Days of Future Past Who believes these movies are a metaphor on sexual orientions?

[blueserenity]

I honestly thought this as well, there's a lot of symbolism. Especially in X-Men First Class.
"They'll fear us...and that fear will turn into hatred." I get goosebumps whenever I hear that line.

The obelisk scene is also frequently referenced. Sorry I'm not from the States, I don't know the name of it. Washington monument? And also the steps with Abe. This scene was apparently all greenscreen so clearly the symbolism was important.

I would tend to agree with you. While I saw a definite affection for the other between the two, it was nothing greater than an appreciation that real friends have--where one feels lucky to have found someone who understands them.

This was my perspective until the last beach scene. Something about it just screamed at me that something more had been building under the surface.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

You don't believe the guy who wrote the screenplay?
that's kinda like being in denial about Dumbledore...

No I don't. If I believed him, then I'd believe all the Matthew Vaughn talk about the movie being a reboot, which it is clearly not a reboot when it blatantly connects itself to the previous movies within the very first frame of film.

This is the same talk of Sam and Frodo having a homoerotic relationship throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's nothing more than a bunch of people looking too deeply into something to find something that's not really there and create controversy with it.

As someone said before, I have no problem with seeing homosexual relationships depicted on screen, but I do have a problem with it when it's done for nothing more than shock value, which is all a Magneto / Xavier homosexual relationship would be. It's not something that has anything to do with the source material, and it's not something that adds anything to the story being told on screen. It's just being done for the "omg'z!!!" reactions, which it is getting in this thread.

I see no homo erotic undertones in the movie, and I will not see any homo erotic undertones in the movie. Just because a couple of guys sit around playing chess together does not make them gay.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The obelisk scene is also frequently referenced. Sorry I'm not from the States, I don't know the name of it. Washington monument? And also the steps with Abe. This scene was apparently all greenscreen so clearly the symbolism was important.

The symbolism is what those monuments represent - America, freedom, land of the free and the home of the brave, not to mention the Civil Rights movement which spent a lot of time in DC; MLK's "I have a dream" speech was given from those same steps Xavier and Magneto were playing chess at - all underlying themes of the entire foundation of X-Men; freedom, and those who are born different that must fight for that freedom.

It has nothing to do with the rather immature notion that "OMG'z the Washington Monument looks like a peepee, lolz!!!"

 

[blueserenity]

No I don't. If I believed him, then I'd believe all the Matthew Vaughn talk about the movie being a reboot, which it is clearly not a reboot when it blatantly connects itself to the previous movies within the very first frame of film.

This is the same talk of Sam and Frodo having a homoerotic relationship throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's nothing more than a bunch of people looking too deeply into something to find something that's not really there and create controversy with it.

As someone said before, I have no problem with seeing homosexual relationships depicted on screen, but I do have a problem with it when it's done for nothing more than shock value, which is all a Magneto / Xavier homosexual relationship would be. It's not something that has anything to do with the source material, and it's not something that adds anything to the story being told on screen. It's just being done for the "omg'z!!!" reactions, which it is getting in this thread.

I see no homo erotic undertones in the movie, and I will not see any homo erotic undertones in the movie. Just because a couple of guys sit around playing chess together does not make them gay.

Frodo and Sam? See there's a good example of WTF are people slashing. I don't understand that, or the Sherlock pairings or Star Trek pairings. Those are all examples of great friends. Erik and Charles are more than great friends. If they had made it an obvious relationship it would not have been shocking. It would have been in my mind been quite natural. They aren't gay; Charles especially has been depicted in the film as a big fan of the ladies. It doesn't mean that he hasn't found his exception to that rule. I imagine the only reason they kept the relationship from being obvious because of ******** fanboys who, to be fair, make up a decent portion of the moviegoers. And were probably also the ones tempted to walk out when they learned Havok was Scott's OLDER brother (oh god noez).

And by the way from what little I've seen of the source material, under a number of titles Erik and Charles definitely seem a little more involved than some of the other characters.

Matthew Vaughn can declare this movie a reboot as much as he wants. It can be a prequel or it can be a reboot. The things that tie it to the other series are just fan-nods that could be ignored if so desired.

It has nothing to do with the rather immature notion that "OMG'z the Washington Monument looks like a peepee, lolz!!!

It's not an immature notion. It's a common observation that the Monument is rather phallic. Phallic images are everywhere in art and architecture whether with sexual intent or not. You reeeally don't want to even think of the possibility of this do you? If James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Matthew Vaughn all came out and said "yeah it was the intent all along to play these guys as having romantic feelings for each other", would you accept it or still refuse to believe it?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I thought that was common knowledge... If it wasn't, they sure weren't being subtle. Between "the cure", and "have you tried not being a mutant?" what more do they need to do?

Mutant and proud, c'mon people.

 

[SuperFerret]

I was going to come in here and explain the difference between "homoerotic" and "homosexual", but upon looking them both up to have concrete evidence, I've found that there is almost no difference now. Apparently they've changed the definition of "homoerotic" since I was in high school (when we read Becket) and didn't tell me.

 

[X-Maniac]

There are some gay subtexts here and there but the films stand for all those who are different or who feel alienated.

The cure story also has some relevance to the deaf community, some of whom reject the idea of a cure for hearing 'problems' because they don't accept it is a problem.

I think the beauty of the X-Men stories - in the comics and on screen - is that they can be interpreted in many ways, particularly depending on the viewer's own lifestyle and perceptions. I don't think the X-Men were intended as a gay metaphor when Stan Lee co-created them for Marvel.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Given that the Washington Monument is modeled after the Egyptian obelisk, it's no surprise that it looks like a phallus. That was the point.

The Capitol Building looking like a "boob" was just a happy coincidence though.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Frodo and Sam? See there's a good example of WTF are people slashing. I don't understand that, or the Sherlock pairings or Star Trek pairings. Those are all examples of great friends. Erik and Charles are more than great friends. If they had made it an obvious relationship it would not have been shocking. It would have been in my mind been quite natural. They aren't gay; Charles especially has been depicted in the film as a big fan of the ladies. It doesn't mean that he hasn't found his exception to that rule. I imagine the only reason they kept the relationship from being obvious because of ******** fanboys who, to be fair, make up a decent portion of the moviegoers. And were probably also the ones tempted to walk out when they learned Havok was Scott's OLDER brother (oh god noez).

And by the way from what little I've seen of the source material, under a number of titles Erik and Charles definitely seem a little more involved than some of the other characters.

Matthew Vaughn can declare this movie a reboot as much as he wants. It can be a prequel or it can be a reboot. The things that tie it to the other series are just fan-nods that could be ignored if so desired.


It's not an immature notion. It's a common observation that the Monument is rather phallic. Phallic images are everywhere in art and architecture whether with sexual intent or not. You reeeally don't want to even think of the possibility of this do you? If James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Matthew Vaughn all came out and said "yeah it was the intent all along to play these guys as having romantic feelings for each other", would you accept it or still refuse to believe it?

2 men who work together for a common goal, and respect each other's ideologies, does not make them some kind of homosexual relationship. That entire notion is absurd.

So if I work with another man towards a common goal that we both believe in, and we discuss our ideologies over a brandy and a game of chess, does that make he and I gay together? Or good friends and allies who respect one another? And if I become paralyzed in the process, and I cry because I'm watching my friend go down what I deem a dark road, on top of being freaking paralyzed, and he shows emotion because he sees that friendship and alliance falling apart, does that make us gay together? No, it doesn't. Once again, the entire notion is absurd.

 

[blueserenity]

2 men who work together for a common goal, and respect each other's ideologies, does not make them some kind of homosexual relationship. That entire notion is absurd.

So if I work with another man towards a common goal that we both believe in, and we discuss our ideologies over a brandy and a game of chess, does that make he and I gay together? Or good friends and allies who respect one another? And if I become paralyzed in the process, and I cry because I'm watching my friend go down what I deem a dark road, on top of being freaking paralyzed, and he shows emotion because he sees that friendship and alliance falling apart, does that make us gay together? No, it doesn't. Once again, the entire notion is absurd.

You're looking at this too black and white like there are rules for what kind of person you fall for and under what circumstances. There are no rules, and you can't define whether there is attraction or not just by summarizing scenes in the film. There's a *way* in which they do/say those things that suggest it. If one of them was a woman and did/said everything exactly the same way with the same shots, this would be a romance. Standard Hollywood audience limitations prevent that.

You never answered my question, if the director and both actors stated that it was the intent all along to play them romantically, would you still deny it? Would you still be able to enjoy the film?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well I figured the question was already answered when I said that I do not see this as a reboot in any way, shape, or form, no matter how many times Vaughn rambles on and on about it being one. The elements of the film do not support his claim that the movie is a reboot.

Nor do the elements of the film support a claim that Erik and Charles had a "romance". So no, I would not accept that interpretation of the film even if Vaughn himself came out and said so. It's not in the film for me to interpret, so I could not interpret it that way, the same way it's impossible for me to interpret this film as a reboot, because there is no evidence of that in the film itself. In order for me to see this movie as a reboot, or in order for me to see Charles and Erik as "romantic", I would have to look for things that aren't in the movie, and be trying to see something that I want to see whether it's there or not.

And no, the relationship between Erik and Charles would not be viewed as a romance if it was a male and female. Some audience members probably would interpret it as such, because they have to make ANY relationship between 2 people as "romantic" because for some reason, audience members have a hard time accepting 2 fictional characters not being in a romantic relationship together (this current conversation is a perfect example of that), but there was nothing romantic about the relationship between Erik and Charles, and I would say the same if it was Charles and Moira, or Charles and Erika.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Definitely. I'm a bi guy and always related it to the X-Men. I'm sad to say I was also a lot like Beast in that for years I seeked out a cure by being nomadic and always on the move. On a lgbt site where people post their orientation I also inspired people to say "mutant and proud" instead (I was the first). Love the whole Hank/Mystique romance that seems like bisexuality (currently have my eyes set on a bi girl, we're both mutants).

As for the Charles and Magneto relationship? There was really nothing in it to show they're involved in that way. Charles has a thing for Moira and other girls. Eric had a thing for Raven that built up over time. Might be bi, but doubt it. They were just two really close friends, almost brothers. If it were brothers showing this connection, would you say they're gay for each other? Doubt it. Friends can have that deep a bond. This is also coming from a guy who really digs LGBT films and arcs in TV series. There just wasn't enough to show there being more to it beyond a brotherly bond.

I'm not beyond doubting it though if everyone notes it. Rebel Without A Cause is a bi film. James Dean and Nicholas Ray were bi. Sal Mineo gay. Dean told Ray to instruct Mineo to look at him like Natalie Wood does. Plus the studio blocked a kissing scene between the two. So, it has happened.

 

[Hordakfan]

What about in X-Men 1 where Kelly gave a speech on whether children should be in school with mutants and to be taught by mutants, another metaphor on people with different sexualities reflecting the 90's debate on whether gays should be allowed to teach children in school.

Who thinks Morph in the animated show is a metaphor for transgendered/transexual people? Morph had an ID crisis.

Let's not forget the infamous cure from X3 where it fits into this metaphor. Ian Mckellen in an interview said "I could relate to this idea and i think it's a terrible idea of curing someone who is different so they can fit in. It's like if someone was trying to cure me of my sexuality or if they would have black people take a pill to cure them of being black or if they could give shots to Jews to cure them of being Jewish".

 

[blueserenity]

Definitely. I'm a bi guy and always related it to the X-Men. I'm sad to say I was also a lot like Beast in that for years I seeked out a cure by being nomadic and always on the move. On a lgbt site where people post their orientation I also inspired people to say "mutant and proud" instead (I was the first). Love the whole Hank/Mystique romance that seems like bisexuality (currently have my eyes set on a bi girl, we're both mutants).

As for the Charles and Magneto relationship? There was really nothing in it to show they're involved in that way. Charles has a thing for Moira and other girls. Eric had a thing for Raven that built up over time. Might be bi, but doubt it. They were just two really close friends, almost brothers. If it were brothers showing this connection, would you say they're gay for each other? Doubt it. Friends can have that deep a bond. This is also coming from a guy who really digs LGBT films and arcs in TV series. There just wasn't enough to show there being more to it beyond a brotherly bond.

I'm not beyond doubting it though if everyone notes it. Rebel Without A Cause is a bi film. James Dean and Nicholas Ray were bi. Sal Mineo gay. Dean told Ray to instruct Mineo to look at him like Natalie Wood does. Plus the studio blocked a kissing scene between the two. So, it has happened.

I don't think they were involved during the film. But I do think that had they stayed together long-term, they would have eventually become involved. Yes, you could argue that they're brotherly but there is a certain electricity in their scenes together that bumps it up into another realm.

If anything Charles' and Erik's hetero "relationships" offer more evidence towards the idea of them having romantic feelings for each other. I know the Moira scenes were all cut out and will be on the DVD. But think about that.. it was so unimportant to the character that they just took it out. And when he kisses her to wipe her memory, it feels like the first time and it feels very out of place. Erik and Raven don't kiss out of romance, if anything it's a fairly manipulative move on Erik's part. Raven does it out of desperation for someone to accept her (on the eve of a battle she may die in). Erik's initial reaction to finding her naked in his bed is complete disinterest. I also don't believe the popular line of thought that they had sex, simply because it didn't fit where they were as characters and because a few minutes later we see Raven confronting Charles in the kitchen.

I would love it if they pursued Raven's sexuality but I really can't see it happening in this universe. They've got enough work cut out for them with whether or not Kurt will be her son and if so, how is it she's forgotten him and him her? Not to mention, these films are still supposed to be watchable by kids and apparently in this day and age too many people still believe that sexuality isn't something that should be brought up movies for kids... >_<
^This is actually one of the reasons I feel they kept the Erik-Charles romantic possibilities unbearably subtle. If general audiences were more open-minded I think there would have been a number more obvious things in this movie.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Just because a character doesn't have a heterosexual romantic interest doesn't mean that they are romantically involved with the same sex characters they spend time with.

I am not romantically involved with any females, but that doesn't mean that my close, brotherly relationship with my best friend who is also male has some secret homosexual undertones.

It means the romantic relationships weren't important in telling the story.

 

[blueserenity]

Just because a character doesn't have a heterosexual romantic interest doesn't mean that they are romantically involved with the same sex characters they spend time with.

I am not romantically involved with any females, but that doesn't mean that my close, brotherly relationship with my best friend who is also male has some secret homosexual undertones.

It means the romantic relationships weren't important in telling the story.

Ah I totally forgot to back up my point on that one, my bad. I meant that the scenes with these characters who these men are allegedly involved with pale in comparison to the electricity in their scenes together. That's why I felt the hetero relationships only made it clearer. The deleted scenes with Moira could totally prove me wrong on this (we'll have to wait till Sept to find out). But I've seen romantic comedies with half the chemistry these two guys have onscreen. Hank/Raven only had a tiny fraction of it, even.

Using your own real life bromance isn't good enough evidence against Erik and Charles as being more than bromantically involved.

TBH I still don't understand why you're meeting XFC's screenwriter's words with such adamant denial. Would Magneto and Xavier having the potential to be lovers really be offensive to you? If so, why? From snippets of things I've read in the comics and what I used to watch in the old cartoon, this isn't exactly a new idea between them.

EDA: This fan-perspective offers another reason the Erik Charles scenes feel laced with something more. The author veers off into a number of directions with it but here is the part I agree with. To open she discusses how had their relationship spanned several years and more than 6 months then she wouldn't be viewing it as anything more than platonic bromance. However...:

But six months--well, I mean. A relationship that last six months and ends with that kind of intensity and they both continue to care passionately about each other, in whatever way, for the rest of their long lives? It doesn't have to be sexual, and if it is sexual it certainly doesn't have to be consummated--a word for which I apologize sincerely--but it has to be more than what was shown onscreen. Some serious intimacy has to happen in between every single one of their scenes, to get them from where they are in the first to the so-much-closer in the next, and the next. They have to be some kind of in love.

Now, this doesn't actually help with how the timeline is totally ****ed--the whole team spends a week at the mansion? ONE WEEK, what even--and how slashier or not, cutting Xavier and Magneto's pre-split friendship to half a year sucks out a lot of wonderful things from their relationship as their usual old-guy selves. But I find it interesting, because it's so clueless. Like, what was the pitch here? "They have an instant intense connection, within a couple of days they develop a rapport and soon they're working together seamlessly, a few months later Charles cares about him A LOT, a week after that they share manly tears and vulnerability and passionate praise and Erik smiles and laughs in a non-creepy way (and is suddenly without his months-ago opposition to having his mind read), then they part ways forever for no apparent concrete and immediate reason really and spend the next several decades fighting and longing for each other."

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The chemistry is so intense because James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are good actors. Most romantic comedy actors... aren't.

And yes it is offensive to me, for the very reason that it's trying to imply something for nothing more than the "OMG'z!!! SHOCK VALUE!!!!1" of it.

Xavier and Magneto being gay for each other has nothing to do with the story, and has no source material implications. It adds nothing to the story, the same way Moira's relationship with Charles added nothing to the story and was cut. People just want to find sex in anything they can, so they are looking for it when it's not there.

A story about gay lovers doesn't bother me. I'm not offended by Brokeback Mountain. But when you're trying to toss in a whole bunch of "OMG'z SHOCK VALUE!!!!11" into my favorite universe for the sole purpose of "OMG'z SHOCK VALUE!!!!11" then yes it bothers me. It also comes off as incredibly immature to me that 2 men can't have a close relationship without it being "OMG teh gayz!!!!1"

I'm sorry if that's harsh, and I don't mean that towards anyone personally, but that's how I feel about the situation.

 

[blueserenity]

The chemistry is so intense because James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are good actors. Most romantic comedy actors... aren't.

And yes it is offensive to me, for the very reason that it's trying to imply something for nothing more than the "OMG'z!!! SHOCK VALUE!!!!1" of it.

Xavier and Magneto being gay for each other has nothing to do with the story, and has no source material implications. It adds nothing to the story, the same way Moira's relationship with Charles added nothing to the story and was cut. People just want to find sex in anything they can, so they are looking for it when it's not there.

A story about gay lovers doesn't bother me. I'm not offended by Brokeback Mountain. But when you're trying to toss in a whole bunch of "OMG'z SHOCK VALUE!!!!11" into my favorite universe for the sole purpose of "OMG'z SHOCK VALUE!!!!11" then yes it bothers me. It also comes off as incredibly immature to me that 2 men can't have a close relationship without it being "OMG teh gayz!!!!1"

I'm sorry if that's harsh, and I don't mean that towards anyone personally, but that's how I feel about the situation.

First of all, no one's saying that 2 men can't have a close relationship without being gay together. God there are a million pairs of friends in media that are certainly bromantic, in a platonic sense. Look at Sherlock and Watson, Kirk and Spock, Sam and Frodo. Those guys are not in love, they're all friends. Erik and Charles are different.

I think you're misunderstanding why they would put this pair in a relationship. Shock value has absolutely nothing, nothing, NOTHING to do with it and I'm bewildered by that accusation. Throughout their stories in the comics and cartoons, there has been SOMETHING there. A deep connection, sometimes hinted at romantic, sometimes as just good friends. But it's always there. Their connection is so deep that whether you interpret it as platonic or not, it's really not that big a stretch to assume they could also have feelings for each other. I'm not talking about sex, I get the impression that they've never done anything physical with each other. It's not about sex, it's about intimacy and ~~feelings~~. In ALL of the movies, you can feel them longing to be together on the same side. XMFC just made clearer the reasons why.

And again, as I quoted from that fanperspective, the timeline kind of backs it up. Like the author said, this relationship taking place over years and ending with such heartbreak and betrayal? Brotherly bromance. This relationship taking place over 6 months and reacting like that? Something was going on. For someone like Erik who TNO, he gets attached to Charles rather quickly. Charles can see Erik's whole life, but vice-versa isn't an option available to Erik. But he trusts him implicitly anyway, in such a short time. Something more is going on. It add SO much more depth to their relationship. Friends is one thing but if they went through this whole half-year with this kind of expectation that once Shaw was done with they could address whatever it was they were feeling and be together, only for it to end in every way they didn't want it to, it's that much more tragic. Erik has not planned his life beyond Shaw, Shaw has always been the number one goal in his mind, the only goal. I imagine he'd have been just as satisfied to die as to live as long as he got his revenge. But then Charles came in, and while he still took a very very farbackseat to Shaw, I imagine that Erik stopped thinking about life post-Shaw being irrelevant.

TLDR, I actually think the idea of Charles and Erik with ~~feelings~~ gives their characters MORE depth because it shows just how much they mean to each other on levels neither one thought they could feel for someone else (much less a man). Shock value really isn't a reason they would do it. If they wanted SV they'd have had much more success following comics and giving Raven a girlfriend and knocking her up by morphing into a man. but Fox is still a Family Values company on many levels, sadly. So in the meantime all we get is subtext.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

First of all, no one's saying that 2 men can't have a close relationship without being gay together. God there are a million pairs of friends in media that are certainly bromantic, in a platonic sense. Look at Sherlock and Watson, Kirk and Spock, Sam and Frodo. Those guys are not in love, they're all friends. Erik and Charles are different.

I think you're misunderstanding why they would put this pair in a relationship. Shock value has absolutely nothing, nothing, NOTHING to do with it and I'm bewildered by that accusation. Throughout their stories in the comics and cartoons, there has been SOMETHING there. A deep connection, sometimes hinted at romantic, sometimes as just good friends. But it's always there. Their connection is so deep that whether you interpret it as platonic or not, it's really not that big a stretch to assume they could also have feelings for each other. I'm not talking about sex, I get the impression that they've never done anything physical with each other. It's not about sex, it's about intimacy and ~~feelings~~. In ALL of the movies, you can feel them longing to be together on the same side. XMFC just made clearer the reasons why.

And again, as I quoted from that fanperspective, the timeline kind of backs it up. Like the author said, this relationship taking place over years and ending with such heartbreak and betrayal? Brotherly bromance. This relationship taking place over 6 months and reacting like that? Something was going on. For someone like Erik who TNO, he gets attached to Charles rather quickly. Charles can see Erik's whole life, but vice-versa isn't an option available to Erik. But he trusts him implicitly anyway, in such a short time. Something more is going on. It add SO much more depth to their relationship. Friends is one thing but if they went through this whole half-year with this kind of expectation that once Shaw was done with they could address whatever it was they were feeling and be together, only for it to end in every way they didn't want it to, it's that much more tragic. Erik has not planned his life beyond Shaw, Shaw has always been the number one goal in his mind, the only goal. I imagine he'd have been just as satisfied to die as to live as long as he got his revenge. But then Charles came in, and while he still took a very very farbackseat to Shaw, I imagine that Erik stopped thinking about life post-Shaw being irrelevant.

TLDR, I actually think the idea of Charles and Erik with ~~feelings~~ gives their characters MORE depth because it shows just how much they mean to each other on levels neither one thought they could feel for someone else (much less a man). Shock value really isn't a reason they would do it. If they wanted SV they'd have had much more success following comics and giving Raven a girlfriend and knocking her up by morphing into a man. but Fox is still a Family Values company on many levels, sadly. So in the meantime all we get is subtext.

Have you never heard of drama?

Fiction and drama is full of powerful feelings between characters in a short span of time. It has nothing to do with undertones of homosexual, romantic feelings for each other, and everything to do with adding drama to tell a story and make it interesting. Erik and Charles want to be on the same side because they want the same thing. They want mutant prosperity. They are both working towards a goal that is much bigger than either one of them individually, and it is something that means the world to both of them. Their entire lives are dedicated to the betterment of this group of people.

However, they drift apart because they have different methods of achieving that goal, and their methods are so opposite of each other that they cannot work together. It is emotionally painful for both of them because for Charles, he is watching a man who he respects and admires going down a dark path. He's watching his friend go down a dark and dangerous path that he feels is going to be dangerous for both Erik, as well as their common goal combined. It is painful for Erik because he is watching the alliance and friendship with this man he respects and admires falling apart. Erik wants to work together with Charles, but doesn't believe in Xavier's dream of co-existence.

Their relationship is strong, to be sure, but there is NOTHING romantic about it. It is a relationship of common goals, of admiration, of working together to achieve their life's dreams for an entire world of people. Try attempting to change the entire world with someone, I'm sure there's going to be a powerful relationship there. That has nothing to do with romance. In fact I believe romance cheapens it.

 

[WildcatNC]

The X-Men have ALWAYS been metaphors for the downtrodden, marginalized, outcast. All those who are "different". Thats a large part of their appeal.

There are gay, racial, cultural, etc overtones in many different X-Men stories. I always thought this was well known. Considering a guy with major involvement in the franchise is gay, it wouldn't surprise me at all if its a little personalized and slanted toward that particular bent.

 

[blueserenity]

Have you never heard of drama?

Fiction and drama is full of powerful feelings between characters in a short span of time. It has nothing to do with undertones of homosexual, romantic feelings for each other, and everything to do with adding drama to tell a story and make it interesting. Erik and Charles want to be on the same side because they want the same thing. They want mutant prosperity. They are both working towards a goal that is much bigger than either one of them individually, and it is something that means the world to both of them. Their entire lives are dedicated to the betterment of this group of people.

However, they drift apart because they have different methods of achieving that goal, and their methods are so opposite of each other that they cannot work together. It is emotionally painful for both of them because for Charles, he is watching a man who he respects and admires going down a dark path. He's watching his friend go down a dark and dangerous path that he feels is going to be dangerous for both Erik, as well as their common goal combined. It is painful for Erik because he is watching the alliance and friendship with this man he respects and admires falling apart. Erik wants to work together with Charles, but doesn't believe in Xavier's dream of co-existence.

Their relationship is strong, to be sure, but there is NOTHING romantic about it. It is a relationship of common goals, of admiration, of working together to achieve their life's dreams for an entire world of people. Try attempting to change the entire world with someone, I'm sure there's going to be a powerful relationship there. That has nothing to do with romance. In fact I believe romance cheapens it.

I get that you really really reeeeally don't want to even consider the possibility but it's ridiculous to say there is NOTHING romantic about it when the director, two actors, and screenwriters have all said otherwise. The amount of romance is certainly up for debate but it's definitely there, infintesimal or epic as it may be. Just as it is in a number of the comic storylines.

Refuting the comments from the people who made the movie is baffling... how is it you know more than they do? They designed the movie and characters and relationships to be a certain way. If you didn't pick up on it then I guess it's your loss (or gain, seeing as how vehemently you are against a homosexual relationship between these two comic characters). But that doesn't mean it isn't there. Just as no matter how much you champion and defend X3, it doesn't make the general audience dislike it any less. It is what it is.

Looks like you and I are destined to disagree forever

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

The general audience likes X3 and the positive audience rating on rotten tomatoes is evidence of that.

If they are claiming that it was there (which I have yet to see from anyone involved in the production, that Xavier and Erik were intended to be gay for each other), then they did a piss poor job of implementing it, since there is nothing in the film that even remotely implies they have romantic feelings for each other.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Their relationship is platonic in the film, but there are certainly undertones. The fact that the actors themselves say as much is telling.

 

[psylockolussus]

The general audience likes X3 and the positive audience rating on rotten tomatoes is evidence of that.

Yeah I noticed that! It has 73% while Spider-Man is below 70%

X3 and Wolverine were well-liked by casual viewers.

The X-Men have ALWAYS been metaphors for the downtrodden, marginalized, outcast. All those who are "different". Thats a large part of their appeal.

There are gay, racial, cultural, etc overtones in many different X-Men stories. I always thought this was well known. Considering a guy with major involvement in the franchise is gay, it wouldn't surprise me at all if its a little personalized and slanted toward that particular bent.

I agree! Thats why I love the X-Men movies.

 

[blueserenity]

Yeah I noticed that! It has 73% while Spider-Man is below 70%

X3 and Wolverine were well-liked by casual viewers.

I agree! Thats why I love the X-Men movies.

I can't tell if the first line is meant to be sarcastic or not... I mean the very fact that X3 has 73 and Spider-Man has 70 is pretty telling of how inaccurate RT is on this stuff.

Buuuut back to gay subtext, I'll try to dig up some quotes. I would think that Zack Stentz's ENTIRE PANEL would be enough, but apparently...