YES or NO, should Cyclops be killed off?

[Mr Sensitive]

People Who Vote YES will be chased and eatin by the Giantt Killer State Puff Marshmellow man

Or maybe they'll be sentenced to watch a whole movie with James Marsden in the lead role.

 

[CouchQuarterbck]

Or maybe they'll be sentenced to watch a whole movie with James Marsden in the lead role.

Or worse yet, anything with Steven Segal. And on top of that, the movie's on an endless loop.

 

[Eros]

well if it fits the story then fine, its just a bloody movie. You guys act if "cyclops" is a real person and is dieing. How is him dieing in this movie gonna effect you at all? what kind of fictional topic would warrent such concern over things that are not really happening? What is he dieing in the comics... no, this is a movie and he still "lives" in the comics and such. i just don't get the geekish concern for a moive verion that is seperate from the "Real" cyclops in the comics. You guys need to seperate events in this movie and real life happenings.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Holy crap!

 

[onejeremytogo]

well if it fits the story then fine, its just a bloody movie. You guys act if "cyclops" is a real person and is dieing. How is him dieing in this movie gonna effect you at all? what kind of fictional topic would warrent such concern over things that are not really happening? What is he dieing in the comics... no, this is a movie and he still "lives" in the comics and such. i just don't get the geekish concern for a moive verion that is seperate from the "Real" cyclops in the comics. You guys need to seperate events in this movie and real life happenings.

Could be worse..we could need spell check. Anyway, it's a movie using characters we've all grown up with. Have you ever viewed a movie that made you tear up at the end when say..the lead character that you've spent 2 hours getting know died? It happens. It's kinda like that only I don't see any fans crying. LOL.

 

[WorthyStevens]

well if it fits the story then fine, its just a bloody movie. You guys act if "cyclops" is a real person and is dieing. How is him dieing in this movie gonna effect you at all? what kind of fictional topic would warrent such concern over things that are not really happening? What is he dieing in the comics... no, this is a movie and he still "lives" in the comics and such. i just don't get the geekish concern for a moive verion that is seperate from the "Real" cyclops in the comics. You guys need to seperate events in this movie and real life happenings.

When you see one of your favorite characters get shafted in previous installments, and a possibility of him being screwed once more (which I don't think he will), there is understandably some concern on the fan's part.

 

[Eros]

but still cyclops had to be "Shafted" it was a thing they had to do. Cyclops as a character is interest i guess, but his boyscout nature leaves him flat at times. im glad they "shafted" him, cause other characters like Nightcrawler can bring new things to the table. Besides he is not shafted in the comics, and maybe you should be happy with that.

Wolverine-"The bike needs gas."
cyclops-"fill her up."

i loved that exchange in X-2 its like cyclops is telling wolverine "Im not your ***** in this movie".

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Cyclops in the comics is a mature (even if disturbed and, at times, a bit whining) leader.

That's not the case in the movies. He's no "natural born leader" in them.

I disagree. I think Cyclops was portrayed as a very good leader in the X-Men movies.

Lack of screentime doesn't equal lack of quality screentime.

 

[neemer5]

Let's face it, in order to make it remotely believable, some main characters need to die.
If it's done well, then Cyclops would be a good choice. He may be important in the comics, but he he's been less than pivotal in the films.
I'm just concerned that his death will either be pointless, as pointed out in the script reviews, or way over-dramatized, which I think is just as bad.

 

[The Guard]

First, we are still not sure he actually dies, and if he does, if he remains dead.

Second, I love the word "should". As if it means a thing. According to some, in X-MEN Cyclops SHOULD have been screaming orders, mixing it up with Wolverine and blasting things, and ****ing Jean in every other scene. And in X2, Cyclops SHOULD have dominated the screentime for no other reason than "that's how it should be". And in X3, Cyclops should, I dunno, be there giving orders and blasting things for two hours. Just because that's how it is.

Should he die? It depends on the circumstances. If FOX is planning to do more with his character and this franchise, than hell no. If they are not planning to ever re-establish Cyclops as the blatant leadership figure he is in the comics to the degree that he is in the comics, him dying for the X-Men's cause in their greatest war/conflict/crisis makes a lot of sense storywise and thematically, and could create amazing drama to boot. So, if this is indeed the case, and if it serves the story, and if it's done well, then yes, he should die.

Not that the word should means a thing, mind you.

You know, someone should post a picture of his gravestone from X-MEN 3. That would at least end speculation. But that doesn't exist.

Does it?

killing off Cyclops would be suicide for any director.

Why? Especially when it creates emotion and a lot of drama, which general audiences love. And especially when the director has, in his cast of character, Charles Xavier, Wolverine, Storm, Beast, Angel, Rogue, Iceman, Colossus, Kitty Pryde, Magneto, Mystique and Juggernaut to play with, among who knows how many others.

Cyclops shouldn't die because it's not part of his character. It's like having Wolverine marry Belladonna, or Bishop using shapeshifting to stealthly infiltrate an enemy establishment.

No one's suggesting he marry someone he's never had a thing for or use powers he's never had.

Cyclops has died in the comics. His death would serve to kick of the Dark Phoenix saga. Dying or living is not a part of someone's characterization, it's part of their relation to the mythos and their character arc. And since Cyclops has both APPEARED TO DIE and actually DIED in the comics, both are part of his connection to the X-Men mythos. Then again, the comics don't have to worry about things like choosing one or two characters to focus on over the course of an entire franchise, or character commitments to other titles, or fitting ****loads of characters that fans want to see into their titles, of which they only have a finite amount. In real life, these are these kinds of concerns. Dismissing that in this argument is foolish and unrealistic.

Jean Grey is supposed to die. It is part of her character arc to die, and be reborn as the Phoenix. But it's not part of Cyclops' character to die. Yes, he's died before in the comics. Lots of characters have. But their death was never "real". They always came back. And coming back, in these films, does not fit in. With the real world setting they have, having people die off and coming back resurrected later on doesn't work.

Ok. A character dying and coming back is unbelieveable.

But a woman who can control the weather on a whim is believeable? A man who shoots tremendous energy blasts out of his eyes? A powerful telepath who can control people's minds and read their thoughts and even their memories? A man controlling magnetic fields and metal? A man with healing abilities on the level of Wolverine's? Rogue's powers? A kid who can control fire? A kid who can create ice out of nothing more than the mist in the air? A character turning into steel? A girl who can phase through things? How about a man with enormous hands and feet that is covered head to toe in blue fur, or someone covered in blue scales with a demon's appearance and a forked tail, or someone who can make copies of themselves, or shapeshift? Or someone who can run through pretty much anything and is nigh unstoppable?

It's all in the writing how believeable something is, and obviously shouldn't matter how realistic it is, because that is not a benchmark of this franchise. And I think if Cyclops does die, and he is ressurrected, and it is explained somehow, in the context of the universe and characters that have been created/adapted for it, it will work as well as anything else in the X-Men franchise has.

Again, it works with Jean Grey because that is a special trait of her character.

Then have her bring Cyclops back. Or bring in a character in future films whose trait is to ressurrect the dead. Or to clone them. Or maybe he never actually died. There are all kinds of ways to go with this.

And there have been a few discussions on these forums alone as to how her rebirth can be explained to fit into this story line. But the most important part is the fact that dying is part of Jean Grey's character arc. It's not a part of Cyclops' arc.

It very well could be made a part of it in this franchise without missing a beat. Cyclops could very well be the loyal soldier who sacrifices his life for some cause.

That's the difference between Obi-Won Kanobi, the example always used when people say "nobody complained when Obi-Won died"... well, Star Wars didn't have pre-existing source material that it had to stay true to... Lucas was able to do whatever he wanted to tell the story. X-Men, on the other hand, has pre-existing source material that it needs to remain true to, and killing of Cyclops is not remaining true to that source material.

If killing him off is not remaining true to the source material, then what about when he dies in that source material?

So no, Cyclops should not die. Neither should Xavier. However, I don't think that Xavier's death would be quite as bad for me as Cyclops' death. Though I am totally against it, I feel that Xavier's death could be rationalized, and in the end, possibly work. Cyclops' death would ruin the movie, and consequently the franchise, for me.

Why would Cyclops death ruin the movie if Xavier's doesn't?

I disagree. I think Cyclops was portrayed as a very good leader in the X-Men movies.

Lack of screentime doesn't equal lack of quality screentime.

Agreed. Nor does a death negate a quality character portrayal.

 

[JanG]

Cyclops should be killed off in the most gruesome, random, petty way possible. It should be quick and unexpected, and undeserved.

...that ****er should die.

 

[WalkingDead]

If it serves the story kill him off. If it serves the story kill Iceman, Pyro, and Rogue off too. If it's rational and works to give good drama, acting, and writing...then deaths can be totally worth it. Kill off Colossus, Cyclops, Wolverine, and Magneto if it works and isn't pointless and they have some good screentime used before it happens.

If it serves to make a good story, then yes...kill Cyke. If it's just a pointless death, to get rid of the character for whatever reason...no, don't kill him.

Colossus is my favorite X-Man...but if he got 5-6 really well-written and well-acted scenes and then died a good dramatic death, I'd be fine with that.
Now, if he got punked and killed without any thought put into it or wasn't used for anything but a single death scene, and since he hasn't had any character development in the films...of course then I'd be pissed. But as long as he gets some good scenes that show his character and then he dies in a good way, I'm fine with it...I can live with it and possibly love it.

 

[XCharlieX]

Ok. A character dying and coming back is unbelieveable.

But a woman who can control the weather on a whim is believeable? A man who shoots tremendous energy blasts out of his eyes? A powerful telepath who can control people's minds and read their thoughts and even their memories? A man controlling magnetic fields and metal? A man with healing abilities on the level of Wolverine's? Rogue's powers? A kid who can control fire? A kid who can create ice out of nothing more than the mist in the air? A character turning into steel? A girl who can phase through things? How about a man with enormous hands and feet that is covered head to toe in blue fur, or someone covered in blue scales with a demon's appearance and a forked tail, or someone who can make copies of themselves, or shapeshift? Or someone who can run through pretty much anything and is nigh unstoppable?

It's all in the writing how believeable something is, and obviously shouldn't matter how realistic it is, because that is not a benchmark of this franchise. And I think if Cyclops does die, and he is ressurrected, and it is explained somehow, in the context of the universe and characters that have been created/adapted for it, it will work as well as anything else in the X-Men franchise has.

I agreed with your post until i got to this. In order to make the established style that Singer has made for the movies, a writer must always know when to draw lines in the sand when it comes to fiction... its just instinct and yes its a hair away in some folks minds from pure fiction but thats where the brilliance is. I think to understand this balance one must observe the surreal things people believe in real life. Ok they have powers fine... but the movies never said they were immortal. These are in fact mortals and the movies are written so far to relate more to the human aspect of them, a form of realism within the fiction. So if youre trying to make a movie about regular people that happen to have extraordinary powers, you must usually make them ultimately susceptible to some aspects of reality, hence death and not coming back... of course if you want to use 1 character and make it plausible enough to come back (like phoenix taking care of jeans body) thats ok imo, just dont overdo it.

 

[KingOfDreams]

I would prefer it if he isn't killed off but this is the last X-Men movie right? So ultimately it doesn't matter.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I agreed with your post until i got to this. In order to make the established style that Singer has made for the movies, a writer must always know when to draw lines in the sand when it comes to fiction... its just instinct and yes its a hair away in some folks minds from pure fiction but thats where the brilliance is. I think to understand this balance one must observe the surreal things people believe in real life. Ok they have powers fine... but the movies never said they were immortal. These are in fact mortals and the movies are written so far to relate more to the human aspect of them, a form of realism within the fiction. So if youre trying to make a movie about regular people that happen to have extraordinary powers, you must usually make them ultimately susceptible to some aspects of reality, hence death and not coming back... of course if you want to use 1 character and make it plausible enough to come back (like phoenix taking care of jeans body) thats ok imo, just dont overdo it.

Exactly.

Whether it's something that could realistically happen or not, there is a scientific explanation for all of those powers... evolution.

And part of Jean Grey's story is to die and come back as the Phoenix. Obviously, the movies aren't going to be exactly like the comics, so how that happens is open to interpretation and adaptation. But it will be explained why she was able to stay alive, probably due to her powers.

If Cyclops dies off, and she just brings him back... or he just resurrects in some other way... it will cross those lines. Yes, this movie is unrealistic in terms of people with exceptional powers, Cerebro, Danger Room, and all of that. But there is still a basis in reality. And "appeared to be dead", or "ressurected at the end of the movie" will be really cheesy in this realism based movie.

It very well could be made a part of it in this franchise without missing a beat.

Okay, so would you have killed off Aragorn in Return of the King, just because it could have been done without missing a beat? And a noble and heroic death from Aragorn could have added a very powerful element of drama to the movie? No. Why? Because of the source material behind it.

I understand that comics and novels have to be adapted to movies differently, I've been a major proponent of that (as to why the X-Men movies shouldn't go on past 3, for example). But you still have to remain loyal to the basics of the source material. And that is that Cyclops doesn't die. Nor does Xavier. And Xavier dying would probably borderline ruin the movie for me as well. The reason why I could see it working out better than Cyclops (though still something I am totally against) is the whole MLK, die for your cause bit. However, that's not to say that I think Xavier should die. I don't think he should.

 

[The Guard]

I agreed with your post until i got to this. In order to make the established style that Singer has made for the movies, a writer must always know when to draw lines in the sand when it comes to fiction... its just instinct and yes its a hair away in some folks minds from pure fiction but thats where the brilliance is.

That door swings both ways, then. For instance, to have a realistic conflict/war...someone likely has to die/suffer.

I think to understand this balance one must observe the surreal things people believe in real life. Ok they have powers fine...

Such as that generally people do not control magnetic waves, nor would any mutation likely create this abnormality?

I love how you just skip over this little detail, as if having powers doesn't require a HUGE suspension of disbelief. "Ok, I'll buy that this man can shoot beams of energy out of his eyes that are strong enough to punch through doors. I'll buy that this woman can create a tornado out of nothing".

"But hell no a mutant with the power to bring someone back to life or clone them couldn't do so!"

but the movies never said they were immortal.

They also never said they weren't mortal. Again. The door swings both ways.

Whether it's something that could realistically happen or not, there is a scientific explanation for all of those powers... evolution.

I realize that, but that, frankly, is an absurd concept in itself. People would evolve the ability to shoot blasts of energy from their eyes? Nevermind how that is PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE. ANY of the X-Men's powers falls apart under careful scrutiny. It's FANTASY. Yes, it's sci-fi fantasy, but it's fantasy, nontheless.

And part of Jean Grey's story is to die and come back as the Phoenix. Obviously, the movies aren't going to be exactly like the comics, so how that happens is open to interpretation and adaptation. But it will be explained why she was able to stay alive, probably due to her powers.

And it will likely, scientifically and realistically be pretty damn hard to swallow, and bank on "this is what happened, it's an absurd, far-out concept, but please believe it in the context of this ridiculous mythos because our story hinges on it".

If Cyclops dies off, and she just brings him back... or he just resurrects in some other way... it will cross those lines.

I don't think he's likely to "just ressurrect some other way". She brought herself back...why couldn't she concievably bring him back, too?

Yes, this movie is unrealistic in terms of people with exceptional powers, Cerebro, Danger Room, and all of that. But there is still a basis in reality. And "appeared to be dead", or "ressurected at the end of the movie" will be really cheesy in this realism based movie.

A lot of things should be really cheesy. They haven't been played that way. Why should this be any different?

Okay, so would you have killed off Aragorn in Return of the King, just because it could have been done without missing a beat?

Would I have? No. But could it have been done, and worked? Absolutely. I didn't say it was faithful. I said it can work. Aragorn showed up in seven books, I believe, over the entire course of his existence in Tolkien's world. And he was not immortal. At some point there could EASILY have been a story where he died (wait...wait...there WAS). And him dying, while not as satisfactory as the ending where he becomes a benevolent king, could also work quite well.

And a noble and heroic death from Aragorn could have added a very powerful element of drama to the movie? No. Why? Because of the source material behind it.

**** yes a noble and heroic death could have added a powerful element of drama to the movie. Would it have pissed off fans? Probably. But it could have worked.

But it's not the same as the Cyclops situation for a number of reasons, and while I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I think you know that. LORD OF THE RINGS is six books. And a movie series trilogy and a very faithful and near-direct adaption that put Viggo Mortenson's Aragorn at the CENTER or FRONT of things to begin with and kept him there, with a complete storyline about how he was to become the king. On the other hand, the X-Men mythos is comprised of god knows how many storylines, the film mythos is not a direct adaption of the comics on pretty much any level, and to date, through two films, Cyclops has not been given that kind of importance in this franchise. So, thematically and storywise, killing him in the middle of the storyline is not going to have the same impact killing Aragorn in the middle of the storyline would have had (although it might have as large an impact because of Jean). Because of the treatment of Cyclops's character, there are no definitive guidelines as to what HAS to happen to him in the movie X-mythos with Cyclops at this point. Would audiences like to see him survive and succeed and live happily ever after? Probably, but these don't strike me as happily-ever-after movies.

And again, we are not sure he will die.

I understand that comics and novels have to be adapted to movies differently, I've been a major proponent of that (as to why the X-Men movies shouldn't go on past 3, for example). But you still have to remain loyal to the basics of the source material.

They have remained loyal to the source material, for the most part (though there have been some huge deviations). But show me where in the X-Men comics it is written that Cyclops cannot die. Just because he does not usually die in most of the issues ever written does not mean it is something that could not be explored to great effect.

And that is that Cyclops doesn't die.

Then why has he died before in the comics?

Nor does Xavier.

Sure he does. He also gets kidnapped, and brainwashed, and even turns evil from time to time. I'm pretty sure some of the most powerful storylines in the X-Men comics involve Xavier's death/disappearance/corruption. A trend that has carried over to the films, oddly enough.

And that is that Cyclops doesn't die.

Ah, but he has died before. Cyclops doesn't get taken out of action and turned against his teammates either, yet that happened in X2. So it's not like the films have been completely faithful to the character's absolute relationship with the mythos to begin with. People's inabilities to see the X-Men comics and the X-Men movies as seperate entities continues to baffle me.

Nor does Xavier. And Xavier dying would probably borderline ruin the movie for me as well. The reason why I could see it working out better than Cyclops (though still something I am totally against) is the whole MLK, die for your cause bit. However, that's not to say that I think Xavier should die. I don't think he should.

Fair enough. Does that mean it couldn't work? You seem to not think he should die because the average X-Men storyline or the major storylines don't kill them off. Have you read the comic storylines where Xavier and Cyclops die?

 

[XCharlieX]

Such as that generally people do not control magnetic waves, nor would any mutation likely create this abnormality?

I love how you just skip over this little detail, as if having powers doesn't require a HUGE suspension of disbelief. "Ok, I'll buy that this man can shoot beams of energy out of his eyes that are strong enough to punch through doors. I'll buy that this woman can create a tornado out of nothing".

Of course i skip over it.. thats how you make the illusion. There are folks that believe in some amazing things in real life, and to them its by no means illogical or such... there are directors who take advantage of this type of thinking. They have an explanation for it to boot also. But psychics for instance... psychics can die in real life. No one said theyd be back.

Perhaps this has also to do with someone thats a strong believer of science and nothing else, and with those types supernatural elements are just nonsense anyway. Its all or nothing... if theres fiction.. drown it in fiction. With this plot, evolution was always in conjunction with the supernatural.

They also never said they weren't mortal. Again. The door swings both ways.p

Sure, but the problem is this type of revolving door stuff is what Joel Schumacher did for his batman films.. he took the other side of logic there and look at what a work of art those were. Some just prefer otherwise.

Its not something really tangible... its an instinct. You either have it or dont.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I don't think he's likely to "just ressurrect some other way". She brought herself back...why couldn't she concievably bring him back, too?

Probably because it's likely to be explained that it was her powers that kept her alive, not truly a resurrection.

A very common speculation (and yes, I realize that's just speculation, nothing official) that seems very plausible to be used, is that Xavier put mental blocks in Jean to keep her from reaching her true potential. Magneto's machine in X-Men broke those mental blocks when it swept over her, which is why her powers were becoming stronger and stronger throughout X2, until the point when she did what she did at the end. And that her fully evolved powers actually protected her at the bottom of Alkali Lake. Should that be the route they take, I'd find it hard to believe that she has the powers to bring someone back from the dead.

A lot of things should be really cheesy. They haven't been played that way. Why should this be any different?[/quote[

Because I don't think that there's much in the X-Men movies that should have been cheesy that wasn't. These movies have been made with a very serious tone to them.

Would I have? No. But could it have been done, and worked? Absolutely. I didn't say it was faithful. I said it can work. Aragorn showed up in seven books, I believe, over the entire course of his existence in Tolkien's world. And he was not immortal. At some point there could EASILY have been a story where he died (wait...wait...there WAS). And him dying, while not as satisfactory as the ending where he becomes a benevolent king, could also work quite well.

And faithful is my whole point. You don't deviate that far off from a character, especially one as big time as Aragorn or Cyclops. Granted, Cyclops in the X-Men movies isn't as important as Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings movies, but he's definatley a lot more important than these fanboys around here are giving Singer credit for.

**** yes a noble and heroic death could have added a powerful element of drama to the movie. Would it have pissed off fans? Probably. But it could have worked.

It would have pissed off fans, because it's not true to the source material. Which is why it's pissing fans off that Cyclops could die. At least this fan. I know that the movies aren't going to be totally true adaptations of the source material. But I ask at least that they keep the characters accurate. Killing off Cyclops is not remaining accurate to his story.

But it's not the same as the Cyclops situation for a number of reasons, and while I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I think you know that. LORD OF THE RINGS is six books. And a movie series trilogy and a very faithful and near-direct adaption that put Viggo Mortenson's Aragorn at the CENTER or FRONT of things to begin with and kept him there, with a complete storyline about how he was to become the king. On the other hand, the X-Men mythos is comprised of god knows how many storylines, the film mythos is not a direct adaption of the comics on pretty much any level, and to date, through two films, Cyclops has not been given that kind of importance in this franchise. So, thematically and storywise, killing him in the middle of the storyline is not going to have the same impact killing Aragorn in the middle of the storyline would have had (although it might have as large an impact because of Jean). Because of the treatment of Cyclops's character, there are no definitive guidelines as to what HAS to happen to him in the movie X-mythos with Cyclops at this point. Would audiences like to see him survive and succeed and live happily ever after? Probably, but these don't strike me as happily-ever-after movies.

I understand that point, as I have been a major proponent of that as to why the movies do have to make certain changes from the comics to films. However, I think that you should remain true to the characters, something that Singer did very well (save for about 3 characters in my opinion).

And again, we are not sure he will die.

I honestly don't think he will. I'm only giving my view on what I think of the situation.

They have remained loyal to the source material, for the most part (though there have been some huge deviations). But show me where in the X-Men comics it is written that Cyclops cannot die. Just because he does not usually die in most of the issues ever written does not mean it is something that could not be explored to great effect.

The fact that Cyclops isn't dead. Just like above, you and I agree that everything from the comics can't translate to the movies. I think one of those things is "is he or isn't he" situations regarding a character's death, or the resurrection of a character who died. I don't think those things will work in the movies as they've been established. And the fact that Cyclops is not dead is a testiment to the fact that Cyclops isn't supposed to die. If he was meant to die, he'd be dead.

Then why has he died before in the comics?

Because they bring him back later. And you suspend even more belief with comics than you do with movies. They can get away with that really fantastical stuff that movies can't get away with.

Sure he does. He also gets kidnapped, and brainwashed, and even turns evil from time to time. I'm pretty sure some of the most powerful storylines in the X-Men comics involve Xavier's death/disappearance/corruption. A trend that has carried over to the films, oddly enough.

Same as above with Cyclops.

Ah, but he has died before. Cyclops doesn't get taken out of action and turned against his teammates either, yet that happened in X2. So it's not like the films have been completely faithful to the character's absolute relationship with the mythos to begin with. People's inabilities to see the X-Men comics and the X-Men movies as seperate entities continues to baffle me.

You know damn well that's totally different. Those are events over the course of a story line that the character goes through, not the character arc itself. Cyclops didn't turn against his teammates. He was brainwashed. Mind controlled. And you and I both agree on the difference between comics and movies, therefore the movies have different stories that they are telling with the same characters. I don't think there was ever an Alkali Lake in the comics either, but there it is in the movies. And I don't recall Jean being at the bottom of it in the comics, but there it is. It's an adaptation of these characters. But I don't see Cyclops dying in the movies as being loyal to the source material.

Fair enough. Does that mean it couldn't work? You seem to not think he should die because the average X-Men storyline or the major storylines don't kill them off. Have you read the comic storylines where Xavier and Cyclops die?

No, but like you said before, movies and comics are different. Dying in comics doesn't mean it will work in the films.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Sure, but the problem is this type of revolving door stuff is what Joel Schumacher did for his batman films.. he took the other side of logic there and look at what a work of art those were. Some just prefer otherwise.

Its not something really tangible... its an instinct. You either have it or dont.

 

[XCharlieX]

Yes Nell, ive noticed you and I agree on a bit of things while i was a lurker. Im not against cyclops dying tho... but i think if theyre gonna do it, dont bring him back. Id rather in that case them not end a character in the first place.

But what can i say.. if someone is just hearing contradictions when the "realistic" style is explained, they probably like the Superman/Star Wars/Batman Forever style of fiction, and theres nothing wrong with that. I just feel if you start a franchise one way, finish it that way. Singer will clearly state on the x men 1.5 and x2 dvds he set out to make a realistic take on the material.

 

[Iceman]

No - if only because he's crucial to the future of X-Men films

Cyclop's death might, if done amazingly well, improve X3 but it will be a nail in the coffin for the future

 

[Mr Sensitive]

I disagree. I think Cyclops was portrayed as a very good leader in the X-Men movies.

Lack of screentime doesn't equal lack of quality screentime.

Two of your reading confusions:

1) Cyclops wasn't even a "leader in these movies". The leader was always Xavier, and, at turns, Wolverine and Storm.

2) There was no implication of lack of screentime x quality screentime in what I said. I didn't question quality, but the nature of the character in both media.

 

[Electrix]

Wherever the story takes him. If he needs to be killed then so be it.

 

[The Batman]

Cyclops never died in the comics. he was, however, merged with apocolypse at one point.

 

[gkokujin]

why not, he doesnt help any of the movies progress any.