if not Krakoa.

Please, no vampire Jubilee. Dumb idea.

 

[DrCosmic]

This is one of the many reasons why I think its best to start with the second team.

You think it's best to start with the second team because it's best to switch out members of the O5? Complaints don't matter, your idea has strengths, but it also has weaknesses, which don't get any stronger by pointing out that an all white 16 year old O5 also has weaknesses.

Yes. But I don't think Beast, Iceman, and Angel require an entire movie to set them up, which is the point I am trying to make.

I'd rather have a brief flashback or some nice line of dialogue (or something else along those lines) to convey/suggest past history then an unnecessary prequel movie. There is such a thing as too much information and too much explanation. Sometimes its best to leave some things to the imagination.

It depends on what you want to use them for. If they are supposed to be unimportant with no real arc and are supporting characters who are not very heroic themselves, you can do that. If you want them to feel more heroic or capable than Wong or Hank Pym or Maria Hill, then you'll have to give them a movie to grow, like Drax got. Like Mordo got.

There is no set up that could've made that Martha moment work. It was stupid on a conceptual level. On a writing and character motivation level. How would a Superman or Batman solo movie have made that moment any less dumb?

You don't need an unnecessary prequel movie to have "character development". What you need is good writing and good casting. One scene and one line (or one look from an actor) can convey a ton of character development to the audience without a pointless set up movie.

There's nothing dumb about a bitter old former hero finding his heart and heroism again from his lowest point. That's a classic moving story. With character development, instead of trying to get emotional drama out of a shorthand or "a look" or whatever people try to substitute for giving a backstory you want people to care about the screen time it needs, they would have been able to draw on things that we really did care about because we'd experienced the building of those things with the characters, and not in a thirty second slo mo scene. This is exactly what Civil War did. "I don't care. He killed my mom." Is an implausibly similar sentiment, and just as unintelligent, but because you've been with the characters, you care, and suddenly Tony being dumb in that moment makes you care about him more, not less.

Long story short, people like movies that tell them stories, not movies that tell them about stories. If Beast/Angel/Iceman are important, lets see their journey. If not, leave them out. They have nothing to add that Xavier/Scott/Jean can't do, so they're just wasting space.

What information about the X-Men and about mutants in the MCU could an O5 movie give us that the second team movie couldn't give us? Why do we need both movies?

And why do we need an origin for the concept of the X-Men just to get us to care about Beast, Angel, and Iceman; when their appearance in a future movie could conceivably do the same with less set up?

I think this is why we keep going back and forth. You think I'm talking about information. I've NEVER been advocating an O5 movie for intellectual purpose, but purely for emotional purposes. You can put all the information about the O5, hell, about the Giant Size X-Men in a 30 second crawl at the beginning of the movie, and the audience will have all the information they need, but they won't have the emotions they need to invest in Jean turning bad, or Angel coming back from the dead, or Psylocke being in a new body, or whatever, because information doesn't make for good stories. Emotions do.

And an O5 movie can make a Giant Size movie offer much more profound emotions, things that they could not do showing up with 'information' that we don't have any real reason to care about.

Are we clear, that I'm not talking about information, but emotions? Because the more I think about all our back and forth pretty much comes down to that: I agree ALL the information about the O5 can be delivered in 30 seconds, as can all the information on 10 years of X-Men missions. How does that address anything I've been talking about? Why should anyone care about an infodump?

To put it another way: Why should the audience care about characters or adventures that are, in your words, pointless?

 

[CaptainCommando]

Firstly see my recent thread for why I think it's possible to use some of the same actors but also give the X-Men a new story in the MCU rather than having to be one or the other.


I think you're absolutely right about the lack of need for exposition regarding individual characters' origins, but we also need an "origin" story that gives the X-Men chance to establish their MCU backstory and also give them a catch-up with regards to the size of their roster and their interaction with the wider super-powered community.

Here's how i think it should go (which thinking about it is pretty much how I would have liked to see the original X-Men movie go)...

Professor X (I'd go with a new actor, older than McAvoy, younger than Stewart, and more like the latter than the former)

...recruits a new team of...

Storm (Alexandra Shipp)
Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee)
Colossus (Stefan Kapicic)
Banshee (Caleb Landry-Jones would be great to see again but they'd have to do the Irish accent whoever it was)
Sunfire (?)
Wolverine (Pablo Schreiber sounds up for it) - previously a member of a Canadian organisation called Alpha Flight, less public than the Avengers but known to SHIELD
(I left out Thunderbird as The Gifted might keep going)

...to rescue the missing "First Class" of...

Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) - with reference to him having a YOUNGER brother called Alex, not the Havok we saw in the last batch of films
Jean Grey (Sophie Turner)
Angel (?) - without the events of Apocalypse having turned him into Archangel, and possibly played by a new actor playing a less rough-and-ready Warren
Ice-Man (?) - A new younger version, being the same age as the MCU Peter Parker, getting ready for an "Amazing Friends" crossover scenario
...and assistant school head...
Beast (Nicholas Hoult)

...from Krakoa the Living Island, pursued by and in other cases encountering by chance, other expeditions to the location including characters who have history with Xavier and/or his new recruits...

...Magneto (Fassbender?) & Mystique (Lawrence?) gradually recruit Juggernought, Black Tom Cassidy, Sabretooth and Silver Samurai (done properly) based on their grudges with Xavier, Banshee, Wolverine and Sunfire respectively, after initially starting out with maybe Destiny & Rogue and a couple more like Toad, Pyro, Avalanche and the version of Quicksilver recognisable from the Fox Universe (we could later have it explained that Wanda and Pietro were Magneto's children and their Mother was Inhuman, and that Peter is not Pietro, he's their half-brother, that would be a nice retcon and it would need referencing somehow if we got a mutant Quicksilver in the MCU)...

...whilst the X-Men team up with, after battling them first, Wolverine's former team-mates Alpha Flight who want to take him back to Canada after helping to rescue the "original five" X-Men...

... We could get a recognisable take on the X-Men, with retconned backstory allowing familiar characters to pop up in the MCU and others to be given a total reboot, that has it's story roots in the classic storyline that gave us the first major expansion in the X-Men's roster, and throws in their earliest established adversaries from the comic line to quickly and neatly give us a status quo where its accepted that there is now version of the X-Men in the MCU that the audience have an established affinity with but can accept as something new.



By the start of a second movie I'd have the "original five" of Beast, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Angel, & Ice-Man now set up as X-Factor investigations, with Banshee now assistant head of the school, Sunfire back in Japan, and Wolverine AWOL (off doing a solo movie that features Sabretooth, Wendigo, Hulk and Sasquatch and later acquiring Jubilee as a sidekick) leaving an active field team of Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler joined by Kitty Pryde and either Dazzler&Longshot, Bishop&Psylocke or Rogue&Gambit
...third movie we get Blue & Gold teams

I'm all for the idea as long as it does not get too cluttered with all the characters being introduced/re-introduced and not affect the flow of the story.

But I think it would be too much to compress into one movie.

GotG was smart in that, since it couldn't do an origin for all the individuals, it did an origin for the team, as well as following its main character from the beginning. I'd love to see that for X-Men, though I'd prefer if it were more of an ensemble like the Avengers films.

Civil War is a great example, as is Kamar Taj. I was sympathetic to both sides because I'd been around the block WITH them. Not just because they'd been around the block offscreen. If it had been the Avengers vs Kamar Taj, I may have understood Kamar Taj's example, but I would have been far more sympathetic with the Avengers, because I'd been around the block with them.

They can do a Lord of the Rings or Star wars type of intro to re-introduce the mutant world. Leave the rest to great dialogues and acting to reflect on that. That would be enough (for me at least) because the X-Men and their world should be common knowledge at this point.

Again I am talking under the premise that they will have the first movie all to themselves.