Days of Future Past X-men First Class Sequels?

[blueserenity]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Personally Avenger's big weakness for me was the lack of character development; you really hit the ground running. It was a great 2 hours because it was FUN and the action was boss, but there was no depth to it. I'm baffled that anyone could say the character development was better or that XMFC2 should follow its example.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease XMFC2 team, do not use Avengers as an example. XMFC2 has the potential to be brilliant and dark like TDK was because of its character buildup. Why ruin it?

def28, you're still not elaborating on how omitting aliens, Sentinels, and time travel is hurting the movieverse character development. Maybe I haven't read the right volumes, but I really don't see how those elements shaped the characters so profoundly and in such a way that it couldn't be modified to suit the more realistic setting.

Also the sci-fi elements you listed (mutant cure, Liberty Island battle with doomsday device, cerebro)are all simply mutant-power-amplified devices. I'm not sure why you're using those things in particular as evidence that further sci-fi elements could work.

 

[X-Maniac]

^I agree. TA was an enjoyable but ultimately rather shallow film. I really don't want XFC2 to be like it.

I think the only aspect that could be incorporated is the balance of character screentime. Avengers never felt like Iron Man & Friends, or Nick Fury & Friends. They had Nick Fury step into the background at the right moment, and that worked really well.

 

[blueserenity]

Cyclops, Jean and Storm are tricky. On the one hand, introducing them in a 60s setting is problematic because of the timeline with regards to the later films; on the other hand, we clearly saw Storm and someone who may be Cyclops during the Cerebro sequence in First Class. It's also clear that the fanbase want to see those familiar characters - and to see them done well.

Comic movies should never, ever cater to the fanbase though. A director should stand by his convictions of his film, as a film. That's why the current Batman series is so brilliant, because Nolan is so adamant about his vision and the changes to the comics required to fulfill it. XMFC pretty much said "screw the comics" and ended up widely regarded as tied for (or even THE) best movie of the bunch. The element that was done in tribute to the comics in particular, Magneto's costume, is pretty much the worst 10 seconds of the film. I think had the movie followed the comics it would have felt pretty stale. They took big chances, caused a huge uproar amongst X-Men comic fans, and made a darn good movie in the process.

 

[X-Maniac]

X-Men First Class may have imbalanced screentime and character development (Why was Alex in jail? What is Sean's story beyond him being a bit of a creeper in aquariums?) but the ones they DO develop they offer so much on and leave you itching to learn more about them, not about who they're going to fight next with what power.

I want to know why Alex was in jail, and why Emma is a baddie, etc. It's fair to say that they could have had a little more explanation in First Class, it only takes a line or two of dialogue.

It does, in some versions of X-Men. Namely, comics. Sci-Fi/Fantasy elements for the films have been shown, for the last 5 films, to be restricted to powers. That is what they have established and it works. It gives more time to focus on the characters. When you bring in too many far-fetched elements, you have to explain them, and that takes time away from the actual mutants themselves. In comic or cartoon format there is a wealth of time to go into details. Entire issues/episodes can be used on alien backstory or the explanation of the creation of Sentinels. More time means it's easier for readers/audiences to accept these things and suspend disbelief. But in film you've got only two hours. If they introduced the Sentinels for example, they'd need to find a way to slowly introduce them. Having them come in with little or no explanations means audiences don't get any time to adjust, especially, again, with the prequels wanting to stick to historical things (I don't recall any lessons on GIANT ROBOTS and WHY THAT HYPERADVANCED TECHNOLOGY IS OBSOLETE 50 YEARS LATER).

The films have worked on powers-only so far, why wouldn't they work if they kept up this trend? Why on earth would characters suffer without aliens, sentinels, and time travel? They've got enough to deal with in the comic sequels without worrying about that business.

In answer to your last question, I became a fan of the cartoons first, read a few of the comics, and then watched the movies.. so I supposed I'm more of a media-adaptation of X-Men fan than anything. I've never been one to be bothered by changes between original source and film adaptation. If anything, I welcome it. If I wanted storylines exactly like the comics... well, I'd read the comics.

Nicely argued, but I will say that there comes a point where you can't just keep having the X-Men vs a group of nasty mutants.

Having other threats can still show the themes of the story and add layers to the characters.

 

[blueserenity]

I want to know why Alex was in jail, and why Emma is a baddie, etc. It's fair to say that they could have had a little more explanation in First Class, it only takes a line or two of dialogue.




Nicely argued, but I will say that there comes a point where you can't just keep having the X-Men vs a group of nasty mutants.

Having other threats can still show the themes of the story and add layers to the characters.

Definitely but it's always one of three things right... man vs man(or mutant), man vs nature, or man vs himself. Time travel would still be man vs man (traveling back in time to stop a force that is likely human or mutant), Sentinels are still man vs man (human-created). Even aliens are man vs man on a major level. And personally I found adding aliens to Avengers did nothing to advance the characters. They were simply an army, and one that all the avengers were pretty nonplussed about which to me felt strange.

Aliens in particular is the thing that needs to be kept far, far away from the X-Men movies. They've got enough going on. And again, I keep coming back to this, HISTORY TIE-INS, folks! If they opt for placing XMFC2 during the Civil Rights movement or the Vietnam war, they've already got enough going on without adding aliens to the mix. As I've said, too many plots spoil the characters, and the movie (SM3, X3). Having a simple story means more time spent on Cuba's aftermath, which is the most important and most interesting thing that we need to see in the sequel... that event is what triggers the slow change into their future selves, a change that is radical for the main three and can't be glossed over. If they jump too far ahead it will be such a waste. If they distract from this plot with extraterrestrial elements that require too much suspension of disbelief, they'll lose their audience.

 

[def28]

Comic movies should never, ever cater to the fanbase though. A director should stand by his convictions of his film, as a film.

Yeah casue we all want to see Baraka pool and another version of Cyclops get killed. Theres a limit.Thats why Singers back. X3 and The Wolverine did well. They knew the fans would have their trust back with Singer. They should cater to the fan base somewhat and they do to an extent.

def28, you're still not elaborating on how omitting aliens, Sentinels, and time travel is hurting the movieverse character development. Maybe I haven't read the right volumes, but I really don't see how those elements shaped the characters so profoundly and in such a way that it couldn't be modified to suit the more realistic setting.

Also the sci-fi elements you listed (mutant cure, Liberty Island battle with doomsday device, cerebro)are all simply mutant-power-amplified devices. I'm not sure why you're using those things in particular as evidence that further sci-fi elements could work.

Because you would be cutting out things like Sentinles, The Shiar empire, Cable, Bishop, The Brood, Phalanx and story lines like Age of Apocalypse, Phoienex Saga( done right) and Days of future past. I disagree 100% on your reasoning to not include Senitles and we have this discussion pages back I believe. X Men is not realistic at all, and it shouldnt be. You can still have deep honest characters with heavy Sci FI. You have 5 movies of your so called realsitc X Men movies. Its time they started planning to bring in bigger things. Alot of those bigger things include heavy sCI FI, That I think most fans will go utterly ape **** for. Every X Men comic running right now and that has been running for a awhile has always had heavy sci fi elements besides powers. Cutting all that would limiting its potential. I want to see AOA, on screen before 2060, and it will happen one of these days. Also I would love to see the X Men intercating with other Marvel characters in the future and FOX owns a quite a few.

I chose the Statue of Libertty fight cause its ridiculous, adding time travel would be no less believable in that film series to me.

Avengers proved all the heavy sci fi stuff in comics is possible. They might even pull

Spoiler

the Infinity Gaunlet

. I dont want to watch the X Men miss out huge future events, They can pull off stuff like that themselves within there stories . But they are going to need those Sci Fi elements.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease XMFC2 team, do not use Avengers as an example. XMFC2 has the potential to be brilliant and dark like TDK was because of its character buildup. Why ruin it?

What movie did you see? XMFC is closer to the tone of The Aveneger then TDK. Its reality isnt anywhere close to that of TDK. Your comparing the wrong franchise. It should be more like Avengers then Batman. At least in how it sets up future story lines, characters and team. . Like I said before Avenegers got the team aspect build up right, X Men should take note. They have yet to impress me in any of the X films in that aspect.

 

[blueserenity]

Yeah casue we all want to see Baraka pool and another version of Cyclops get killed. Theres a limit.Thats why Singers back. X3 and The Wolverine did well. They knew the fans would have their trust back with Singer. They should cater to the fan base somewhat and they do to an extent.

You're using bad examples though. Those films were wretched through and through, and having DEADpool instead of Baraka or having Cyclops live to see the end of X3 would not have made the movies any better. And as much as I hate Brett Ratner as a person and a director, I have to point out that Cyclops' untimely demise was actually an actor decision... he had to lrave to go play that character in Superman Returns. Which was also a lousy movie, directed by Singer. It's not to Singer's credit that XMFC was so good. It's Vaughn's.

They should never never cater to the fans. You forget that only a small portion of people who go to see these movies are die-hard comic fans. And there is usually no completely pleasing them anyway. Just as there will always be Harry Potter fans who decry the movies for not including every detail in the books (how could they?) there will always be someone who hates changes in the X-Men movies. Frankly I love the direction they're going in with XMFC and I hope Vaughn never so much as thinks about how a fanboy might react to an element in his movies. It would only muck everything up.

I chose the Statue of Libertty fight cause its ridiculous, adding time travel would be no less believable in that film series to me.

That's like saying that 95% of action movies should involve time travel because some of those car chases are absolutely ridiculous.

Avengers proved all the heavy sci fi stuff in comics is possible. They might even pull

Spoiler

the Infinity Gaunlet

. I dont want to watch the X Men miss out huge future events, They can pull off stuff like that themselves within there stories . But they are going to need those Sci Fi elements.

What movie did you see? XMFC is closer to the tone of The Aveneger then TDK. Its reality isnt anywhere close to that of TDK. Your comparing the wrong franchise. It should be more like Avengers then Batman. At least in how it sets up future story lines, characters and team. . Like I said before Avenegers got the team aspect build up right, X Men should take note. They have yet to impress me in any of the X films in that aspect.

I'm not saying XMFC was like TDK. I'm saying its sequel has the potential to be. Charles in particular is going to be doing some serious walking through fire, I think they'll take him to a pretty dark place before they let him become the (dull) saint figure he is in the older movies. Likewise something has to happen to Mystique to turn her so cutthroat.

Oh I agree that on the team front the X-films aren't good at the balancing act. The first 4 movies were pretty much all about Wolverine's problems, and I'm pretty sure the First Class trilogy will remain largely focused on Erik, Raven, and Charles. But I'm okay with that because rather than give a lot of characters a sliver of development (like Avengers), they're giving a few characters splendid development. And I think that those X-Men we didn't get to learn anything about (Havok Banshee) will get a lot more attention in the sequel. The director mentioned he'd only like to bring in one more character and I think that's a really wise move. The development will never full even out, but at least there will be way more time to flesh out the background characters.

That's why I say Avengers and XMFC are apples and oranges. The XMFC trilogy has the luxury of taking its time and developing characters over the course of 2 or 3 films. Avengers has to dive into plot immediately in order to have enough screentime to balance the characters.

Someday in the next 20 years or so I'm sure X-Men will be rebooted and then, maybe then, you'll get your Sentinels and time travel and aliens. But there is only 6 hours in this XMFC trilogy and that is time that should be well-spent on exploring powers and character motivation. There is already so much they could do with that (such as that Inception-like mind battle that was initially planned). They don't NEED extra stuff and when it comes to X-Men Vaughn seems nothing if not efficient about what is needed, and what isn't.

 

[Majik1387]

I'm seeing way too much comparison to Nolan's Batman films for my liking. :

The X-Men films should be nothing like them. Total wrong movies to look at for comparison.

 

[X-Maniac]

Comic movies should never, ever cater to the fanbase though. A director should stand by his convictions of his film, as a film. That's why the current Batman series is so brilliant, because Nolan is so adamant about his vision and the changes to the comics required to fulfill it. XMFC pretty much said "screw the comics" and ended up widely regarded as tied for (or even THE) best movie of the bunch. The element that was done in tribute to the comics in particular, Magneto's costume, is pretty much the worst 10 seconds of the film. I think had the movie followed the comics it would have felt pretty stale. They took big chances, caused a huge uproar amongst X-Men comic fans, and made a darn good movie in the process.

Well, I wouldn't say 'cater' to the fanbase...but respecting the fans is important.

Also, it wasn't just the Magneto costume that came from the comics. Banshee's glider wings, Emma's outfits, Beast's look and Havok's chest-panel all have their origins in the comics.

And I think Havok would have been even better if more like the comics - in other words, a blue/white blast not a red one, and circles of energy fired through the hands not directly out of his chest. Look up Havok on Google images and most of the comic art looks better than what we got.

The comics have to be a reference. Stentz/Miller said themselves that Magneto's raising of the submarine (a magnificent moment) derived from the comics story in which he lifts a Russian sub called the Leningrad.

So I would say they should begin with using the comics as reference, and make sure not to deviate too far.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Well, I wouldn't say 'cater' to the fanbase...but respecting the fans is important.

I'd say having a healthy respect for the source material, but through a cinematic purview.

 

[marvelrobbins]

The Avengers and X-Men are whole different kind of films.The Avengers arelike Justice League a group of heroes banding together to face huge threats.
X-Men live In different world that Is daarker and deals with themes likeprejudce while Avengers Is more cwoad pleasing.Which X-men shouldn't be.
I have critized the Sam Rami SPider-Man films for having Spider-Man too public accepted.Cwoads should never cheer for the X-Men.They are team sworn to defend a world that hates and feas them.

Aliens may work In comic books and animated series but won't work In Live action X-Men films.The X-Men should face others mutants,antimutant
humans,or the Sentinles.

The X-Men films helped pay the way for other films.Even Kevin Feige has called the first X-Men one of 2 most Important films In allowing marvel to be
where It Is now.And even recently continues to say good things about X2.

With Cyclops remember most of cast signed for only 2 films when they signed up for X-Men.During Fox's Inability to get ball rolling after X2 which they lost Bryan Singer to Superman James Marsden didn't have contract for another X-Men film so since Superman returns had script he accepted offer to do Superman.Fox wanted Cyclops to have been mentioned to die offscreen between films originally.Fox had to be convinced for Cyclops to be In The Last Stand at all.

People need to remember first class went from being a script by the producer of gossip girl that even the producers admit was a little twillight to being verion devolped by Bryan Singer who came up with plot and picked the characters.The final film owes to both Singer and Matthew Vaughn.

 

[def28]

You're using bad examples though. Those films were wretched through and through, and having DEADpool instead of Baraka or having Cyclops live to see the end of X3 would not have made the movies any better. And as much as I hate Brett Ratner as a person and a director, I have to point out that Cyclops' untimely demise was actually an actor decision... he had to lrave to go play that character in Superman Returns. Which was also a lousy movie, directed by Singer. It's not to Singer's credit that XMFC was so good. It's Vaughn's.

Actually its a perfect example of what happens when they dont hold the fans respect to the source material. They didnt need to kill Cyclops. Or make Deadpool a lazer shooting mute controlled by Stryker via computer. Kid Omega and Psylocke? Really come on. They didnt care, and probably neither did most the general audience cause they just dont know. The deciions made in X3 and Origins are what happens when you dont care about your loyal fanbase. They didnt respect the source material at all. So what did they do after the backlash from fans, they brought on someone they know the fans trust. Singer. Without him FC would have never happened. I agree its Vaughns movie, they rewrote and his has his style/humor all over it. X3 and XMOW made alot of money they didnt need to do that, and they have admitted they ****ed up and listened to fans.

They should never never cater to the fans. You forget that only a small portion of people who go to see these movies are die-hard comic fans. And there is usually no completely pleasing them anyway.

I disagree and this is another reason why Avengers has a huge edge over the X Films and will continue to be the biggest thing to happen to comic films.

 

[blueserenity]

Actually its a perfect example of what happens when they dont hold the fans respect to the source material. They didnt need to kill Cyclops. Or make Deadpool a lazer shooting mute controlled by Stryker via computer. Kid Omega and Psylocke? Really come on. They didnt care, and probably neither did most the general audience cause they just dont know. The deciions made in X3 and Origins are what happens when you dont care about your loyal fanbase. They didnt respect the source material at all. So what did they do after the backlash from fans, they brought on someone they know the fans trust. Singer. Without him FC would have never happened. I agree its Vaughns movie, they rewrote and his has his style/humor all over it. X3 and XMOW made alot of money they didnt need to do that, and they have admitted they ****ed up and listened to fans.

I disagree and this is another reason why Avengers has a huge edge over the X Films and will continue to be the biggest thing to happen to comic films.

You're still overestimating the power of fans. They didn't bring on Singer because the fans hated X3 and XOW, they brought him on because everyone hated X3 and XOW. They were bad movies, and being more faithful to the comics wouldn't have changed that. People who had only seen the movies hated it. People who walked in off the street hated it. EVERYONE HATED IT. X-Men and X2 don't strictly follow any storylines and were excellent. XMFC completely recreates the mythos (save for some tributes nicely pointed out above), even betrays things set out by the older movies, and STILL manages to be the best of the bunch (and is widely regarded by non comic audiences as such as well). By and large the people who paid to see this movie are not well-versed in the comic. Respect the source material, sure, to a point. But if you can take something and improve upon it, GO FOR IT. I mean seriously how can people be upset about how Charles gets paralyzed? I'm baffled that anyone, hardcore fan or not, could prefer the storyline about an alien with a really really big rock.

I guess I'm just one of those (apparently) rare people who can totally seperate source from film as long as the film is good. And XMFC was excellent.

Like I've said a million times, if you're so wounded about the changes from the comics... go back and read the comics. Every media version has its own storylines within the X-Men, why on earth should they be exactly the same? It's way more interesting this way, because you don't know where they're going to go next.

 

[def28]

Like I've said a million times, if you're so wounded about the changes from the comics... go back and read the comics. Every media version has its own storylines within the X-Men, why on earth should they be exactly the same? It's way more interesting this way, because you don't know where they're going to go next.

Im a movie geek and Ive been a fan of the X Men ever since I can remember. Thats why. I want a good movie, with characters I grew up with. Same thing as most fans.

As far as the fans voice. Its not everything but it does matter. The public werent the ones complaining about Deadpool and showing his popularity to move his solo film forward. And the public wasnt complaining about Brett Ratner and the loss of Singer. Not everyone hates X3 or Origins, quite a bit of the general public enjoys it. RT holds 73% liked rating by audience for both films. I know that doesnt include everyone. But alot of the public likes those films. The strong hate came from the fans. They dont make the decions but there voice does get heard every now and then.

The films will benefit from being more like the comic imo. Im not asking for 100% accuracy but there is quite a bit of room for improvemnet. Maybe Im just pissed, cause Ive never seen the X Men portrayed how I want them. Whatever. I liked FC, its not perfect, its not ground breaking in any way and its not the must go to X Men story Ive been waiting for since I was a kid. Its a solid fun movie with a good Prof X/Magneto story. The Avengers is the movie I never thought was imaginable, it shattered all my expectations on what is possible with comic films. The X franchise can do this to. With you saying no Sentinels, time travel, outer space. That cuts out alot of my Fav X Men stories/things Ive wanted to see since an X Men movies been announced. Of course I would disagree. I remember people saying Banshee would never fly cause it would not work in the film. These films rather you like it or not are based in Sci FI/Fantasy, as are the stories there based on. Theres no limit. ITs all about how its written. I disagree with your realistic take/powers only X Men. Not gonna change my mind on that.

 

[psylockolussus]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Personally Avenger's big weakness for me was the lack of character development; you really hit the ground running. It was a great 2 hours because it was FUN and the action was boss, but there was no depth to it. I'm baffled that anyone could say the character development was better or that XMFC2 should follow its example.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease XMFC2 team, do not use Avengers as an example. XMFC2 has the potential to be brilliant and dark like TDK was because of its character buildup. Why ruin it?

I agree!

 

[OsGom]

They should never never cater to the fans.

Someday in the next 20 years or so I'm sure X-Men will be rebooted and then, maybe then, you'll get your Sentinels and time travel and aliens. But there is only 6 hours in this XMFC trilogy and that is time that should be well-spent on exploring powers and character motivation. There is already so much they could do with that (such as that Inception-like mind battle that was initially planned). They don't NEED extra stuff and when it comes to X-Men Vaughn seems nothing if not efficient about what is needed, and what isn't.

So they should cater to the studio? I'm all for pursuing a director's vision but I can only see this going bad in Fox's hands. The studio will pressure for more characters, more action and less quality. Vaughn's vision will be compromised and he'll skip on before he'll finish the trilogy. I would like to believe that Fox will do the right thing but given their track record we should really know better.

 

[BestGirl]

I disagree and this is another reason why Avengers has a huge edge over the X Films and will continue to be the biggest thing to happen to comic films.

TA has been the biggest thing to happen to comic films because of its witty writing and massive budget, which made for an epic adventure. I doubt most people who have seen and enjoyed it could tell you if it were comics-accurate or not.

 

[blueserenity]

So they should cater to the studio? I'm all for pursuing a director's vision but I can only see this going bad in Fox's hands. The studio will pressure for more characters, more action and less quality. Vaughn's vision will be compromised and he'll skip on before he'll finish the trilogy. I would like to believe that Fox will do the right thing but given their track record we should really know better.

Dude they gave Vaughn a ton of freedom in XMFC... I think had FOX had total control we would have seen twice as many mutants. Don't forget, after they had already hired (and presumably paid) people to write the script, they let Vaughn come in and completely demolish it in favor of his own vision. Yeah, the deadline they gave him was too tight (which is among many reasons why I'm hoping for a summer 2014 release over a Christmas 2013 one) but with how critically acclaimed it was I think they'll give him freedom again. I can see them digging their claws in for the third one but I'd argue this sequel, depending where they go with it, will be the most important one. I have hope, as articles have indicated Vaughn and Goldman are prepped to rewrite the script when Kinberg's done with it. Thannnnk god.

Fingers crossed the sequel takes place MAX a few years after the first one. Ideally no more than a few months but I know that's a pipe dream. There's just too much that needs to be addressed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to see Erik's reaction to being responsible for Charles' paralysis. I think that one thing is going to set the basis for their relationship for decades to come. Never before have we seen an Erik responsible for this (not counting the lousy Ultimate series) and it's huge. I think his guilt is an incredible addition to his character, as Erik has been many things in his incarnation but he's pretty "end justifies the means" and doesn't seem to regret that much. Here's something he can't not, because it's Charles, and neither of them is ready to be enemies yet. Can't wait to see Fassbender play that out. He's brilliant at silently tortured characters. And McAvoy is equally brilliant in tortured-yet-optimistic characters.

 

[def28]

TA has been the biggest thing to happen to comic films because of its witty writing and massive budget, which made for an epic adventure. I doubt most people who have seen and enjoyed it could tell you if it were comics-accurate or not.

The characters are portrayed very faithful imo. It works for hardcore fans and audience. The Avengers is biggest thing to happen in comics for many reasons. It shows its possible to do both. It did cater to the fans, and worked for everyone.

 

[The Guard]

You're still overestimating the power of fans. They didn't bring on Singer because the fans hated X3 and XOW, they brought him on because everyone hated X3 and XOW. They were bad movies, and being more faithful to the comics wouldn't have changed that. People who had only seen the movies hated it. People who walked in off the street hated it. EVERYONE HATED IT.

Is that why it made so much money, and the most out of three films?

I assume you mean "Vaughn". They brought on Vaughn because he was the next choice after Singer, and one of the few directors who wanted to direct an X-Men movie after WOLVERINE. It's not an accident that he returned for X-MEN: FIRST CLASS. Much of X3 was set in stone during the time Vaughn was aboard the project.

 

[X-Maniac]

TA has been the biggest thing to happen to comic films because of its witty writing and massive budget, which made for an epic adventure. I doubt most people who have seen and enjoyed it could tell you if it were comics-accurate or not.

There is some truth in that, but I would also argue that the massive support from the fanbase played a part in hyping Avengers up. There was such a buzz online that it was impossible not to be aware of it. Disney/Marvel knew that when it allowed geeky fans into the advance screenings and re-tweeted the nerdgasm responses of 'epic masterpiece, best movie ever made.'

Word of mouth does play a part. We don't know how much exactly, as there is never any hard, precise arithmetic/statistics for these things.

On the other hand, X-Men: The Last Stand had a huge opening weekend despite the bad buzz from many concerned fans, but arguably the buzz became worse when fans saw it (and saw their worst fears confirmed about Cyclops dying etc) and critics reviewed it (and felt it was a drop down from Singer's work). The Avengers and X3 aren't a million miles apart in tone though, although they are far apart in content (X3 has too many characters, two plots that never entirely dovetail, and less respect for the comics).

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I want a sequel to FC with the current cast, and their stories being further explored

 

[X-Maniac]

And personally I found adding aliens to Avengers did nothing to advance the characters. They were simply an army, and one that all the avengers were pretty nonplussed about which to me felt strange.

They were, but I think the existence of Thor and Loki had already set up the idea of other worlds existing beyond Earth, so the extraterrestrial element was previously established.

Aliens in particular is the thing that needs to be kept far, far away from the X-Men movies. They've got enough going on. And again, I keep coming back to this, HISTORY TIE-INS, folks! If they opt for placing XMFC2 during the Civil Rights movement or the Vietnam war, they've already got enough going on without adding aliens to the mix. As I've said, too many plots spoil the characters, and the movie (SM3, X3). Having a simple story means more time spent on Cuba's aftermath, which is the most important and most interesting thing that we need to see in the sequel... that event is what triggers the slow change into their future selves, a change that is radical for the main three and can't be glossed over. If they jump too far ahead it will be such a waste. If they distract from this plot with extraterrestrial elements that require too much suspension of disbelief, they'll lose their audience.

We don't NEED aliens, you are right on that score.

What should come first is a good story, following up on the end of First Class and also set amid real-world historical events. Too much revision of actual big events could begin to feel contrived, but history should definitely be a backdrop. The Vietnam War could bring us Juggernaut, the Civil Rights movement could be a way of introducing Storm.

I would prefer to see the more 'out-there' sci-fi in an X4/X5 set in the future after The Last Stand.

More than anything we need a good, solid, exciting story, and a film that is well-made and not rushed.

 

[The Guard]

I don't see a point in going "aliens" big until they've mined other concepts like The Sentinels, Sinister, Apocalypse, etc. I wouldn't mind if it got there eventually, as long as it was well handled, but I think there are better, more relevant stories to be told first.

 

[psylockolussus]

I don't see a point in going "aliens" big until they've mined other concepts like The Sentinels, Sinister, Apocalypse, etc. I wouldn't mind if it got there eventually, as long as it was well handled, but I think there are better, more relevant stories to be told first.

Yeah Sentinels, Sinister, Apocalypse first before the "aliens" like the Shi'ar empire and Skrulls.

And I've been waiting for Sinister and Apocalypse to be the main villain in the movies. They are like the two of biggest X-Men villains after Magneto.