The Last Fox X-men Thread - no spoilers

[Winterfell is Burning]

32 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

 

I was an avid reader in the 80's / 90's, but then dropped out. I went back and read the Grant Morrison stuff recently and yeah it was.. 'fine' I guess, but nothing really close to the older Claremont stuff. The way the X-Men are portrayed these days doesn't feel very familiar to me and I always harken back to the period where I enjoyed it.
 

I second the Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-men run, which is a good blend of Morrison and classic X-men.  Also, has what's considered by many the best Cyclops of all time.

BTW, now that Whedon and Morrison were mentioned, I thought that, man, if done right, movie audiences would go gaga over Emma Frost, wouldn't they? It's a character Marvel or DC have no real equivalent- much more morally gray than someone like Wonder Woman or Jean, not ashamed of using her sexuality, but at the same time  her relationship with Cyclops softens up her quite a bit and givers her a bigger depth than "posh bitch".

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

That said, if Marvel can sell people on a movie about Ant-Man or about a talking racoon and a walking tree that only says "I'm Groot", they can sell a X-men movie with Cyclops as one of the leading characters of the ensemble.

I think it's clear none of the movies Rocket or Groot have appeared in have "centered" around them as the main character, which is what I was referring to.  As for Ant-Man, yes that its success is impressive, but both films have been as closer to straight up comedies than any other MCU venture, and I assume any X-Men film in the future will have considerably higher financial expectations than what they made.

[Winterfell is Burning]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's clear none of the movies Rocket or Groot have appeared in have "centered" around them as the main character, which is what I was referring to.  As for Ant-Man, yes that its success is impressive, but both films have been as closer to straight up comedies than any other MCU venture, and I assume any X-Men film in the future will have considerably higher financial expectations than what they made.

Like I said, Feige strikes me as someone who already learned from the Fox mistakes of putting too much spotlight in one character- all the Avengers movies were true ensemble movies, even if some characters got more or less focus in some of them. GotG too, even if it was more Starlord centered, had plenty of moments for everyone.

Plus, regarding Cyclops specifically, he has one of the most tragic origins of Marvel, heavily connected to one of the X-men's creepiest and most dangerous villains (Sinister,  who's basically a mix of the Joker and Josef Mengele);  it'svery easy to make him sympathetic to audiences showing it for a few minutes.in the movie, specially if actually ties to the main story.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Like I said, Feige strikes me as someone who already learned from the Fox mistakes of putting too much spotlight in one character- all the Avengers movies were true ensemble movies, even if some characters got more or less focus in some of them.

Ok, then we're arguing two different things.  Can Cyclops be part of the story more than he has in the previous films - and actually have something resembling an arc like Kal mentioned?  Sure, got no problem with that.

2 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Sinister,  who's basically a mix of the Joker and Josef Mengele

Yes, I always been a big fan of Sinister - and his relationship/interest with the Summers'.  Would very much look forward to him/that being adapted to film.

[Heartofice]

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'd recommend reading the Joss Whedon arc of Astonishing X-men if you want something that hearkens back to the glory days of Claremont without a lot of the baggage. And it even has a good Cyclops arc!

I think I did try some of the Whedon stuff, but didn't love it.. maybe I found his voice a bit jarring. Its definitely something I'm willing to go back to.

46 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

BTW, now that Whedon and Morrison were mentioned, I thought that, man, if done right, movie audiences would go gaga over Emma Frost, wouldn't they? 

Yeah Emma Frost is another character that has gotten short shrift in the movies so far.. especially given how awful January Jones was in the role (like how did she give such a bad performance?)

Having said that, I think there needs to be a lot more focus in any X-Men movies, sure them are ensemble pieces but there is always the temptation to over expand the team and never have the ability to do anyone justice.

[Winterfell is Burning]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok, then we're arguing two different things.  Can Cyclops be part of the story more than he has in the previous films - and actually have something resembling an arc like Kal mentioned?  Sure, got no problem with that.

Sure, part of strength of the X-men was always the massive and diverse ensemble and how they play off each other- they were never solo acts that got together, like the Avengers.

 

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Having said that, I think there needs to be a lot more focus in any X-Men movies, sure them are ensemble pieces but there is always the temptation to over expand the team and never have the ability to do anyone justice.

Yeah, it's a real risk. I'd solve that by simply dividing the team in two at the end of the first or second movies, and then have them together for a final chapter..

[Jeor]

51 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Having said that, I think there needs to be a lot more focus in any X-Men movies, sure them are ensemble pieces but there is always the temptation to over expand the team and never have the ability to do anyone justice.
 

The lack of focus is probably why previous movies have concentrated largely on Wolverine, Magneto and Professor X.

If we're talking the MCU formula, they'd kind of need to do some standalone movies first before they do a full X-Men ensemble. The true ensemble movies can't come in cold, they need some lead-up introduction. I know Guardians bucked that trend, but the Guardians team is relatively small (four).

So you might see a Wolverine (+ Sabretooth) origins movie (hopefully done properly this time), an Xavier/Magneto movie, a Cyclops/Sinister movie. Then a proper X-men film. If they were going to follow the MCU formula, that is.

[Heartofice]

41 minutes ago, Jeor said:

The lack of focus is probably why previous movies have concentrated largely on Wolverine, Magneto and Professor X.

If we're talking the MCU formula, they'd kind of need to do some standalone movies first before they do a full X-Men ensemble. The true ensemble movies can't come in cold, they need some lead-up introduction. I know Guardians bucked that trend, but the Guardians team is relatively small (four).

So you might see a Wolverine (+ Sabretooth) origins movie (hopefully done properly this time), an Xavier/Magneto movie, a Cyclops/Sinister movie. Then a proper X-men film. If they were going to follow the MCU formula, that is.

That’s one way to go, it’s unlikely though. Marvel have done the ensemble thing well with GotG and I think the balance there is good, with one or two main characters and everyone else as sort of comic relief. However I don’t see many X-Men being pure comic relief or just window dressing 

[red snow]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'd recommend reading the Joss Whedon arc of Astonishing X-men if you want something that hearkens back to the glory days of Claremont without a lot of the baggage. And it even has a good Cyclops arc!

Morrison's work was more in the ideas and i actually thought it was a great move to say mutants were trendy/counter culture and replacing humanity.

Whedon trying to move them into a more heroic role was also cool and nice and accessible.

No more mutants was a mistake/overkill although i can see the creative reasons for stopping everyone saying "they are a mutant" as an origin. It did however produce the more militant and hard-line "we are an endangered species/extinct" stories that added some urgency for a while

[red snow]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

That’s one way to go, it’s unlikely though. Marvel have done the ensemble thing well with GotG and I think the balance there is good, with one or two main characters and everyone else as sort of comic relief. However I don’t see many X-Men being pure comic relief or just window dressing 

Separate post to delineate comics chat from movies.

We really don't need solo films leading into x-men. The whole point of the x-men is that they are a species/school. Just looking at the comics, very few of the characters can ever sustain their own series. It's not that they are weak characters - it's just that their main thing is in protecting a world that fears and hates them and training/preparing the next generation.

Wolverine is pretty much the exception. Deadpool I'm never fully convinced is an x-character (despite starting off there). Cable at a push sometimes works - it's odd how liefeld creations are among the only "new' characters to establish themselves.

The x-books tend to succeed when they are team books with a different focus. X-force as a militant wing/assassins. X-factor as government agents or even better as a private investigator team. Rather than have a Storm solo or a Bishop/gambit/cable/rogue solo etc have a bunch of films where the cast have a chance to lead. One of the problems with the x films is that several characters have remained background characters over 20 years. It's a crime how storm was in 5 (?) Films and i don't even think they covered the fact she was worshipped as a goddess.

Besides the storytelling issues the other one that cannot be ignored is logistics. Can the MCU even support more than 1 X-film every 3 years? If they do that comes at the expense of other franchises. It's one good argument for why it might be worth considering having the x-films run under another production team, a bit like how marvel, lucasfilm and Pixar operate in such a way that they aren't diluting talent.

I've no idea if feige has an understudy but the x-men could really do with someone else running if they want to become a 1-2 films a year production. 

[Winterfell is Burning]

Most X-men don't have enough of an origin for a solo movie, not have to come up with new origins was literally the point when Stan & Jack created them-

Like I said, the split the X-men into teams idea seems the best, because they have different views on not (only) how to save the world, but how to push the agenda of the minority they represent forward; you can have a team that is more aggressive, the other that decides to be a classic squeaky-clean team of superheroes, the other adopts an isolationist approach, etc.

[Heartofice]

I mean the comics always had the advantage of doing the odd solo issue or double up with a couple of characters. Thats kind of why they tend to work so well, they can balance out team and individuals across issues. 

I think the problem with the previous X movies was that they tended to with too many members at once. I like the idea of the school, but the problem with it is that it throws a lot of characters into the mix at once there isn't enough time to deal with them all, so they all end up as a bunch of faces with no lines.

Just start with a small group, 4-5 characters.. maybe Prof X sends them off on a mission and they learn how to work together.. something like that. 

[sifth]

I’ll just come out and say it. Does anyone else think X-Men would be better as a tv show? 

It could basically be the new GoT’s, there’s certainly enough characters.

[Winterfell is Burning]

I think everyone agrees on that, the problem is the budget would have to be as big as GoT's final seasons, at least.

[Darth Richard II]

2 hours ago, sifth said:

I’ll just come out and say it. Does anyone else think X-Men would be better as a tv show? 

It could basically be the new GoT’s, there’s certainly enough characters.

Well, there was The Gifted, which I heard was better then you would think.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, sifth said:

I’ll just come out and say it. Does anyone else think X-Men would be better as a tv show? 

It could basically be the new GoT’s, there’s certainly enough characters.

I was thinking quite a lot about that last time a broken arm came through. I actually think the budget could be kept reasonable if you made sure the rest of the production value made up for using limited practical effects 90% of the time in lieu of breaking out the CGI every time Bobby Drake takes a piss.

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

Well, there was The Gifted, which I heard was better then you would think.

Season 1 was fine, but went down hill in season 2, and really they did not have too many big VFX moments. But, Disney would no doubt be able to make an X-Men show work with the actual X-Men characters, not the discount ones.

[red snow]

3 hours ago, sifth said:

I’ll just come out and say it. Does anyone else think X-Men would be better as a tv show? 

It could basically be the new GoT’s, there’s certainly enough characters.

You've already nabbed the inevitable lazy tagline the advertisers would use. But I'm on board with it in terms of potentially being as big a success. I'd say it needs to be as much soap opera as action though.

I also suspect Watchmen has more chance of being superhero GOT in terms of it having the relevant levels of sex and violence. That's something disney won't do and i still think its underestimated the effect the sex and violence had on the show. 

There was a rumour thst the creators of the 90s cartoon wanted to bring the show back. If they could do a live-action approach to that it could be something. Definitely it's an approach that should be emulated if a modern tv take on x-men was approached.

TV is certainly an option for disney plus if they want to use the characters relatively soon.

[Martini Sigil]

Personal Opinion:

When Marvel/Disney eventually reboots the X-Men franchise in their own image.... I'm thinking that the first X-flick should be Wolverine-free...

1-everyone is going to see it anyway.... it'll be the first Marvel-X-flick... 

2- the original X-men didn;t have Wolverine any

3- It will give them a chance to establish Cyclops, and make a star out of whomever gets the part

4- They can market the hunt for the "new Wolverine" to create anticipation for the sequel

5- But what the hell do I know?

 

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Martini Sigil said:

Personal Opinion:

When Marvel/Disney eventually reboots the X-Men franchise in their own image.... I'm thinking that the first X-flick should be Wolverine-free...

1-everyone is going to see it anyway.... it'll be the first Marvel-X-flick... 

2- the original X-men didn;t have Wolverine any

3- It will give them a chance to establish Cyclops, and make a star out of whomever gets the part

4- They can market the hunt for the "new Wolverine" to create anticipation for the sequel

5- But what the hell do I know?

 

1 - Dark Phoenix is suggesting people might not turn up - even with the Feige charm so they may want to launch with the big guns. The only caveat to that is they may wish to launch Wolverine in the Avengers. Controversial but it's what they did with Spidey

2 - yet "giant size X-men" did and was the version that turned the X-men into the power comics franchise. Cyclops, Beast, Iceman, Angel and Phoenix vs Cyclops, Wolverine, Storm, Nightcrawler, colossus and (she joined a few issues later) Kitty Pryde. I know which version I'd prefer - although the animated X-men team is strong too.

3 - Agreed but done correctly Wolverine as a reckless beserker and Cyclops as an uptight leader can work for them both.

4 - they could still do that in the run up to the first film. Plus, delays in wolverine equate to delays in X-23. It's a massive shame the Disney take over makes it very unlikely we'll see Dafne Keen follow up "logan". Although maybe in a few years they could gamble on have her playing a grown-up X-23 and no-one being that fussed/confused.

5 - what the hell do I know, too!